From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!pindor Mon May 25 14:06:15 EDT 1992
Article 5744 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: NI failure
Message-ID: <1992May19.203844.19023@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992May13.155329.21787@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <78053@netnews.upenn.edu> <1992May15.140530.1631@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <78312@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 20:38:44 GMT

In article <78312@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>
>>>Where do you get that impression?  *You* come up with two examples, and
>>>assume that counts as "most religions"?  Just what metric are you using?
>
>>Firstly, where are these two examples? You are cofusing different posts.
>
>You mentioned Christianity and Islam, as if this supported your claim that
>most religions placed value in members' lives only.  If you mentioned them
>for some other reason, then I have no idea of why you are posting.

I do not recall mentioning Islam in my earlier postings to which you refer. You
are confusing my posting with Marvin Minsky's comment (with which I accidently
totally agree).

>>Secondly, since you seem to demand that I precisely define what I
>>mean (your obstinate reference to 'metric', above and in few other
>>place),
>
>You are the one making some obnoxious statements about "most religions".

I accept that you may be counting things differently than you (but how do you
count them?), but why this emotional term 'obnoxious'? What makes my opinion
more obnoxious than yours?

>Since under any obvious and reasonably counting scheme I can think of,
>this is complete nonsense, I'm offering you the chance to show a point
>of view where you statement is not at the level of typical communist
>propaganda or whatnot.
>
Firstly, this 'obvious and reasonable counting scheme' is not at all so 
obvious to me (and it seems I am not an only one in this position). As of this 
being reasonable one or not I can't comment, till you present it. So present it
to leave no doubt that my statement 'is complete nonsense'. Concerning your
other evaluation of my statement, I hope that Keith Ramsay, who have just
chastized me for making a personal comment in my reply to you, will be even-
handed in his role of the upkeeper of nettiquette.

>If I work with say, a coherent, self-consistent set of practices and/or
>beliefs, then "Christianity" is dozens of religions, only some of which
>agree with your claim.  This is the AI problem of counting polymorphous
>sets, and there is no standard way of dealing with it.  Your presumed
>way, of picking one member as representative and locking on it, is not
>considered very useful in the AI community.
>
You agree yourself that 'there is no standard way of dealing with polymorphs'.
I for instance count 'Christianity' as one religion and, generally speaking
find that its commitment to human life as having intrinsic value has been
throughout history unconvincing. 
Now if we include Islam and all those religions which practised human 
sacrifices (I include here a wife killing herself at husband's funeral, 
practised in India), then is using the word 'most' really so ourageously wrong?

>When X disagrees with Y about what is category Z, I am counting Z twice.
>
Counting as what? Perhaps Z shouldn't be counted at all.

>You could give us a clue as to how you are counting.  Based on what you
>posted, you are lumping together unlike religions and calling them the
>same.  And conveniently counting them in the negative.
>
Are you saying that different flavours of Christianity are unlike? I even 
count Judaic and Christian religions as one since they have a common root (and 
common moral code - Ten Commandments). In another posting I've commented on
the meaning of 'value of life' in Old Testament. I hope you have noticed it
so that I do not have to repeat it here.
 
>That is not thought--just propaganda.
>
I find you choice of words not very conducive (sp?) to a reasonable discussion.
>
>>And how many followers of any religion in this past century have demonstrated
>>that they put value in any life but their own or members of their kin or tribe
>>or religion?
>
>Millions and millions and millions.  Of course, these people don't make
>the headlines, like the millions and millions and millions that you are
>aware of and take as representative.
>
I agree that those 'Millions and millions and millions' would not make many
headlines. But how do you know they are (were) there? Who counted them?

>>	      And may I remind you that it is a quite a new phenomenon to try
>>to establish explicit moral acceptance for abortion. Although abortion has 
>>always been practiced, until recently it has not been loudly hailed as morally
>>acceptable. The same applies to eutanasia and the 'right do die' idea. So in 
>>some respects, things are even getting worse.
>
>Bleah bleah bleah.  I'm not interested in debating any morals, certainly
>not in this newsgroup.  Just where do you get off on your "counting" and
>where are you coming up with "most" from?  Your "bleah bleah bleah" above
>seems to be no more than you've had unhappy run-ins with noisy minorities,
>and use them to define the whole of their "religion"--under my metric, I'm
>counting such factionings as separate--and you use this to skew your counts
>so you can take a broad propagandistic swipe.  NI failure.
>
Firstly, I have not had any 'unhappy run-ins with noisy minorities' and in any
case I am trying to look at trends in a society independent of my personal
preferences (or perhaps unhappy experiences). Do you deny that the trends I
point to above are there? Your dismissing them as 'irrelevant' is no more 
justified than my claim that they mean something (in the context of our
discussion).
Secondly, where do you get this me 'taking a broad propagandistic swipe'? I
do not adhere to _any_ ideology (unless you say that everyone has some ideology)
so why should I try to 'propgandize' you or anyone else?
>
>>Could you please name another religion which demonstrates in words and deeds
>>that it values human life with no exception?
>
>Now what is this topic-changing switch supposed to accomplish?  I merely

Why is it 'topic-changing'?  Since I can only see one religion which might 
possibly fit the category (honestly claiming that 'human life' has a value 
as such), I find my use of the word 'most' quite appropriate. Since you don't,
it is only fitting that you give some unambiguous examples yourself.

>rejected your assertion that most religions place value in all human life,
>regardless of membership.  Until now, you did not reveal that you meant
>superheroic dedication to all human life no matter what as #1 principle.
>
Isn't there a misprint in your statement? My statement was that most religions
DO NOT place value in all human life, regardless of membership. That in fact
they put more value on life of their members, than on the life of outsiders.
And you seem to disagree, claiming yourself the above, is that right?

>Regarding your original statement, there's Buddhism, Judaism, Jainism,
>some forms of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism.  I don't know enough to make
>counts for older religions in the Americas and Africa; some stand out as
>pretty negative, some quite positive, the vast majority, I know nothing.
>
You are being too extreme, who says about 'superheroic' etc? I was trying to
point out that the moral rule 'You shalt not kill', which is present in most
religions (I hope we both agree here) had in most cases been treated in
utilitarian and not absolute way (by the religions themselves and not only
by their professed adherents). And I stand by this statement. Christianity and
Islam has already been dealt with, for Judaism see what Moses did after comming 
down from Mount Zion (first time), for Hinduism - see acceptance of wife 
committing suicide at her husband's funeral. I do not know what Jainism is
but even if it stands with Buddism I still see that 'most' is correct. You may
disagree  with my lumping all flavours of Christianity together, but then
there are many flavours of Islam too etc. Counting may become complicated and
more and more contoversial, but does it justify being so upset at my use of
word 'most'?
 
>>I'd appreciate if you were less cryptic. What this 'NI' might be?
>
>The subject used to be "AI failures".  I changed it.  Figure it out.
 
Well, I did. In fact your term seems to have caught on. Congratulations.
>-- 
>-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)


-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


