JELLYFISH AND A CLOWNFISH NAMED VOLTAIRE

JELLYFISH AND A CLOWNFISH NAMED VOLTAIRE
BE CAREFUL!!! GOT A FRIEND WITH ME HAVING THE LUCKY FIN OF A CLOWNFISH NAMED VOLTAIRE! WE CAN BE VERBALLY AGGRESSIVE.

E = mc3: THE NEED FOR NEGATIVE THEOLOGY

E = mc3: THE NEED FOR NEGATIVE THEOLOGY
FUSION CUISINE: JESUS, EINSTEIN, and MICKEY MOUSE + INTERNETS (E = mc3) = TAO ~g(ZERO the HERO)d~OG

About Me

My photo
Hearing impaired (tendency to appear dumb, dense, and/or aloof), orthodox atheist (believe faith more harmful than doubt), self depreciating sense of humor (confident/not to be confused with low self esteem), ribald sense of humor (satorical/mocking when sensing Condescension), confirmed bachelor (my fate if not my choosing), freakish inclination (unpredictable non-traditionalist opinions), free spirit (nor conformist bohemian) Believe others have said it better...... "Jim! You can be SO SMART, but you can be SO DUMB!" "Jim! You make such a MARTYR of yourself." "He's a nice guy, but...." "You must be from up NORTH!" "You're such a DICK!" "You CRAZY!" "Where the HELL you from?" "Don't QUITE know how to take your personality." My favorite, "You have this... NEED... to be....HONEST!"

Saturday, April 25, 2015

The Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics: The Economics of Morality, By Dillon Bowen | Practical Ethics

The Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics: The Economics of Morality, By Dillon Bowen | Practical Ethics: To illustrate this point, try adding these two groups of dots:


Unless you’re an autistic savant, you probably can’t do it without counting each one individually. This is because the brain has limited capacity to represent quantity concretely. We can hold only about seven objects in working memory at a time. Now try the equivalent math problem where the dots are represented abstractly as Arabic numerals:

100 + 100

Easy.

Just as symbolic representations of quantity allow us to do math with numbers greater than 7, learning to represent suffering and happiness symbolically will allow us to better care about people who live beyond our borders and beyond our lifetimes. We are probably all familiar with the received wisdom that people ought to be treated as individuals, not statistics. I think this ‘wisdom’ is fundamentally wrong. Our brains simply lack the capacity to empathize with every individual in the world. If we are to properly care about everyone, we need to think of human well-being as a statistical measure of happiness and suffering.

We don’t need to be able to intuitively conceptualize large quantities of things in order to do math, and we don’t need to be able to empathize with the suffering of large quantities of people in order to care about them. Instead of understanding the pain of individuals, we should make an effort to understand abstractly the pain of the masses. This is the key to discovering and overcoming our moral biases. We need to recognize the immense amount of suffering in the world today, as well as the vast potential for happiness in the future, and take it as our mission to make the world as happy a place as it can possibly be.






No comments:

Post a Comment