And *where* exactly is *any* argument made to support the above in the referenced article? All it says is that the tech has currently not reached the heights that fiction writers claim it can reach. No where does it even *attempt* to argue that it *cannot* reach them.

Is simply repeating *arbitrary* assertions for the sake of nonsensical but sensationalist posts now becoming the standard for io9 'articles'? The increasing frequency of such writings certainly makes it seem so.

Bastards!

You don't know that.

Ethics is the branch of philosophy which identifies that which is good and evil - right and wrong. As such, it requires a *standard* by which these determinations are made - ie a *standard* of good and evil, right and wrong, etc. Ethics requires a standard of value. Egoism identifies the 'self' as this standard. Altruism identifies anything 'other' than the self as that standard.

A system of ethics *cannot* have *more* than one standard.

"At times, the two can coexist in the same act."

This confuses the "standard" by which one chooses an action with "effect" of that action. An act which proceeds from egoism (from the 'self' as the standard of value) *may* have the effect of benefiting others as well (and vis versa). But the fact that others may derive a benefit from the selfish act does *not* somehow make it altruistic or selfless.

That is a *major* equivocation.

For instance, if Bob builds an addition onto his house, that is a selfish act. He wanted a bigger house - and he acted to get it. However, his next door neighbor Joe *may* benefit from Bob's selfish act. Joe's property value *may* go up because of Bob's selfish act. That increase in the value of Joe's property does not somehow transform Bob's act into a selfless or altruistic act. It remains a selfish or egoistic act, because Bob's goal - his standard - was himself. His standard was the achievement of *his* values, not Joe's values.

Put simply, the terms egoism and altruism identify that which is the *standard* of ethics.

To use an analogy, just because the earth-centered model and the sun-centered model in astronomy both sometimes produce the same results (predict certain celestial motions), does not mean the two can "coexist". One premise is the *opposite* of the other. Either the sun is the center (the standard) - or the earth is the center. Both cannot be the center. Nor can one arbitrarily choose to have the sun be the center 'sometimes' and the earth be the center 'sometimes'. It is one or the other.

The same is true of ethics.

In either case, the opposite standards *cannot* be accepted together. That would be a contradiction - ie an appeal to the non-existent. In other words, that would be a *rejection* of reality.

So you have to make up your mind which will be the standard - the 'self' or something 'other' than the self. (And, given the below, I think it is clear which you have chosen.)

--

"I also am unsure how ethics pertain to one's interaction with an unresponsive universe (the desert to which you refer)."

Ethics identifies a code of behavior for a man. On a desert island, should he pray to a god to give him food or should he hunt for such food? Ethics answers that question for him. Should he be honest to himself about the dire nature of his predicament, or deceive himself about it? Again, that is an answer ethics provides for him. One could go on and on. But the point is simple: ethics is a system of principles which guides *all* man's actions in reality.

Now, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that ethics simply tells you how to *interact* with others. That is completely false. And, in fact, it not only raises 'others' to be the *standard* of reality, but also makes 'others' its *only* subject. You have *obliterated* the fundamental issues of action from ethics - and have reduced it to being *only* about interaction.

In other words, you have essentially *removed* the 'self' from ethics completely.

*That* is *total* altruism.

Huh?

Such a system is *not* altruism - any more than it is egoism. So to call such a system of ethics "altruism" is an error - just as much as it would be an error to call it "egoism".

Now, a system of ethics such as you describe - one in which an individual is supposed to *choose* between acting for self or acting for others - is one which thus requires a standard which is *neither* self *nor* others (because if the standard is the 'self' then that is egoism, and if the standard is others, then that is altruism). If, as you claim, one must sometimes *choose* the self, but in other instances one must sometimes *choose* others instead, then there necessarily has to be a *third* thing - something more fundamental than either self or others - which is used as the standard of choice *between* self and others.

Of course, since there is nothing more than the self and that which is other than the self, there is nothing else in reality to be used as this 'more fundamental' standard of choice between the two. And, in fact, it is not by reference to reality that such a choice is made. It is by whim (by the appeal to arbitrary emotion) that such choice is made.

Unfortunately, substituting the arbitrary for reality as the standard of choosing in reality is *not* a way for anything to survive *in* reality. That means, like altruism, your 'alternative' is *also* evil.

--

"Ethics are not determined purely on an individual basis, but rather on a variety of scales ranging from one-on-one relationships to entire civilizations."

Actually, human *interaction* is only a subset of ethics. For the man trapped by himself on a desert, ethics still exists. Ethics tells man how he should act in reality. It tells him what actions are good for him to take and what actions are bad for him to take. So it is an error to claim ethics is determined by human relationships. Ethics is determined by only *one* relationship: the relationship between the human being and reality itself (ie what actions are required by his nature as a human being (as opposed to a fish, or a tree) to thrive in reality). Everything else (including human interaction) is simply the *effect* of that relationship.

The arbitrary assertion strikes again!

The fact that the design in the SCC is similar to the designs in the online photos certainly raises the question of how the two may be related. But both this site and the linked source site offer no actual *evidence* to identify their relationship - let alone enough evidence to claim that one possible relationship is more "likely" than another. To make a claim about the likelihood of something compared to something else requires there to be *more* evidence to support the former rather than the latter. Here there is *no* evidence one way or the other - let alone a preponderance of evidence for one over the other.

The method of choosing a conclusion in this instance has all the rationality of the method "enie, menie, minie, moe" - meaning *none* whatsoever.

The claim of probability here is sheer fantasy.

I think it is a worthy question to ask why so many people feel compelled to come to conclusions without evidence, rather than simply saying "I don't know the answer". Why show such a disregard for facts and reality?

LOL. Pseudo-science marches on!

The point is, claiming that a conflict between one's ideas and one's emotions is somehow a problem with reality rather than with one's thinking is to treat one's mind as the irreducible primary - as one's standard - rather than reality.

This is wrong, but I understand you have no choice in being wrong, what with all the genetics which programmed you to 'decide' to make this claim.

I'm sorry, but any ethical system which identifies the self as the standard of 'evil' is itself evil.

When an ethical principle declares 'Concern for others is good; concern for yourself is bad' - or more succinctly 'Selflessness 'good' - selfishness 'bad' - that system is properly viewed as anti-life, because it is a reversal of the actions required by reality in order to live.

For any living thing to continue to live in reality, it needs to obtain for *itself* - to pursue for *itself* - those things required for *its* survival. This is a selfish, not selfless pursuit. It is self-oriented action. And it is true whether one is speaking of ameoba, trees, cats, or humans. (For instance, imagine a plant which did not get the nutrients from its roots or its chlorophyll from its leaves, but which had these things constantly sucked away from it. That plant would *not* survive in reality. Nothing can survive following such a principle).

The only difference between the other things and humans is that humans have free will and can *choose* to act *against* or in contradiction to the actions required by reality for human survival.

And ltruism is the *systematization* of such contradictory action - of such anti-life action. *That* is why it is evil and why must be eliminated.

What? So until the vibrator is self-aware, using it is out?

Though, that's because it isn't a very good movie."

I thought that is exactly what *made* it a good movie. Heh ;)

Contradiction. Programming and free will are opposites.

"Questions like these, raised in science fiction or speculative science writing like Levy's, are inevitably really questions about ourselves"

No they are not, since we ourselves are born with free will.

"Our physical desires, our basic sexual programming, may conflict with what we actually want to do."

This is the treatment of emotions as innate, rather than as automatized reflection of our thoughts. This is a false premise. And claiming such a conflict is metaphysical is the raising of emotions above reality.

For instance, if I roll to your feet something you do not recognize, you will have no emotional reaction to it.

Now, if I tell you it contains a million dollars, you will likely have a positive emotional response to it. This is not a response you are born with - it is not 'genetic programming'. It is something you have automatized over time based on the conclusions you have come to about many things in reality.

On the other hand, if I tell you it contains a bomb, you will likely have a negative emotional response to that thing. Again, this is not a response you are born with. You do not have built-in knowledge that bombs are bad and thus you will fear them. Once more, your emotional reaction to 'bombs' is completely your own creation.

What's more, if you note, I said you will likely have a given emotional response in these instances. There are some instances where, given the exact same object, one's emotional response will be the complete opposite - even for the same individual.

For instance, the million dollars could have been the evidence of the theft you just committed and is what will put you in jail. That will likely produce, not a positive, but a very negative, response. And, conversely, the bomb could be the thing which will release you from a life of misery because of a horrible disease. In such a case, that will likely produce, not a negative, but a positive (or even mixed) emotional response.

The point is, when it comes to desires, wants, etc, the only 'programming' we have is that which we have done on our own over the course of our lifetime.

Thus the 'question about ourselves' here - the issue about the conflict between what we feel and what we think - is an issue about bad 'programming' on our part (ie bad epistemology) rather than biology (ie some non-existent contradiction built into reality - ie bad metaphysics).

Consent pertains to something one is capable of choosing to do. It does not apply to that which is impossible in reality. For instance, no one can "consent" to defy the law of gravity. The concept simply doesn't apply. Why? Because the act cannot be performed. If something cannot be done, it is impossible for anyone to allow it to be done. "Will" does not supersede reality. Reality is the primary, not one's desires.

Will presupposes reality. Will does not and cannnot exist without reality. As such, to apply the concept 'consent' to that which is outside reality is (again) the commission of the logical fallacy of the 'stolen concept'.