**From:** Marc Geddes (*marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz*)

**Date:** Fri Feb 04 2005 - 21:37:26 MST

**Next message:**Marc Geddes: "Re: Ethics"**Previous message:**Emeka Okafor: "Perspex Space"**In reply to:**Maru Dubshinki: "Re: Odd questions for you all ;) â€˜Degradation â€™ algorithms versus â€˜Enhancementâ€™ algorithms"**Next in thread:**Thomas Buckner: "Re: Odd questions for you all ;) Degradation algorithms versus Enhancement algorithms"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

--- Maru Dubshinki <marudubshinki@gmail.com> wrote:

*> I'd think that good music is a least a little
*

*> convergent on several
*

*> (somewhere under a quadrillion perhaps :)?, whereas
*

*> there are so many
*

*> possible music pieces, most of which are bad, there
*

*> would be many
*

*> types of bad music. And maybe the ideal degradation
*

*> algorithm would
*

*> be the inverse of the enhancement but I doubt it:
*

*> going uphill is
*

*> different from going downhill, same's integration is
*

*> different from
*

*> differentiation. A randomizing algorithm would do
*

*> fairly well
*

*> degrading, but the inverse wouldn't upgrading.
*

*>
*

*> ~Maru
*

*>
*

You would think that for any finite goal there are

many more poor strategies than good ones. And

similarly you would think that if you took some

particular sphere - art say - the set of bad music

should be at least as large as the set of good music.

But something is highly fishy. There is something

spectacularly odd going on. I'm not so sure that the

set of things with some bad attribute is matching up

to the set of things with the corresponding good

attribute. For instance if you took the set of all

'beautiful' things and that was infinite, you would

think that the set of all 'ugly' things should be

infinite as well. But I'm not so sure that's the

case. Or least the set of one might be a 'higher

order' infinity than the set of the other.

I've recently become convinced that there are

objective values/morals/aesthetics that are really

just Bayesian reasoning 'tipped on it's side' so to

speak - or Bayesian reasoning rotated 90 degrees

through a metaphorical space.

For instance reasoning can be described in terms of

two major techniques - Induction and Deduction.

Similarly all of values/morals/aesthetics can be

described in terms of two major themes - Harmony and

Growth. Now if you 'twist' Induction 90 degrees

through a metaphorical space you get one of the

central pillars of values - 'Harmony'. Similarly

'twisting' Deduction yields the second central pillar

of values 'Growth'. So Harmony and Growth are really

just Induction and Deduction rotated 90 degrees

through a metaphorical space. And similarly all the

principles of reasoning have their analogies in the

world of values/morals/aesthetics.

I'm closing in just what the 'transform' is that

converts Bayesian Reasoning to Objective Morality.

I’m convinced that is some hugely spectacular idea

that I'm *almost* seeing but I just can't *quite* pin

it down. As soon as I do... it's all over.

=====

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.

http://au.movies.yahoo.com

**Next message:**Marc Geddes: "Re: Ethics"**Previous message:**Emeka Okafor: "Perspex Space"**In reply to:**Maru Dubshinki: "Re: Odd questions for you all ;) â€˜Degradation â€™ algorithms versus â€˜Enhancementâ€™ algorithms"**Next in thread:**Thomas Buckner: "Re: Odd questions for you all ;) Degradation algorithms versus Enhancement algorithms"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT
*