Arturo Macias

Wiki Contributions


That is the whole point of ethical systems, isn't it? To derive all (etical) values from a few postulates. Of course, most of valuations are not ethical (they are preferences or tastes), but this is an excellent agument for rational (systematic) Ethics.

Well, “one feel you can have done otherwise” is the part of the qualia of free will my definition do not legitimize.

When you chose among several options, the options are real (other person could have done otherwise) but once it is “you” who choses, mechanism imply “all degrees of freedom have been used”.

I say: "you are free when you do as you want, not matter how determined are your desires". This is how I define freedom in "Freedom under naturalistic dualism"(and I think that this position is original, so if this is not the case, I would be glad of being corrected).

You cannot know more than  Laplace's demon, and the demon cannot assess consciousness. It is analyzed in detail in "Freedom under Naturalistic dualism".

Still is something that a conscient being superimpose over reality. It is not “there”. This as true for our moral as our mathematical constructions.

This is also my intuition: the intensity of experience depends on the integrated information flow or the system and the nature of the experience depends on the software details.

Then iPhones have far more limited maximum intensity experience than ants, and ants maximum experience intensity is only a fraction of that of a mouse.

I mostly agree in the fact that while conscience intensity is the ontological basis of moral weights, there are other relevant layers. On the hand conscience looks to be some function of integrated information and computation in a network.

IIT for example suggests some entropic combinatorial measure, that very likely would explode.

In any case we are trapped in our own existence, so inter subjective comparison is both necessary and mostly depending on intuition.

What about an IPhone? It looks similar to a ant in terms of complexity; Less annoying too…

Because in the limit your intuition is that the experience of an electron is inexistent. The smaller the brain, the closer to inanimate matter.

Dear Jameson, as you say the theme is extremely important, but I miss more about Storable Votes: one period Arrovian results deeply change in dynamic voting scenarios. I have recently written two articles about this: one has been published in Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, the other is still a pre-print:

I also suggest you to read the Casella and Mace review about “vote trading” (there a is Journal version, here you have the pre-print):

Load More