Because i have burned people in a house one time
Evil, i know

Or building a swimming pool and then removing the step ladders out of them

I imagine that's what the global Noah flood was supposed to be like.

How can you be certain that
the game designer isn't god
and you aren't just another
part of the simulation?

Sometimes I feel as if I am living a Sims type life. Without the expansion packs.

The creation of true free will - not AI - is the "holy grail" of com sci.
It will never happen IMHO but there was a recent survey of programmers about the morality of "creating" an AI entity that could "feel" pain.
Apparently/allegedly most programmers thought it would be immoral to do what God did and create true free will and the sentient ability to know virtual pain.
I didn't believe the claim that computer scientists all shunned the Nobel prize that such an invention would earn.
Cutting edge scientists are the most AMORAL group of people on earth. They don't care about ethics. They care about accolades.

My daughter plays the Sims a lot. If life is like the Sims where are the cheat codes? She keeps gathering almost infinite money. I can't seem to do that.

(September 25, 2013 at 4:56 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Cutting edge scientists are the most AMORAL group of people on earth. They don't care about ethics. They care about accolades.

I'll be sure to tell my fiancé that. I'm sure she cares about what you say when she's developing new anti-biotics to keep the world's human and animal populations alive into the future.

But on a serious note, why do you think what you write is true? Generalisations aside (and what you posted was a big generalisation), how many scientists do you know that enables you to back up your assertion? I have no doubt some scientists do care about accolades, but I can't think of one personally (and I know a lot) who are engaged in their particular school of science simply because of the accolades.

Science funding throughout the western world is actually quite shit. Most of my fiancé's research is funded through a British science charity, and most terms at a Univeristy are for a very limited number of years (depending on funding) unless you're a PI with a catalogue of research that makes you attractive to University's/ research institutions looking to employ you on a long term basis directly.

Most of them do it because they enjoy it, and it's what they're good at. My fiancé got into microbiology because she was good at it at school, and found she had a talent for it at University. Now she researchers as a career because she sees the dire situation that a lot of the world is in when it comes to emerging anti-biotic resistance and the increasing number of deaths it causes year on year. Not to mention the fact that our stock of useable antibiotics is actually diminishing year on year in tandem. She's never once recieved an 'award', and even those that have just see them as recognition from their peers that their peers value their work to a level where an award is deemed necessary.

"Cutting edge scientists are the most AMORAL group of people on earth. They don't care about ethics. They care about accolades."

I know what you mean - once that paedophilia scandal broke and the news that the universities were moving them from one place to another so they could still get access to fresh kids but not put the good name of their institutions at risk...

.......oh......wait......

Two posters who are obviously ignorant of the difference between amoral and immoral.

(September 25, 2013 at 7:10 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Two posters who are obviously ignorant of the difference between amoral and immoral.

If you're referring to me I know the difference.

I'm asking for clarification of your generalisastion of amorality to 'all' cutting edge scientists.

Can you do that?

You also insinuated in your comment that ethics are out the window when it comes to these scientists, whoever they are. That does in fact suggest that you were inferring a sense of immorality, not just amorality. This is reinforced by the statement you make at the end of your sentance, that scientists only care about accolades. This is an assertion yet to be proven that reeks of personal bias against the topic matter. This also further infers a sense of [b]im]/b]morality abov and beyond lacking morality per se in that you regard scientists as wanting only praise, relegating their job/research ot a second place below their own pride.

A clarification would help belay these questions and advance the debate. All you've done is dismiss a reasonable question, which is very unreasonable.

You're not unreasonable are you, Lion?