Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

a4mula t1_j1mmm6q wrote

Reply to comment by Frumpagumpus in So… Do you guys want to form a cult? by [deleted]

We could spend a lifetime expressing our personal perspectives only in the end to realize that we're saying the same things. Just from different perspectives.

Separate yourself from this. It's a waste of time.

Respect all perspectives but leave them at the personal level.

Instead rise above that personal level to one in which the scale is that of the stakeholder.

At that scale, personal perspectives are irrelevant. Because they will always be conflicting, and personal, and open for interpretation, and ambiguous.

Instead focus on principles that all stakeholders can agree upon.

You widen your potential audience and narrow those that would fight and disagree considerably.

This is the new paradigm of thought moving forward. Individual perspective is respected, it's welcomed, it's required.

But it's not going to be what dictates the technology, and if it is. We're all fucked pretty badly. All stakeholders.

1

Frumpagumpus t1_j1mn38y wrote

> ambiguous

> Instead focus on principles that all stakeholders can agree upon.

idk even in math zfc axiom set is not universally used and some basic axioms like axiom of choice are considered controversial and thats about as low level/universal as you could possibly get

1

a4mula t1_j1mp28r wrote

You're a considerate person. So I share a complex consideration with you, because I respect that you're considerate.

Ideologies can fundamentally be seen as rulesets. They're a type of legislation of the mind.

Rulesets have only one purpose. That is to limit the potential space of outcomes.

Rules confine systems.

The problem with confining potential outcomes in this manner is that if the only actual solution to a problem resides outside of the space that is being constrained by the rule. It's never reached.

I was raised Christian. I am no longer, but I do respect the beliefs because I try my best to respect all beliefs.

In that ideology, and religions aren't the only kind. There are rules. Not just the commandments of God. Many rules that are more subtle, less defined, but rules none the less.

Concepts like the sanctity of life.

Only God can arbitrate what lives and dies. We're already in conflict with that rule with our very existence. After all, we require sustenance. Food.

So we change the rule to fit our personal definition. Maybe that's animal life. Maybe it's only human life. But we arbitrarily determine it, because we must. We must end life at some level to maintain our own.

It's a flawed concept that introduces rules that are ill defined and ambiguous.

Sanctity of Life isn't the only subtle rule. There's also rules about what is required to secure a desired afterlife.

Talk about ambiguous. Do I need to consume flesh? Do I need to be submerged? Do I have to virally spread the belief system?

This is not to offer anything other than consideration to the fact that as rules grow, become more complex, become more abstract, become more ambiguous:

The only real outcome is that the potential space for actions that remain within the rules is limited in greater and greater ways.

This is true of all ideologies.

Not as much with principles.

Principles are not complex. They're much less ambiguous.

Logic, Rationality, Minimization of bias, Fairness, Equity, Critical Thought.

They're well-defined principles that are less complex, and allow for much more freedom of potential outcomes, while remaining beneficial to all.

1

Frumpagumpus t1_j1mqw9q wrote

thanks for compliment, merry xmas,

to me principle -> rule as is theory -> implementation

agents traverse space, agents doesn't have ability to traverse all of space, also some parts of space will end agent, some traversals are not fair or logical

1

a4mula t1_j1mvkt5 wrote

Rules are important, otherwise there is no convergence of complexity. Consider Conway's Game of Life. Without rules it's just random interactions, with no potential benefit.

Yet, with simple rules these cellular automata hop to life. Every rule you add however, limits the possible configurations that the system can physically exist in.

I find it compelling to consider that according to the Old Testament there is only a single example of God providing Direct rules.

The original ten commandments.

It's an interesting story. The first tablets were created by God directly. From the the mind of God, through God's own fingers the laws were carved.

But Moses destroyed those tablets in rage when he saw what his fellow believers were up to in his absence.

Of course, he returned to God, probably quite ashamed of this ultimate form of blasphemy. After all, never before had God (nor since) interacted directly with humans in this way.

The tablets were a physical manifestation of God's will, with no interpretation of man at all.

God instructed Moses to reconstruct those laws. Through the hand of man. Through Moses' own interpretation.

I often wonder how closely those sets of tablets would align. Was it only the handwriting that was changed?

Or does this story contain a deeper message? A symbolic one?

One that is telling us quite clearly, that any rule of God, is by default a rule that has been interpreted only via man.

That's an important distinction after all.

2