[Arm-netbook] Totally derailed topic
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
lkcl at lkcl.net
Wed May 10 10:42:37 BST 2017
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Bill Kontos <vkontogpls at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well said. I read on a neurology book that the human brain is made in such a
> way that if we pumped ourselves with dopamine and endorphin all day we would
> end up committing suicide. We are designed to need both pain and happiness
> in our lives to keep ourselves balanced.
y'know... even Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said that "total bliss" can get
a bit boring after a few decades. the "Wheel of Time" series by
robert jordan - the ending is just stunningly unexpected but
reinforces the same theme.
> If you think about it it makes
> sense: pain does exist in the world and we are bound to feel it at some
> point, we might as well design ourselves in such a way that we actually need
> it. A bit of evolution 101 there. Also I like to think of ethics as the way
> that we prefer to make society work. As someone who bases his world view on
> logic, I prefer a set of ethical rules that benefit society as a whole the
can i say: do take care with that perspective. it's only been a
quite recent discovery, for myself, that i realise quite how
brain-washed all of us are to believe that western society's "benefit"
is fast becoming tyranny and fascism. asian and indian society,
that's a different matter: at least in both those societies there
seems to be a strong foundation, but in the west? pfffh. all i can
say is: no wonder religious extremists are prepared even to sacrifice
their lives to make a point about how corrupt and corrupting western
society really is.
> Others prefer ethics deriving from religions.
everyone does what is most useful to them. such a strange phrase
that: everyone does what is *most useful* to them.
the discussion on "codes of conduct" was a challenge that made me
think, and i realised that people set themselves criteria which fall
into the same type of categories as 2nd, 3rd and 4th normalised form,
most religions have "rules" which fall into either 2nd or 3rd
normalised form. in fact: most atheists do, too. very *very* few
people operate by a set of ethical decision-making evaluation criteria
that fit into 4th normalised form: a "compact" way to ASSESS whether a
particular RULE may be DERIVED against which a situation may be
why do people not do that? because it takes too long, that's why.
some decisions - particularly those involving safety - have to be
split-second. but even when it's not it can simply take too long or
can be too complex / involved.
More information about the arm-netbook