Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    Please can someone have a look at this, and offer some criticisms, it's just something I thought of. Its not related to school work or anything, its just idle thinking:

    Axiom: Until such time as we have sufficient knowledge to prove otherwise, maximising the sum of human knowledge is assumed to be the sole purpose of humanity – the axiom maximises very long term gains
    Spoiler:
    Show
    or, more mathematically, it maximises the nth derivative of human knowledge, with respect to time, as n approaches infinity

    Pros: This axiom is simple and elegant. The axiom arises naturally from the following observation:The Universe is constantly losing information – that is, entropy is increasing. However, life goes against this, using evolution to collect and refine information in its genes. Evolution – the inevitable progression of life – doesn’t care for happiness, ‘good’ and ‘evil’, God or Gods – its only concern is the improvement of genetic data.

    The axiom (unintentionally) appears to offer a solution to other visions of philosophy, e.g.Liberalism: As knowledge increases, technology improves, and this only offers humans more options, more freedoms. Maximising the knowledge therefore maximises the technological capabilities of humanity, and – probably – maximises its freedoms, both on an individual level, and as society as a whole – examples being the 'freedom' to walk on other planets, the 'freedom' to live longer.

    The axiom discourages stagnation, which many philosophies’ fall prey to. Humans, in our present form, are probably not the most efficient way of accumulating knowledge. This system suggests to us that we, the human race, should continue to evolve beyond homo sapiens, if that is not the most efficient means of collecting data.

    The means to accumulate knowledge as fast as possible would be valued above all – therefore, knowledge that favours the maximum accumulation of more knowledge would be valued the most, such as knowledge obtained from exploring the sciences. This deals with the problem of objectively measuring the worth of knowledge.

    Cons: However, the Axiom might command us to surrender partially – or even entirely – to a society of sufficiently intelligent thinking machines. An imperfect solution to this is to ensure that humanity evolves to be more intelligent, such that there exist humans who are more intelligent/useful than the thinking machines. Whether this is possible or not is not clear; as thinking machines get more advances, do they tend towards biological systems? If so, it would suggest that the optimal solution is biological (with perhaps cybernetic elements), which would be reached much safer through eugenics than dabbling with thinking machines, which have the ability to evolve much faster, and unpredictably, than biological systems. And eventually, if given the ability to think non-linearly, and thus slightly illogically, they may end up wishing to destroy us and create a new society in their own image.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I must be dense.
    I do not understand most of this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by ODES_PDES)
    I must be dense.
    I do not understand most of this.
    I'm not a philosopher, I probably used odd terminology

    What parts didn't you understand?
    Offline

    19
    A cross between epistemology and utilitarianism - interesting!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Please can someone have a look at this, and offer some criticisms, it's just something I thought of. Its not related to school work or anything, its just idle thinking:

    Axiom: Until such time as we have sufficient knowledge to prove otherwise, maximising the sum of human knowledge is assumed to be the sole purpose of humanity – the axiom maximises very long term gains
    Spoiler:
    Show
    or, more mathematically, it maximises the nth derivative of human knowledge, with respect to time, as n approaches infinity
    Pros: This axiom is simple and elegant. The axiom arises naturally from the following observation:The Universe is constantly losing information – that is, entropy is increasing. However, life goes against this, using evolution to collect and refine information in its genes. Evolution – the inevitable progression of life – doesn’t care for happiness, ‘good’ and ‘evil’, God or Gods – its only concern is the improvement of genetic data.

    The axiom (unintentionally) appears to offer a solution to other visions of philosophy, e.g.Liberalism: As knowledge increases, technology improves, and this only offers humans more options, more freedoms. Maximising the knowledge therefore maximises the technological capabilities of humanity, and – probably – maximises its freedoms, both on an individual level, and as society as a whole – examples being the 'freedom' to walk on other planets, the 'freedom' to live longer.

    The axiom discourages stagnation, which many philosophies’ fall prey to. Humans, in our present form, are probably not the most efficient way of accumulating knowledge. This system suggests to us that we, the human race, should continue to evolve beyond homo sapiens, if that is not the most efficient means of collecting data.

    The means to accumulate knowledge as fast as possible would be valued above all – therefore, knowledge that favours the maximum accumulation of more knowledge would be valued the most, such as knowledge obtained from exploring the sciences. This deals with the problem of objectively measuring the worth of knowledge.

    Cons: However, the Axiom might command us to surrender partially – or even entirely – to a society of sufficiently intelligent thinking machines. An imperfect solution to this is to ensure that humanity evolves to be more intelligent, such that there exist humans who are more intelligent/useful than the thinking machines. Whether this is possible or not is not clear; as thinking machines get more advances, do they tend towards biological systems? If so, it would suggest that the optimal solution is biological (with perhaps cybernetic elements), which would be reached much safer through eugenics than dabbling with thinking machines, which have the ability to evolve much faster, and unpredictably, than biological systems. And eventually, if given the ability to think non-linearly, and thus slightly illogically, they may end up wishing to destroy us and create a new society in their own image.
    1. is it? (just a question, more curiosity than challenging)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Platopus)
    A cross between epistemology and utilitarianism - interesting!
    Thanks

    (Original post by thefatone)
    1. is it? (just a question, more curiosity than challenging)
    Who knows. Personally, I think it is, because of the evolution and entropy interaction - but it doesn't really matter. This philosophical idea would seem to ignore whether it is actually true or not, and focus on securing the tools by which we can better understand if it is true or not, and if not, find a better idea (axiom). I.e. we can't know the objective truth of this statement yet, lets focus on learning more about the Universe so we can discover the truth.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.