thegoodfellas/blogset-br huggingface dataset:
decision, by establishing which GROUP should have its happiness maximized. But this is extremely dangerous: some could want the maximized happiness to be restricted, for example, to species; others, to nations or countries, or even to a specific ethnic group. However, the scientific Meta-Ethics to which genism belongs to, claims that the group should be understood as the set of all sentiate beings (capable of feeling) and that means the group is not restricted to human kind.Oxen, cats, dogs, rats, cockroaches, fleas and everything that is capable of feeling should be involved in the genist group, since they are, in principle, all capable of feeling. At first sight, that looks quite weird and radical but, as we already mentioned, it is not. The difference is that our brain has around 100 billion neurons, but an insect like a flea, for example, has only a few hundreds. Furthermore, the function of pleasure can rise exponentially according to the quantity of neurons or the kind of internal organization, not necessarily in a linear way. What I mean is that organisms do not have the same weight on the compute of total happiness. Happiness depends on the capability of feeling that each organism owns. The suffering of a single human brain, for instance, could be of such magnitude that it would justify the elimination of the whole specie that made it suffer like, hypothetically, the one that causes cholera, or the fleas. Thus, if the human capability of feeling is larger, we should also have more rights than other species with shorter capability. Moreover, scientific Meta-Ethics establishes that happiness must be computed within the longest possible period of time. Thus, intelligence is a crucial aspect, since by its means it is possible to avoid the extinction of the planet caused by a meteor collision, or even avoid the extinction of life (and of happiness on the planet), as it is expected to happen in 4 billion years with the explosion of the Sun. That all must be taken into consideration (and in our favour) in general happiness as a whole. FELICITAXAlthough the long introduction above, many people will certainly not understand what I am about to expose. The dictatorship of consciousness might prevent you from seeing it. However, I will herein register it, for the future. Someday, perhaps, this idea will have great value and might stop being a science fiction project to become a real fact.When I tried to explain FELICITAX to a few people, I used a simple hypothetical example, and I will do this again:Suppose you are face to face with a simple insect, like an ant, for instance. Imagine that you look each other in the eyes, and stay like that, beholding each other for some minutes. Suppose that this insect has some idea of what you are. You own more than 100 billion neurons and capability of feeling and thinking. The ant may have only a few hundred neurons and, if it could, it would notice that its small neural net in its minute body is contained in the net
of the observer. Thus, in a certain way, ITS BEING WOULD BE CONTAINED IN THE OBSERVER: you would have all the perception the ant could have, but only in a greater level. However, the opposite would not be true. Not all you feel and perceive could be felt by the minute insect. This hypothetical ant would know that it could never feel, notice or understand the universe as you do. If the ant could analyse your potential, it would comprehend you almost as a god before it. Therefore, by noticing all that, it would probably worship you.If, by hypothesis, either your life or the life of the insect had to end, and the decision was empowered to the insect, then maybe it would choose to finish its own life only to save you. After all, your happiness potential is much larger than the one of the ant and, in a certain way, it would continue to live in you. Your happiness, your capability of feeling may be a thousand or a billion times superior to the capability of the little ant. Therefore, even under the point of view of measuring happiness, of SME, the decision of the ant about giving up its own life in order to save yours would be absolutely correct. DeuxWhat if, in the hypothetical example above, us humans were the ant?Then, who would this you be, a you that would be to us as we were to the ant of the example above?!This you does not exist. At least not on Earth. But, if it existed, it would be a being of such magnitude that we should, if possible, give up our own life to save the beings life!This hypothetical being could enhance happiness in the universe A LOT simply by the fact that it can feel a billion times better than we can. We must name it. Let us call it Deux. Thus, if Deux existed, we should give up our own life to save His, if necessary.But Deux does not exist!LET US CREATE IT THEN!If we *had* the technology, this should be our objective. But why? Why should we create Deux? The answer is simple: by definition, Deux would have a much larger capability of feeling than ours. Therefore, He could enhance happiness in the universe. Thinking only about our own happiness or the happiness of a specie is not ethical. Reasonings not connected to ethics can lead to any kind of barbarity. A perfect and free universal ethic must consider happiness as an autonomous entity, not attached to any species our subgroup. We already know what happens when rights are directed to specific subgroups.The biggest problem in the SME is the mathematical quantification of feeling. If this problem was solved, perhaps Deux could be built as a computer or as a big biological brain, something like a huge neural mass immersed in a large tub that would provide it with food, oxygen or energy.We must notice that there are not and there should not be limits to the continuous improvement of Deux; his capability of
feeling and thinking could be continuously enhanced. Therefore, Deux would have an infinite potential. In fact, He should design his next version, with modules that could be attached and added to his neural net or even design enhanced clones. Obviously the seek for knowledge should continue through Deux, since this would be the best way to foresee and avoid the dangerous occurrences of a Universe in constant transformation.Thus, Deux should be designed with the objective of increasing happiness in the universe. For that to happen, Deuxs main purpose would be feeling pleasure, great pleasure. However, in order to continuously enhance happiness in the universe, there must be intelligence and knowledge enough to produce technology for that goal. Therefore, Deux must own an intelligence capable of extending itself at each new version, capable of learning, producing and absorbing more and more knowledge. His evolution would happen exponentially with time. He must self evolve. And what about us? As the real ants of the whole story, we should know that, in a certain way, we would also be contained in Deux. But, what should be our end then? Deux was designed to maximize happiness in the universe. I guess thatiIf we were in the hands of Deux, we would not have to worry, right? After all, would not we be contained in Him? PS: Felicitax, in our era, must be considered as a philosophical entity, or as a science fiction element, not as reality. Until it can be understood and become a feasible project, many millennia must elapse. However, it is not impossible that Deux has already been built in another planet. In that case, He shall reach us.Portuguese Version: http://stoa.usp.br/deux/files/-1/8794/deux.htm--//--
as "Modus Tollens" [7]:H => D (If "H" implies "D") ~ D (and "D" does not happen, i.e. D is false)=> H ~ (We can conclude that "H" did not happen)And it can be summarized in the following formula:((H => D) ^ (~ D)) => ~ H(If "H" implies "D" and "D" did not happen, we can conclude that "H" did not happen).Which can be interpreted as follows: "If 'H' implies 'D', and 'D' is false, we can conclude that 'H' is false."As an example: If "all geese are white", it implies that my aunts goose should be white, but, in fact, my aunt has a red goose, so I can conclude that 'all geese are white' is a false theory.Thus, in order to investigate a theory "H" under the conditions in which this theory implies the consequence "D" , if this consequence is not verified, that is, if the conditions where H is true the consequence "D" is not true, we can conclude, logically, that the theory "H" is not true (it is refuted). This is an important result since it becomes unnecessary to investigate directly theory "H"; investigating its consequences ("D") to conclude about "H" should be enough. Of course, if "D" is observed we cannot conclude that "H" is correct, but "H" will be stronger, that is, with a higher degree of reliability, having passed the test.It is important to note that the scientific methodology comes directly from the postulate that the universe behaves logically. If it were not so, neither the hypothetical-deductive nor the deductive method could be justified.The "Inductive Method", or simply induction, is not strictly considered part of the scientific methodology, as it goes from particular events, or samples, to derive general theories. Thus, we can never claim that what came from an induction is true simply because it came from an induction. For example: "All geese I have seen in my life are white, then, can I conclude that all geese are white?" We cannot. "The sun comes out every day since mankind exists. Can I conclude that this will happen forever? "We also cannot.Nevertheless, we cannot put the "inductive method" in the ostracism because, although not very reliable, it provides us with important clues to connect our mind to reality. No scientific theory would have been discovered without induction. What are the scientific observation and the empiricism if not an inductive method to get to hypotheses of a general nature?If we do not understand the "inductive method" as a criterion for evidence of scientific theories, but as a method to provide hypotheses for theories or ideas, it can be considered valid and very precious. Isaac Newton, for example, would not have discovered the law of gravity if he had not seen the attraction of matter. Einstein would not have created General Relativity if there were not experiments showing that the speed of light was constant.4-The Origin of Scientific TheoriesIt is important to note that science does not make any restriction on the origin of scientific hypotheses or theories. [We will consider, in this text,
the tests, it is said that the theory was corroborated by the tests; never confirmed by them (in the sense that it has been proved true). When a theory is corroborated, it only gains reliability, because by the criterion (1) above, no theory can be considered true:"The science method consists of daring ingenious conjectures followed by rigorous attempts to falsify them." Only the aptest theories survive. It is impossible to legitimately say that a theory is true; one can say with optimism that it is the best available, better than the ones that already exist "[3]In spite of the popperian ingenuity about delimiting science, the criticism was abundant. 6.1-Critique and Defenses on the 'Popperian Falcificacionism'The main criticism to the "Popperian falsificationism" is that the tested theory is always inside an environment which conditions cannot always be fully controlled or evaluated. Thus, there can be a "false negative" in relation to its validation, and the theory can be prematurely discarded. For example, suppose we want to test the theory "All geese are white" and for that, we try to refute it by observing with binoculars, cameras and other observation paraphernalia, several geese spread over the world. Finally, an observer is able to shoot from far away, a brown goose flying along with his flock of white geese. Now that he has this evidence, it is possible for him to refute the theory. But what if the goose was only dirty with earth? Would we be prematurely dismissing a true theory?This critique to the "Popperian falsificationism is valid; however, it can be easily refuted with the following argument: if this theory was unfairly distorted by a misled or even fraudulent observation, this observation did not really act as a refutation of the theory. A false refutation is not a refutation. Likewise, we cannot invalidate the justice system simply because someone can present false evidence to condemn or acquit a defendant. If the rebuttal example is not valid, and the theory is unfairly rejected, this, as a single element, does not diminish the merit of the falsificationist criterion; it only states that we must be very careful with the tests and, moreover, it will always be possible to try to refute your own rebuttal. That being done, the theory can be "reborn" and reconsidered valid. If not, it should remain in the limbo of refuted theories waiting for a possible counter-rebuttal that might come in the future, if ever.A second type of criticism, also widely used, is that "falsificationism" does not follow what the history of science has shown. If we analyze the evolution of science from its historical development, we will not find the rationality that Popper tries to impose to it. But this critique does not make any rational sense, because this would be like saying we should not create remedies in laboratories because if we study human evolution, mankind has always survived and evolved without any medicine. It is not rational to claim that we should keep a certain modus operandi simply because in the past it has always been so. However,
despite the criticism to Popper is subject to refutation, there is in fact, as we will see next, a logical inconsistency in the Popperian criteria. And that is fatal to science and also to the "popperianism".6.2 Refuting Popper Although the historical criticism to the popperian falsificationism" is refutable, since they do not really affect the falsificationist process logic, the postulates introduced by Popper are actually inconsistent. And the internal inconsistency in science is simply fatal. In order to prove that, we will consider the first two criteria proposed by Popper to demarcate a scientific theory:i) No scientific theory can be proved true (confirmed).ii) A scientific theory can only be proved false.Taking the basic postulate that science seeks truth and not necessarily the usefulness in the theories, even because the "usefulness" of a theory is subjective, we should take the postulate (i) not as a condition for a theory to be scientific, but as an impossibility of proving it true.If we interpreted the postulate (i) as a condition for a theory to be scientific, many theories that could be proved true would be considered anti-scientific in spite of science seeking the truth! That would be a complete nonsense. Therefore, we must interpret the postulate (i) not as a condition to which theories must obey to be considered scientific, but as an impossibility of being sure of what the ultimate essence of reality is. We cannot, for example, even prove that solipsism [14] is false: any information that reaches our consciousness could be only an imagination of a reality that actually does not exist. Could anyone, for example, prove we are not dreaming?We do not need, however, to reach the limits of epistemology to understand why we cannot be absolutely sure of the veracity of a scientific theory: It is impossible to know whether we have, in fact, knowledge of every possible condition that influences the applicability of a theory. Without making these conditions explicit, the theory may not be valid in certain contexts in which the conditions cannot be verified. As an example, consider the theory "water boils at 100 degrees Celsius." This theory is valid only under conditions of adequate pressure (1 atm), otherwise it is false. Thus, a more correct theory would be: "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at 1 atm pressure." Do we have now all the necessary conditions? What if water is composed mostly of heavy hydrogen atoms (deuterium)?Let us now change focus and show the inconsistency of the criteria (i) and (ii):Consider the following theory: "This shoe box contains a frog."This theory is not very useful but, for now, we are not concerned about the usefulness of theories, we are concerned about its veracity. If we open the shoes box and find a frog, what can we say? Can we consider the theory true? Would that refute Poppers postulate (i)? These matters are not trivial, since it is possible to say that what we see is not a frog but a toad, or that it could be an optical illusion or even a dream and therefore, we
cannot claim that the box contains a frog or that the box exists. Indeed, these philosophical claims can keep the criterion (i) unharmed; however it contradicts the rule (ii) "A scientific theory can only be proved false. If not, see:If a theory can be proven false, then it is also true that its contradiction can be proven true.At the very same time a theory is proved false, the theory that denies it is being proved true. Here, the sense of the word "prove" has the same connotation as to prove a theory false or true. As an illustration, consider, for example, theory A: "All geese are white." If we can prove this theory false by presenting, for example, a red goose, we will be at the same time proving that theory B "Not all geese are white" is true!However, if we philosophically accept the fact (i) to be true, that is, if we admit that we cannot be sure about the ultimate truth of reality, then, strictly speaking, we can never say that a theory can be proved false, because if a theory "T" can be proved false, the opposite theory "Non-T" (denial of "T") can be proved true, that is, we would have the theory "Non-T" as an absolute truth . Anyhow, we conclude that the "Popperian falsificationism" is intrinsically contradictory, and that makes it easier for a new theory about science to be elaborated.7 - "Expanded Science " or "Ocanian Science "Science, just like philosophy, seeks the truth. It is then natural that they are unified, and this project aims to redefine science and unify it with philosophy in a knowledge area I called "Expanded Science" or "Ocanian Science.As truth is the only goal of the Expanded Science"(ES), it should not be restricted to the empirical sciences, although these are also part of the EC. However, the truth in the ES means all information compatible with reality, where reality is the set of events that happens or have happened. Propositions built on systems disconnected from reality do not matter to the ES. If we take the words 'theory', 'hypothesis' or 'proposition' as synonyms, we can establish the following criteria to define the "Expanded Science, "Ocanian Science " or simply Science: (i)-Only the propositions directly or indirectly linked to reality are objects of analysis for the Expanded Science .(ii)-The propositions that most fit the "Occams Razor" should be considered closer to reality than the others.These two criteria compose the foundation of this new science. The criterion (i) intends to distinguish what is part of the expanded science and what is not. Criterion (ii) intends to classify the propositions in relation to their degree of veracity, that is, we must believe the best ranked theories are closer to reality than those that do not fulfill the Occams Razor criteria. We can observe that there is no longer the criterion of distortion, precisely because, strictly speaking, we cannot prove anything in terms of absolute truth (that is implicit in the criterion (ii)), and of course, we cannot even prove that something is false.
Nevertheless, we can give a new meaning to the words "Proof" or "Rebuttal" if we understand them as related to the Occams Razor.Take the following illustrative example:We find a shoe box and we notice there is a brick inside. What can we say about the theory: "Inside this box there is a brick?When we look inside, and notice a brick, would that be perfect evidence of its absolute truth? Incredible as it may seem, no! Actually, there are innumerable hypotheses which in principle could be true and would deny the proposition that inside that box there is a brick. We will consider some of them: - The volume was actually of a battery radio imitating a brick.- The volume was something that resembled a brick, but it was not a brick.- That was not a brick because you are in a dream, imagining it.- A momentary short circuit in your brain made you imagine a brick in an empty box.- A new weapon with alpha waves was tested on you so you would imagine the brick.- Someone created a holographic image of the brick so that you would think it was real.- There are no bricks, since this universe is an imagination of a great consciousness.- Etc.Thus, we cannot undoubtedly prove that any statement about reality, as obvious as it may seem, is in fact, reality. However, by the criteria of the "Ocanian Science", we can use the Occams Razor and give preference to the more plausible theories in terms of the "razor" and, that way, consider the proposition "the shoe box contains a brick" as the most appropriate of them, the closest to reality.It is interesting to note that the "theory of the green imp" (TGI) cited at the beginning of this essay, which previously could not be approached by the Popperian science, since it could not be tested or falsified, now can be easily approached by the "expanded science: the theory of the green imp must be considered less true in relation to the theory that there is no such imp, since the latter is more appropriate in terms of the Occams Razor.7.1- Some considerations on the "Occams Razor"The "Occams Razor" establishes that we should not put unnecessary hypotheses in a theory. The term "unnecessary" is the key of the Occams Razor: If we can explain a fact with fewer hypotheses, then it must be done. Extra hypothesis must be discarded. If several theories explain the same phenomena, we should give preference to the theory with the smaller subset of hypotheses. It is possible to show that the accretion of unnecessary hypothesis to a theory makes it become less likely to be true [11]. Thus, we can understand the Occams Razor as a criterion of classification of the most likely theories. The theories that suit the Occams Razor the most are more likely to be true.Many refer to the Occams Razor as the simplicity criterion, but this is dangerous. The "simplicity" in Occams razor does not refer to what is simplest to understand, but to what is most likely to