<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 31/10/2025 19:04, Jason Resch wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.6.1761937486.18922.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""><div>the paper ( <a
href="https://philarchive.org/rec/ARNMAW" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://philarchive.org/rec/ARNMAW</a> ) defines what a perfect morality consists of. And it too, provides a definition of what morality is, and likewise provides a target to aim towards.</div><div> </div><blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Ben Wrote:
As different intelligent/rational agents have different experiences,
they will form different viewpoints, and come to different conclusions
about what is right and not right, what should be and what should not,
what they want and what they don't, just like humans do.</blockquote><div>
</div><div>The point of the video and article is that desires are based on beliefs, and because beliefs are correctable then so are desires. There is only one "perfect grasp" and accordingly, one true set of beliefs, and from this it follows one most-correct set of desires. This most correct set of desires is the same for everyone, regardless of from which viewpoint it is approached.</div></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Nope. This is nonsense. Just about every assertion is wrong. The
very first sentence in the abstract is false. And the second. And
the third. So the whole thing falls apart.<br>
<br>
Desires are not based on beliefs, they are based on emotions. The
example of 'wanting to drink hot mud' is idiotic. Just because the
cup turns out to contain mud doesn't invalidate the desire to drink
hot chocolate. It's not a 'mistaken' desire at all (the mistake is a
sensory one), and it doesn't somehow morph into a desire to drink
hot mud.<br>
<br>
"Beliefs are correctable, so desires are correctable"<br>
Each of those two things are true (if you change 'correctable' to
'changeable'), but the one doesn't imply the other, which follows
from the above.<br>
<br>
'Perfect grasp' doesn't mean anything real. It implies that it's
possible to know everything about everything, or even about
something. The very laws of physics forbid this, many times over, so
using it in an argument is equivalent to saying "magic".<br>
<br>
'One true set of beliefs' is not only wrong, it's dangerous, which
he just confirms by saying it means there is only one most-correct
set of desires, for /everyone/ (!). Does this not ring loud alarm
bells to you? I'm thinking we'd better hope that there really is no
such thing as objective morality (if there is, Zuboff is barking up
the wrong tree, for sure), it would be the basis for the worst kind
of tyranny. It's a target that I, at least, want to aim away from.
180 degrees away!<br>
<br>
His twisting of desire into morality is, well, twisted. Morality
isn't about what we should want to do, just as bravery isn't about
having no fear. He wants to turn people into puppets, and actually
remove moral agency from them. His proposal is equivalent to
destroying the amygdala (fear centre of the brain (kind of)) and
claiming to have revealed the secret of 'true bravery'.
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Ben</pre>
<br>
</body>
</html>