Why are paradoxes considered profound?

...in reality the problem of good and evil can be reduced to energy efficiency applied at large groups of people, its not different from the cultural diversity usefulness in each context...the more efficient the more good you will have the less efficient the more entropic, the more "evil"...so I don´t totally refute the problem of good and evil but I certainly conceptually abstract allot of its common content...

If that were true, detonating a nuclear bomb in a major city would be a good act. Low energy input, high output. You were able to exterminate a large group of people at relatively small cost.
This is a fairly simple question, and all this about energy efficiency is irrelevant.

I did explain to death the case you presented based on the usefulness of certain interpreting tendency´s...that is to say that there are objective solid justifications for subjectively convenient quick judgements...whether you like it or not is not my problem you are allowed to have your own opinion..I just gave you mine !

...what would be the gain in consciously destroying life, the ultimate sophistication of nature, without an evolving prospect in mind, survival ?
...that´s why it is a so low probable scenario...its a last resource instrument !...
"Energy efficiency", low mental thinking effort, was brought up for explaining the usefulness of simpleton beliefs who leave people satisfied concerning justification for certain fears they naturally have..low justifying mental effort resulting in high emotional gain plus social structural cohesion...
...it seams to me that this is the most objective justification one can have not only for the problem of good and evil but for allot of other beliefs...

There you go again with that condescending, arrogant attitude of yours.
I don't see the point of trying to explain my thoughts, as you have clearly decided that they are inferior to your genius, godlike superintellect.

I ask about good/bad, which are simple human perspectives, and you start rambling about energy efficiency? A classical case of obscurantism applied to disguise ignorance.

Nature, reality, the world, or whatever one chooses to call it, is made of "systems engines" whether they are "physical" (whatever that means) or abstract, the objective is always the same...engines are supposed to be energy efficient...Moral to is an abstract social engine, an instrument for efficiency, like culture, formal Law, and government's are...

You want to understand morals based on engineering?
How do you quantify the "energy" of a moral act?

...low effort high gain, the same for any other situation...
...the less it takes to justify something in an acceptable manner for the average level of IQ...

...the model I just did brought up is ambitious...it not only justify´s the problem of good and evil but it can be applied to justify in an universal manner the usefulness of mistakes in judgement committed by millions of people...the model justify´s the function of evaluation error itself !

I am assuming this refers to the act itself, since there is no way to quantify mental activity in terms of energy cost.

According to this, if an oil company wanted to make a pipeline through a village in Africa, it would be best for them to just exterminate the village rather than relocate it; dig a hole and dump all the corpses.
It would mean higher gain, as fewer resources were spent to obtain the goal, rather than if they had to spend resources on relocating the village or building the pipeline around it.
And for the villagers, the act of dying is certainly less costly in energy than moving the entire village.
Win, win, so the mass murder turned out to be a morally good act... Is that what you are saying?

One question: Why do you come on here if you know everything?

It would if there was any sense to that sig line. You definitely do not have to be a hypocrite to identify one or point him out.

Considering we all have been, and often, hypocrites, pointing hypocrisy is not only redundant but hypocritical to the lowest...either that or just plain stupid !

...are you trying to impinge me with something that I never claimed ? is that your idea of not being provocative ?...then you wonder why I react so promptly...just check your tone in there...having opinion and knowing everything are two very different things...

It is possible for me to say that a person who advocates buying only ecologically grown food, then buys the regular stuff himself, is a hypocrite. Making that observation does not make me a hypocrite, as the sig line suggests.

But, would you mind giving an answer to the question of morals?
I am interested in how you explain morals based on energy efficiency.

...read it again, is there ! JLNobody which I recon, is a good friend of yours, a good "marine", can explain it to you...(what I meant) even if he disagrees which he probably does, I am sure he gets it...

No, it's not there.
You say morals is a matter of low input, high gain, to which I proposed the following:



Please respond. If you cannot apply your ideas to a specific problem they are not worth the time it took to think them up.

Just to nudge this discussion back to paradoxes, moral dilemmas (the paradox of damned if you do and damned if you don't) can also be characterized by conflicting "set membership" ,as opposed to reductionist attempts at the quantification of energy expenditure. Fil appears to be talking in terms "optimizing" energy expenditure without providing any concept of how to measure "the optimum". Doing nothing looks pretty optimum to me, a strong swimmer, as I stand on the bank watching a non-swimmer floundering in a river ! Any resolution of the dilemma involves temporary suspension of consciousness of "set membership." (of either my family who want me safe, or of society with its humanitarian norms).

And whatever "metalogical criticism" can be applied to Fil's "optimum energy" concept, applies to an even greater degree to his "information" concept. Both imply a teleological (goal directional) principle without the admission by him that such is an intellectual construction for the benefit of human attempts to predict and control.

Yes, teleological seems to be a key word.

But what do you mean by conflicting "set membership" in the context of moral dilemmas?

If I wanted to objectify morality I certainly wouldn't attempt to do so by reducing meaning to units of energy. That would be the most grotesque form of positivism imaginable. One could argue, however, that moral formulae and values usually take form as shared-public-social-collective "cultural" expressions. In that regard they are INTER-SUBJECTIVE in nature, and that is, in a sense, objective insofar as it extends beyond, but includes, individual subjective states.

There´s no damned if you do or if you don´t, only complexity...which ends up serving easy criticism for those who cannot envision the intricate web of forces and variables in action, this is not linear strait forward quantification...just to reply to Cyr´s simplified caricature, "killing the villagers", fellow humans produces an hypothetical "mirror effect" chain reaction, which can destabilize social cohesion...so its not a viable hypothesis after all...as I said before, extreme measures like resorting to mass murder are only viable in case of Darwinian survival, in the limits, they hardly can represent any gain in energy efficiency when they attack the very core of cohesion they are trying to preserve !