Book 2 - Text Updates 047

[Oberon]

Setting aside the casters (as they seem more autonomous than most) aren't all units in Erfworld controlled in as "creepy" a manner as Wanda controls the decrypted and Charlie controls his Archons?

Standard unit ordering around has been shown to be less of a consciousness controlling effect, and more of a body controlling effect. Stanley ordered Parson to slap himself, and he did it, but he didn't want to. But when Ansom shouted out, furious with Wanda for telling him he would be left behind when she went to Jetstone with the fliers, "I will inform Lord Stanley!" (not an exact quote because I'm not looking it up), all Wanda had to do was say "No, you will not", and Ansom immediately repeated like a good little mind slave "No, I will not." Caesar and the TV warlords and casters can hold opposite opinions from Don all day long. Maggie can think Stanley is an idiot. But the decrypted all worship Wanda and do not seem to be able to think differently than she tells them to think.

[Squishalot]

I don't think "only started changing when" matters. What matters is that the change has occurred. It was many turns ago, if timing matters, which it doesn't. If the example stood alone, we might be able to make allowances for Caesar's dislike for Jillian, or some other consideration might be made for the circumstances. But it is far from a stand alone event, it is instead the definition of Caesar's behavior.

"Only started changing when" started mattering when others started raising examples of his behaviour from the Royal Escort mission.

Well, if you really feel that Don's estimation of unknowable stats makes things so, I can understand your position on Don's estimation of Caesar. But it just cannot be so, Don is basing his feelings on their long standing relationship, Caesar's position as CWL and heir, and other similar subjective judgements. Because with duty and loyalty, there can be no objective judgement. Don said in essence "Caesar has two things in abundance which I cannot see or measure." Riiiight....

There is no direct measurement of Loyalty (note that "Duty" is not an unknowable stat, by canon), but that doesn't mean that an objective judgement can't be made. You're assuming that Don is somehow blinded by his feelings, as if he's holding an idiot ball for not seeing Caesar's disloyalty. Considering that you're suggesting that Don's plan for the loan is likely to be both ideal and rational, I can't see how you can argue that he's also blind and making judgements on feelings without having an objective rationale for doing so.

[Oberon]

There is no direct measurement of Loyalty [...], but that doesn't mean that an objective judgement can't be made.

Um, yes, it most certainly does mean that an objective judgement cannot be made. Is Caesar's loyalty score 3? Is it 15? It is 100? Since Don cannot see it, there can be no objective measurement. Only subjective guesswork.
As an example of a stat which isn't visible and yet can be measured objectively, we have Parson's leadership. No one can see it, and yet we know it is 2 based upon the effect on other units. An objective measurement, and one which is impossible for duty.

You're assuming that Don is somehow blinded by his feelings, as if he's holding an idiot ball for not seeing Caesar's disloyalty.

No, I am not assuming that, at all. That's just a pile of crap you made up. I am citing fact: Since loyalty cannot be seen, no one can state for certain that anyone else "has loyalty in abundance." They can guess, they can make assumptions based upon past behavior, but they will never know if they have guessed correctly, and the best traitor is one who acts loyalty up until the point he carries out the betrayal, so relying on past behavior to guess at loyalty is also a flawed method.

(note that "Duty" is not an unknowable stat, by canon)

And I may be wrong, but I believe that by canon duty is not a knowable stat. You cannot cite that duty is knowable by citing the absence of a statement that it is unknowable. I do not recall duty being visible when Bogroll or Jack were viewed by the 3-D glasses of stat viewing, and I also do not recall a number ever being given to duty, while we've heard or seen numbers for level, attack, move, and many other stats. Parson listed the stats he saw when looking at units, and duty was not one of them. So unless you have an example to share?

[the_tick_rules]

I haven't seen anything that indicates loyalty, duty, or obedience, can be seen in the numerical way, they can only be hypothesized based on behavior.

[Squishalot]

Um, yes, it most certainly does mean that an objective judgement cannot be made. Is Caesar's loyalty score 3? Is it 15? It is 100? Since Don cannot see it, there can be no objective measurement. Only subjective guesswork.

Objective (adjective): "Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

Nothing there preventing Don (or anyone else) from being objective about it.

No, I am not assuming that, at all.

Don is basing his feelings on their long standing relationship, Caesar's position as CWL and heir, and other similar subjective judgements

You're assuming that a) Don is overestimating Caesar's loyalty; and b) that he is doing so because of a pile of subjective things. How is that not assuming that Don is blinded by said subjective things?

And I may be wrong, but I believe that by canon duty is not a knowable stat.

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F084a.jpg - clearly identifies that Loyalty is unknowable, and says nothing about Duty, suggesting that it is knowable. Either way, the point was only made to explain why I was ignoring it for now.

I do not recall duty being visible when Bogroll or Jack were viewed by the 3-D glasses of stat viewing, and I also do not recall a number ever being given to duty, while we've heard or seen numbers for level, attack, move, and many other stats. Parson listed the stats he saw when looking at units, and duty was not one of them. So unless you have an example to share?

Level wasn't viewable through the 3-D glasses either, yet we know that both Jack and Bogroll have levels. The absence of the information presented to readers says nothing about whether it's available to units or not.

[Oberon]

Um, yes, it most certainly does mean that an objective judgement cannot be made. Is Caesar's loyalty score 3? Is it 15? It is 100? Since Don cannot see it, there can be no objective measurement. Only subjective guesswork.

Objective (adjective): "Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

Nothing there preventing Don (or anyone else) from being objective about it.

Seriously? How exactly do you propose that someone guess at something, absent any facts, and not apply their opinions or feeling to make their evaluation? A person can attempt to apply logic, and I offered the example of observing past behavior to predict the current state. But I also offered evidence as to why that is a failed method. I'll invite you now to provide an objective example of how you might evaluate a person's loyalty or duty. Stupidworld or Erfworld, I don't care which. Every year when I take my corporate security awareness refresher am presented with many examples of people in trusted positions who performed admirably for years or decades, but for whatever reason later violated the trust placed in them. There is no possible example to provide for the people who have to date never violated that trust. If they are alive they may still fall victim to whatever motivations caused those others to betray the trust placed in them. And if they are dead then any violations of that trust may simply not have been discovered yet.

You're assuming that a) Don is overestimating Caesar's loyalty; and b) that he is doing so because of a pile of subjective things. How is that not assuming that Don is blinded by said subjective things?

You're making stuff up again... I am assuming nothing. I know for a fact that duty has not been shown to be visible and measurable. This is an objective statement. In contrast, you are assuming that because duty wasn't cited as being hidden that it must somehow be visible. This is your subjective opinion. I invited you to offer fact or evidence to support your opinion, and you chose to reply to other points and ignored that invitation.

Level wasn't viewable through the 3-D glasses either, yet we know that both Jack and Bogroll have levels. The absence of the information presented to readers says nothing about whether it's available to units or not.

Dragging level into the discussion does not support your opinion on duty. The two things do not need to function the same way, and I have already used Parson's leadership as an example of a not visible stat which can be objectively measured. You haven't provided any examples at all.

The absence of duty being shown when units are viewed with 3D glasses or being cited as being a specific number when discussing a unit in a textual context provides the opportunity to make an objective statement of fact: Duty has never been shown to be visible, not has it been referenced by a specific number. One can ignore that and decide for oneself that duty is visible, but lacking any evidence this is opinion, subjective, theory, tinfoilhattery, guesswork. It is not an objective evaluation.

[ryanroyce]

Um, yes, it most certainly does mean that an objective judgement cannot be made. Is Caesar's loyalty score 3? Is it 15? It is 100? Since Don cannot see it, there can be no objective measurement. Only subjective guesswork.

Objective (adjective): "Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

Nothing there preventing Don (or anyone else) from being objective about it.

Seriously? How exactly do you propose that someone guess at something, absent any facts, and not apply their opinions or feeling to make their evaluation? A person can attempt to apply logic, and I offered the example of observing past behavior to predict the current state. But I also offered evidence as to why that is a failed method. I'll invite you now to provide an objective example of how you might evaluate a person's loyalty or duty. Stupidworld or Erfworld, I don't care which. Every year when I take my corporate security awareness refresher am presented with many examples of people in trusted positions who performed admirably for years or decades, but for whatever reason later violated the trust placed in them. There is no possible example to provide for the people who have to date never violated that trust. If they are alive they may still fall victim to whatever motivations caused those others to betray the trust placed in them. And if they are dead then any violations of that trust may simply not have been discovered yet.

You're assuming that a) Don is overestimating Caesar's loyalty; and b) that he is doing so because of a pile of subjective things. How is that not assuming that Don is blinded by said subjective things?

You're making stuff up again... I am assuming nothing. I know for a fact that duty has not been shown to be visible and measurable. This is an objective statement. In contrast, you are assuming that because duty wasn't cited as being hidden that it must somehow be visible. This is your subjective opinion. I invited you to offer fact or evidence to support your opinion, and you chose to reply to other points and ignored that invitation.

Level wasn't viewable through the 3-D glasses either, yet we know that both Jack and Bogroll have levels. The absence of the information presented to readers says nothing about whether it's available to units or not.

Dragging level into the discussion does not support your opinion on duty. The two things do not need to function the same way, and I have already used Parson's leadership as an example of a not visible stat which can be objectively measured. You haven't provided any examples at all.

The absence of duty being shown when units are viewed with 3D glasses or being cited as being a specific number when discussing a unit in a textual context provides the opportunity to make an objective statement of fact: Duty has never been shown to be visible, not has it been referenced by a specific number. One can ignore that and decide for oneself that duty is visible, but lacking any evidence this is opinion, subjective, theory, tinfoilhattery, guesswork. It is not an objective evaluation.

So, in other words, you would agree that your low estimation of Caesar's Loyalty and Duty scores is just as invalid as anyone else's, right?

Also, regarding the visibility of Duty, when the concepts of Duty and Loyalty were both formally introduced, only Loyalty was called out as an invisible stat. This heavily implies that Duty is different from Loyalty in that respect. While not direct evidence, only a fool would argue that the implication is not there.

[abb3w]

To be completely honest, I am slightly baffled by your post, abb3w. The first thing I thought of when I read it was a quote from a book I read recently (The Wise Man's Fear, one of the most excellent pieces of fantasy I have read in years, including Erfworld) that said "he writes as though he is afraid someone reading will actually understand him".

Nah. Using non-technical terminology would just take too much typing.

I think part of the root of your argument is that "pain is bad and therefore ought to be avoided" does not mean "we ought to use avoiding pain as a justification for providing answers to 'moral' questions".

No; that "pain is bad compare to the lack of pain" is (1) an oversimplification and (2) an assertion not justified from prior axiomatic premises, but rather requires (or must itself be taken as) a new additional axiom.

Personally speaking, I don't see the flaw in Harris' argument that you do. What I'd like to ask is what you perceived his 'ought' to be. I heard it as Harris saying "Reality is objective, therefore we ought to base our morality on objective standards." Well, that and "Traditionally our morality is defined by the suffering of intelligent things, therefore our objective measurements ought to be based on what causes something to suffer/prosper".

Which is more or less what I understood. And wanting to use objective standards is fine, on one level. The catch being, having an "objective" mechanism to answer questions about how the universe IS does not give a full basis for ordering choices of what OUGHT to be done. True, it is useful, insofar as ordering of choices is easier if you can agree what the choices ARE; and for those who take a consequentialist approach, for determining what the consequences will BE. However, that there are choices and consequences is insufficient; one also needs some additional axiom to indicate which of the possibly orderings is the ordering you're talking about.

Or in other words, he can show that this IS fairly close to what humans mean by "ought"; this does not, however, necessarily imply that this is what OUGHT to be used to order choices. (There's further subtleties with the differences between the "fairly close" of instinctive/traditional morality, but those are more cosmetic.)

Which is an annoyingly abstract point, I will admit.

I'll take it as a given that "tradition" has nothing to do with objective morality

"Nothing" overstates it. Tradition is a body of data, giving some indication what societies of various degrees of historical persistence have used for orderings.

, but I think Harris makes a lot of sense when he describes how we have different standards of morality concerning things like rocks, plants, insects, animals, and then fellow primates/human beings.

Which bears on the relation of Haidt's "INGROUP" metric/flavor/dimension of morality rather more than here.

Maybe the issue here is a matter of semantics with regards to the words "absolute morality"?

Actually, it's more semantic with what is meant by "morality" and associated order-related concepts (good, evil, purpose, et cetera).

I don't think he claimed that we are as of yet capable of ordering these measurements into any form of orderly or partially ordered set

He seems to think we can order the choice set of {"kill all the humans slowly and painfully", "let the humans live in relative comfort"}, with "kill all the humans slowly and painfully" being better "let the humans live in relative comfort". So... wrong.

My apologies if this post is simply a lack of imagination/cognition on my part, I just honestly don't get what you are trying to say and don't see any illogical leap from "this is how it is" to "this is how it ought to be" present in the video linked.

From the classic:

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

[ftl]

Or in other words, he can show that this IS fairly close to what humans mean by "ought"; this does not, however, necessarily imply that this is what OUGHT

I'm not sure there's a distinction there.

"Ought" is a WORD. Words are what people use to describe things. Once you have described what humans mean by "ought", you've described the word "ought" and what is meant by it.