Report comment

At which point you might as well just create a general AI rathe than this society, because you’ve solved Friendliness.

Report comment

Report comment

Those are just the if-clauses I mentioned above. and they would need their own if-clauses

Report comment

That type of assertion is probably the sort of thing that Kadhamic was designed to make impossible to make without qualification. You’d probably be forced to say things like :
“You should not kill someone, if you are a good person.”
or
“You should not kill someone, if you follow the ten commandments”
or
“You should not kill someone, if your actions are to be beneficient for society”

and thus have to clarify if your ethical “should” relies on virtue-ethics, deontological or consequentialistic metaethics.

Report comment

Report comment

As a law enforcement tactic this has a lot of very appealing properties. But I can’t help but notice that no real-world developed nation does this, which makes me think there might be some drawbacks I haven’t thought of. (cf. Chesterton’s Fence) One potential drawback might be that everywhere has been colonized already, but I’m not sure I believe that. If we really tried, I’m pretty sure we could find a decent-sized uninhabited tropical island somewhere. So why aren’t we deporting all our convicts?

Do you recommend this sort of intentional-community thing for real world nations?
If not, why does it work for Raikoth when it wouldn’t for the US?

Report comment

– “Should” always requires a following “if…” statement; ie only hypothetical imperatives.”

And when someone asks about the “if. . .” and why we should do it, we then have to phrase that as a hypothetical imperative, and then the same with its if clause, and on and on forever?

All very well for “If you want to eat chocolate ice cream tonight, and not getting fat, you should not eat two pieces of cake now.”

Less good for “If you do not want to kill someone, you should not randomly fire your gun out the window,” because in fact, you should not kill someone, even if it really floats your boat.

Report comment

I personally found the Supreme Court building to be stunning and breathtaking, so YMMV.

Report comment

Availability bias is not simply ignorance. The DC Metro is an example of availability bias because I’ve been there but failed to think of it as Brutalist (and, more specifically, failed to recall it). But that’s not because I liked it, because I didn’t, at least not the concrete parts. (I remember liking the walls decorated to differentiate the stations, but that was probably more for the function than the aesthetics.)

Yes, State U buildings are bland, but I don’t think that they are ugly. I prefer them to the Brutalist examples you gave, let alone the ones that google gives.

Images on the web lose some aspects of Brutalist buildings. Perspective seems to matter more for them than for other styles, particularly the experience of changing perspective. Distant images lose the texture of the concrete. I recall a classmate praising a particular Brutalist building for its variety of textures. I tried to appreciate them, but failed.

Report comment