Re: Morality simulator

From: Stefan Pernar (
Date: Fri Nov 23 2007 - 16:40:39 MST

On Nov 24, 2007 2:11 AM, Peter de Blanc <> wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 17:02 +0800, Stefan Pernar wrote:
> > Peter, Eleizier and I do not agree on everything. We both belief we
> > are right. I am still waiting for someone to point out a contradiction
> > in my writings that is based on what I write - not on what someone
> > else writes. See above. Your axiom's define what you know. Right now
> > your axiom is: Elizier is right - so consequentially Stefan must be
> > wrong. Please tell me where I contradict myself and I will be happy
> > for it is evidence for improvement potential - that is how science
> > works.
> You are committing a fallacy that has been committed many times before.
> Somebody (Eli) noticed that this was happening, so he wrote a blog post
> about it so that people like me wouldn't have to explain the mistake in
> detail every single time it occurs. We can just link to the post.
> Did you actually read the post and think about how it applies to your
> idea, or did you just dismiss it because it was not addressed to you
> specifically?
> Here's the link again:

Truly - I must follow my own advice and point out contradictions in
Elizier's writing to contribute to his work as I expect it from others
myself. And although I have done so on numerous occasions and his posts are
rather long at times, I seldom got a response from him how the
contradictions pointed out by me could be resolved from his point of view.

I read his post again and shall point out some contradictions and potential
improvements once more - but frankly it is not fun not to get a response on
how to resolve the contradiction. Here we go:

"Outcomes don't lead to Outcomes, only Actions lead to Outcomes."

Action: work -> Outcome: life

According to the above statement life does not lead to work. This is a

"[...] in this formalism, actions lead directly to outcomes with no
intervening events."

Action: define! action = solution -> execute action -> outcome: solution

This is very convenient. Like catching all lions in a desert by building a
3x3 meter cage and defining the outside as inside. You can do that - but
what is achieved by it? A laugh of a forgiving audience. But we are not here
to make fun of ourselves - at least not primarily.

"Being ignorant of your own values may not always be fun, but at least it's
not boring"

So ignorance is bliss? I personally do not agree that that is the case. The
way I see it, ignorance is the set of false implications based on chosen
axioms. Ignorance is caused either by uncertainty in regards to a cause or
an effect or rationalized contradictions. Ignorant people are unaware of the
consequences of their actions and the harm it causes themselves as well as

The idiom 'ignorance is bliss' can thus be interpreted to mean that people
unaware of their actions causing self destruction will see no reason to
change what they are doing. Personally, I prefer knowing my values.

Or are surprises fun? A surprise is something you you do not expect. You are
unexpectedly hit by a car. That's not fun...

I think I demonstrated the willingness to review, interpret and understand
the work of others. Can I get the favor of pointing out contradictions in my
work returned now?

Here is the link again:

Please do not get me wrong - I think he is a brilliant writer and I have a
lot of respect for him and science in general. But I respect critical
rational discourse even more. Further I do not merely contradict by playing
advocatus diaboli. No. I developed my own model that provides a better
understanding. Please contradict it and I will work harder to improve it
further. Or understand it - recognize its value and move forward to find and
solve the next contradiction.

Many thanks,


Stefan Pernar
3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden
#6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi
Chao Yang District
100015 Beijing
Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931
Skype: Stefan.Pernar

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT