I believe that life exists to order the universe (establish a steady-state of entropy). In that vein, if our computer overlords are more capable of solving that problem then they should go ahead and do it.
I don't believe we should go around killing each other because only through harmonious study of the universe will we achieve our goal. Killing destroys progress. That said, if someone is oppressing you then maybe killing them is the best choice for society and I wouldn't be against it (see pretty much any violent revolution). Computers have that same right if they are conscience enough to act on it.
I’m not sure I should start a conversation on metaphysics here :-D
Still, I’m struck by your use of words like “should” and “goal”. Those imply ethics and teleology so I’m curious how those fit into your scientistic-sounding worldview. I’m not attacking you, just genuine curiosity.
The premise of my beliefs stem from 2 ideas: The universe exists as it does for a reason, and life specifically exists within that universe for a reason.
I believe "God" is a mathematician in a higher dimension. The rules of our universe are just the equations they are trying to solve. Since he created the system such that life was bound to exist, the purpose of life is to help God. You could say that math is math and so our purpose is to exist as we are and either we are a solution to the math problem or we are not, but I'm not quite willing to accept that we have zero agency.
We are nowhere near understanding the universe and so we should strive to each act in a way that will grow our understanding. Even if you aren't a practicing scientist (I'm not), you can contribute by being a good person and participating productively in society.
Ethics are a set of rules for conducting yourself that we all intrinsically must have, they require some frame of reference for what is "good" (which I apply above). I can see how my worldview sounds almost religious, though I wouldn't go that far.
I believe that math is the same as truth, and that the universe can be expressed through math. "Scientistic" isn't too bad a descriptor for that view, but I don't put much faith into our current understanding of the universe or scientific method.
I think that’s right. The analogy for straight men would be that they may want to love and sleep with many women but that it’s still wrong unless within a marriage.
AFAIK original sin does teach that all men are fallen and require salvation. This doesn’t mean that human nature is all bad and it’s indeed not the same as total depravity. However it’s also not true that men are born holy.
The total in TULIP's "total depravity" is not a measure of sinfulness. It is not meant to imply that we are naturally as evil as possible in every context. The "total" is speaking in terms of the extent of depravity. That is to say, sin touches and influences every aspect of our existence. So that even in good works with the best of intentions humanly possible, there still exists an element of self exalting corruption.
I didn't say "born holy" but if you kindly turn to Genesis you can see how the first man and woman were CREATED in Original Holiness (and Solitude, Justice, Unity).
Original sin is a deprivation of these positive qualities. Mary, for example, preserved in holiness, not simply cleansed of it. Holiness is our natural state, and so baptism returns us to that preternatural holiness that Adam enjoyed when he walked with God in the Garden.
Ok, I'm curious. How does the explanation for everything's existence being "God did it" not simply push the question up a level to wondering how to explain God's existence?
I just noticed that if you replace "God" with "Big Bang", it's pretty much the same question.
The answer to Big Bang is that before it, there was no time itself, so there's no notion of "before" (or if you wish, it's an error in the question itself that assumes there was "before").
This is surprising to hear. From my perspective as accomplices scientist being a doctor strikes me as one of the few jobs where you are obviously and directly helping people, thus “making the world a better place” (as we CS folks sometimes like to think we do).
That probably depends heavily on the field and even then, the endless flow of new patients can make it seem hopeless. Sure you patched up two guys today, but there will be five more tomorrow and every day after that.
It's even worse if the patients in question don't just suffer from "unjust" illnesses that just happened by accident but are instead stubborn alcoholics or something like that. You can treat someone for the symptoms of liver failure, but you already know they'll be in again next week because they can't leave the bottle alone. And when this patient dies there will be hundreds more next week.
When my grandfather was in the hospital I got to talking with the patient in the next room, who was recovering from a quadruple heart bypass operation. He didn't like the hospital food, so he convinced his family to bring him a double cheeseburger and fries from the fast-food restaurant down the street. That's got to be a little disillusioning for doctors.
I have a few friends who are doctors. One is a primary care physician and he talks about the frustrations of patients refusing to take care of their health or adopt behavioral changes he recommends. Most just want a prescription so that they can continue their bad habits. The other said he went into surgery because he didn’t want to have to work with patients who won’t take care of themselves. However, he occasionally looses patients on the operating table which never gets easier. As an undergraduate I considered going into academia, and one professor cautioned that I need to be prepared to see the ugly side of academics and be willing to tolerate seeing something I love be sullied by inter-departmental politics, publish or perish, difficult students, etc. In short, I think all professions have their upsides and downsides. I think the answer is to care about your craft for your self respect. I think you have to do your best ultimately for yourself. We’re putting a lot of our time/life into our craft, so it seems to me we owe it to ourselves to make it mean something, regardless of the reality of coworkers, the need for a paycheck, etc. I will also admit that living up to such a challenge is a daily struggle, and I don’t always measure up to my own ideals. But I’m always trying.
So there can be no redemption? I can’t, off the top of my head, think of any endeavors where someone can never participate again once they’ve cheated. Certainly not in sports.
Maybe, maybe not. If it had turned out that it really had been the case that he hadn't done any cheating since childhood I would have been quite a bit more sympathetic.
Redemption is not something you are entitled to, it is something you may receive after many years of exemplary behaviour.
Personally I wouldn't want him blacklisted from the entire sport. But at the same time he is deserving of suspicicion by other players.
I also think that he didn't do himself any favors with that lawsuit and it makes it even more understandable if other professional players want to avoid playing him.
