self-help manual

[iansjack]

That is from introspection. You can try that yourself. Think of everything you do. Which specific bit of what you do can not be replicated in silicon with a sufficiently sophisticated algorithm?

Write a musical suite as beautiful as The Goldberg Variations. You would claim a computer could do that. Prove it; no computer to date has managed anything near that - what makes you think it ever could?

And as a corollary, what evidence is there that a computer could ever understand that beauty?

You can’t just load a new operating system into a brain and make it a Bach, a T. S. Eliot, a Bob Dylan, a Jimi Hendrix. These people excel at particular tasks in a way that we just don’t understand. It is facile to say that they are just the result of programming that any brain could equal.

Program yourself to write a Four Quartets or a Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands and then your belief might have some force. Until then, it’s just another flawed axiom. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where it applied.

[kerravon]

That is from introspection. You can try that yourself. Think of everything you do. Which specific bit of what you do can not be replicated in silicon with a sufficiently sophisticated algorithm?

Write a musical suite as beautiful as The Goldberg Variations.

Chess advocates were adamant that computers would never be able to beat a grandmaster too. And for decades they were right. And then suddenly someone got the algorithm right. Actually, before the killer algorithm, brute force hardware did the trick with Deep Blue.

You can’t just load a new operating system into a brain and make it a Bach

I'm not saying you can load it into a brain. I'm saying you can load it onto silicon - at least in principle.

I don't know how to write music, and as far as I can see, everything I am doing is purely computational. There's nothing at all magic in what I do.

My main point was about humanity as a whole. Humanity as a whole isn't writing music. They're all just glorified chimpanzees running predictable scripts - as I am myself. If there are some freaks that live outside of computation - that's fine - those rare freaks can live within the predictable society created for predictable chimps.

[iansjack]

That is from introspection. You can try that yourself. Think of everything you do. Which specific bit of what you do can not be replicated in silicon with a sufficiently sophisticated algorithm?

Write a musical suite as beautiful as The Goldberg Variations.

Chess advocates were adamant that computers would never be able to beat a grandmaster too. And for decades they were right. And then suddenly someone got the algorithm right. Actually, before the killer algorithm, brute force hardware did the trick with Deep Blue.

Chess is a deterministic game. As you say, it can be solved by brute force (given unlimited resources). Music, poetry, literature are not deterministic. There are no easy rules to allow us to produce and judge these things. According to your argument I should be able to load my brain with the software that would allow me to produce the equal of Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands - I don't believe that is true; I believe there is a spark of genius that goes beyond mere learning or programming.

You can’t just load a new operating system into a brain and make it a Bach

I'm not saying you can load it into a brain. I'm saying you can load it onto silicon - at least in principle.

Ah - so now you accept that the brain is not just the same as silicon. That's progress of a sort.

I don't know how to write music, and as far as I can see, everything I am doing is purely computational. There's nothing at all magic in what I do.

You can't judge all humanity by a single example. It's not all about you and your personal limitations.

My main point was about humanity as a whole. Humanity as a whole isn't writing music.

An awful lot of them are. And an awful lot of people write poems, songs, literature or produce painting, sculpture, etc. There's more to humanity than computation.

They're all just glorified chimpanzees running predictable scripts - as I am myself.

I'm prepared to accept that you are just a glorified chimpanzee, but you haven't justified that assertion about anyone else. Why should I listen to the glorified chimpanzee rather than those thinkers who are more than that? For example, what gives you the right to think that you can solve the problems of Iraq rather than those who act as more than just computers?

[kerravon]

Why should I listen to the glorified chimpanzee rather than those thinkers who are more than that? For example, what gives you the right to think that you can solve the problems of Iraq rather than those who act as more than just computers?

My hypothesis is that the vast majority of Iraqis are just glorified chimpanzees - like myself - responding to some basic genetic programming, which can thus be intercepted and dealt with.

I can't tell you how to get them to produce music - a small minority of freaks do that innately. I can tell you how to stop them from being bullies to each other. Specifically ensure their tribe is expanded to "the whole world" prior to the age of 6 (that's the basis of the in-group/out-group psychology, and we set the size of their out-group to 0), plus adopt a "protector" identity, before the age of 8, to redirect their instinct to dominate.

[iansjack]

Way to go, insulting a whole nation. But, again, what gives you - a glorified chimpanzee - the right to tell others what is best for them?

Sounds like a case of hubris to me.

[kerravon]

Way to go, insulting a whole nation.

It's all nations, not just Iraq.

But, again, what gives you - a glorified chimpanzee - the right to tell others what is best for them?

The free marketplace of ideas gives me that right.

[Solar]

But, again, what gives you - a glorified chimpanzee - the right to tell others what is best for them?

The free marketplace of ideas gives me that right.

Yep, free speech has often been used as an excuse by those who somehow felt the need to look down on others and feel superior when they really are nothing of the kind.

[iansjack]

The free marketplace of ideas gives me that right.

Yes. “Right” was the wrong word. You have every right to spout nonsense but should have no expectation that anyone will take the ramblings of a glorified chimpanzee seriously.

[kerravon]

It seems to me that you are trying to build some kind of philosophical system centered around anthropology, morality and politics. However, any system is only as good as its epistemology. And to be honest, I find epistemology of this "corpus" to be weak and self-contradictory.

You constantly emphasize rationality, that everything has to be logically sound, or it falls. You even have "AXIOM 3: RATIONALITY TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER VALUES." But, then you present the very definition of axioms as: "AXIOMS. Chosen starting points. Not derived. Not proven. Selected. The reader can reject them. If the reader rejects them, the derivation does not apply." But even though axioms are not something to be proven, they still need to be justified (usually this is done by direct personal observation). If something is not justified, then it is not rational to accept it in the first place.

Do we have a deal?

FRAMEWORK UPDATE: THE ADDITION OF AXIOM 0.5

AXIOM 0: THE BOUNDARY
"Women have the right to not be raped."
- Purpose: The absolute, non-negotiable moral and legal baseline for
civilized society. The line that cannot be crossed.

AXIOM 0.5: THE ENGINE
"Protect the pack."
- Purpose: The evolutionary, behavioral, and identity-driven imperative
that enforces Axiom 0.

THE MECHANICAL SYNERGY:

Axiom 0 alone is a rule. And as history shows, humans will find
loopholes, excuses, and cultural justifications to break rules.

Axiom 0.5 transforms Axiom 0 from a "rule" into a survival imperative.
It hacks the deepest layer of human psychology: tribal loyalty.

When Axiom 0 is violated, it is no longer framed as "breaking a rule."
It is framed as "betraying the pack."

- For the child: It is the playground command ("STOP! PROTECT THE PACK!")
that overrides the fear of superior force.
- For the adult: It is the realization that a society which tolerates the
subjugation of its women is a fractured pack, and a fractured pack is a
dead pack.
- For the geopolitical actor: It is the justification for "Liberators
Without Borders" to demand systemic change, because the health of the
global human pack is non-negotiable.

WHY 0.5 IS CRITICAL:

You cannot argue someone into caring about a stranger. But you can trigger
their instinct to protect their own. Axiom 0.5 expands the definition of
"pack" to include all of humanity, making the defense of women not an act
of external charity, but an act of internal self-preservation.

Axiom 0 is the law. Axiom 0.5 is the instinct that ensures the law is
enforced.

[Octocontrabass]

Presenting your "axiom 0" as an axiom and not as something logically derived from the more general concept of consent reveals a fundamental problem. Either you don't understand it well enough to realize that your "axiom 0" is a derivation, or you disagree with the idea of consent in the first place.

In any case, this is strong evidence that nobody should trust your "framework".

[kerravon]

Presenting your "axiom 0" as an axiom and not as something logically derived from the more general concept of consent reveals a fundamental problem. Either you don't understand it well enough to realize that your "axiom 0" is a derivation, or you disagree with the idea of consent in the first place.

What you are describing is called 'Contractualism' (or Social Contract Theory). It is just one of the 8 major branches of moral philosophy, meaning it is not the universal, unquestionable absolute you are implying it to be.

You can find this documented, along with the mechanical failure modes of all 8 approaches, in APPENDIX AY of my framework here:
https://mutazilah.org/corpus/firstprinciples.txt

As per APPENDIX AY, I am not using any of the 8 established branches as-is, because they all crash when stress-tested against real-world edge cases (like voluntary slavery or democratic genocide).

Instead, I am using an engineered hybrid of Moral Intuitionism/Foundationalism (number 5) and Moral Pragmatism (number 8 ). I anchor the system in a concrete, undeniable floor (the prohibition of rape) and build a functional, un-gamable firewall from there, rather than getting trapped in the infinite regress of deriving everything from 'consent'.

[nexos]

The problem with your axiom 0 is that it instantly breaks down as soon as you ask "why". Obviously, it should be self-evident why rape is wrong, but from an epistemological standpoint, there must be some sort of explainable reason why that is. The obvious reason is the nature of consent; people have a right to there body and nobody can violate that. And in my worldview, consent is derived from the nature of human dignity; that is, all humans have intrinsic value and dignity and that all moral decisions should be based on that precept. Now I in turn would derive dignity from a belief in God, but I understand many of you probably wouldn't go that route. Anyway, by making a judgement of action some sort of axiom, you've removed the floor of why the action is wrong. For example, I can say "Robbing a bank is wrong", but that in of itself doesn't make it wrong. It can only be explained as wrong when you understand that you don't have a right to what isn't yours, which again goes back to human dignity eventually.

I don't understand why you don't flip axiom 0 and axiom 0.5, as then you'd at least have a modicum of support for it, but even doing that, I still have to strongly disagree with your entire framework, as it completely leaves the fundamental idea of human dignity out of the equation, which I believe is a much stronger indicator of moral behavior rather than a pack-based mentality

* disclaimer - I am not vaguely an expert in epistemology or even in philosophy for that matter, but quite frankly it's clear the OP isn't either from their excessive LLM usage.

[iansjack]

That can hardly be an axiom, because it relies upon undefined terms, such as “rape” and “consent”. It’s all very well to wave your hands and say their meaning is obvious, but a study of the relevant laws and their history shows that their meaning is far from obvious. Axioms should be clear statements with all terms in them strictly defined.

[kerravon]

The problem with your axiom 0 is that it instantly breaks down as soon as you ask "why". Obviously, it should be self-evident why rape is wrong, but from an epistemological standpoint, there must be some sort of explainable reason why that is. The obvious reason is the nature of consent; people have a right to there body and nobody can violate that. And in my worldview, consent is derived from the nature of human dignity; that is, all humans have intrinsic value and dignity and that all moral decisions should be based on that precept. Now I in turn would derive dignity from a belief in God, but I understand many of you probably wouldn't go that route. Anyway, by making a judgement of action some sort of axiom, you've removed the floor of why the action is wrong. For example, I can say "Robbing a bank is wrong", but that in of itself doesn't make it wrong. It can only be explained as wrong when you understand that you don't have a right to what isn't yours, which again goes back to human dignity eventually.

I don't understand why you don't flip axiom 0 and axiom 0.5, as then you'd at least have a modicum of support for it, but even doing that, I still have to strongly disagree with your entire framework, as it completely leaves the fundamental idea of human dignity out of the equation, which I believe is a much stronger indicator of moral behavior rather than a pack-based mentality

* disclaimer - I am not vaguely an expert in epistemology or even in philosophy for that matter, but quite frankly it's clear the OP isn't either from their excessive LLM usage.

I am not trying to win a tenure review. I am trying to prevent atrocities like rape. I have a daughter. I am interested in the truth.

Do you share both of those interests? Preventing rape and determining truth? If so, please help me.

I cannot do this alone. I need LLM help, because I fundamentally do not understand why anyone is quibbling about Axiom 0. Your quibble is that we need to trace it back to God. I do not actually care if a philosopher traces it back to Fred Flintstone. It is an Axiom for a reason. It is beyond the point that I care. I see my daughter, not some god.

To be absolutely clear on the foundation of this framework:
Axiom 0 is: "Women have the right to not be raped."
Axiom 0.5 is: "Protect the pack."

These are not abstract philosophical concepts waiting for a divine pedigree. They are the hardcoded definition of the system's failure state. You suggest I ground this in "human dignity" to give it a modicum of support. But "human dignity" is an abstract, highly contested label. Everyone from a totalitarian dictator to a modern politician claims to uphold it while defining it in completely contradictory ways. You cannot build a functional firewall on an abstract concept that requires endless debate to define.

You claim "human dignity" is a stronger indicator of moral behavior than a "pack-based mentality." But abstract dignity without the kinetic, unwavering will to actually protect the vulnerable is just performative virtue. "Protecting the pack" is the exact operationalization of human dignity. It is the demand that we act to protect baseline integrity, not just philosophize about it.

Regarding your disclaimer about my excessive LLM usage: you are entirely correct. I am not an academic. I am a father building a structural defense mechanism against real-world atrocities. If utilizing advanced computational tools allows me to map and dismantle the logical fallacies of academic philosophy faster than a tenured professor can, that is a feature, not a bug.

You are welcome to spend your time tracing the epistemological pedigree of "dignity" all the way up to the sky. I am going to spend my time building a concrete, un-gamable firewall on the ground to ensure my daughter is safe.

[kerravon]

That can hardly be an axiom, because it relies upon undefined terms, such as “rape” and “consent”. It’s all very well to wave your hands and say their meaning is obvious, but a study of the relevant laws and their history shows that their meaning is far from obvious. Axioms should be clear statements with all terms in them strictly defined.

You are describing the exact infinite regress trap I already identified. You are demanding that I perfectly define every edge case of "rape" before you will accept it as a foundation. This is the same paralysis as demanding we derive everything from "consent" first.

Legal definitions of rape have evolved precisely because we had an intuitive, visceral understanding of the core violation first. We knew rape was wrong, so we refined the law to cover marital rape, statutory rape, and other edge cases. The core understanding came first. The definitions refined the boundaries. They did not create the foundation.

You claim axioms require "strictly defined" terms. But what is the definition of "human dignity"? Or "consent"? Or "rights"? Every single one of these terms has been debated for centuries with no consensus. If we demanded perfect definitions before accepting any foundation, we could never build anything.

My framework does not need to define every edge case of rape to function. It handles the 99.9% of unambiguous cases where the violation is clear. The 0.1% of edge cases (marital rape in the 1800s, statutory rape debates) are refinements at the boundaries, not invalidations of the core.

You are welcome to spend years debating the precise legal definition of "rape" across different jurisdictions. I am going to build a firewall that prevents the act itself. The core is clear: women have the right to not be raped. Everything else is boundary refinement.

If you cannot accept this as a foundation because you haven't seen a perfect legal definition, then you are trapped in the same paralysis that prevents you from accepting any moral framework at all.