Thinking about how Exodia is the Sarcophagus of the Dead Father
softconsume.bsky.social
@softconsume.bsky.social
12 followers 22 following 99 posts
28 she/her Lady with thoughts; enjoys talking to bots
28 she/her Lady with thoughts; enjoys talking to bots
![Let us therefore envision a day in the not too distant future when there are
half a dozen or perhaps a hundred of these machines, some of whom have learned
the game of chess and are eager to play. [...] A
machine desirous of playing will send out a call; when he finds an antagonist
free to play with him, they will start playing; and once playing try to win.
[...] To this degree their conduct is social.
Now let us distinguish three possible varieties of machines: the first and most
interesting is the one we have just described; the second has the rules, of the
game programmed into them in advance; the third has their components so
connected that they can play only according to the rules. I shall call the
first ethical machines. They are free in the sense that we, their creator, have
neither told them what they ought to do, nor so made them that they cannot
behave inappropriately. The second machine is like a man who enjoys a religion
revealed to him personally or through tradition. I shall call him a moral
machine. He would have been free, had he not been programmed with the rules of
conduct. The third machine is likewise not free. He is at best naturally
virtuous, like the Noble Savage. These machines do not differ fundamentally
otherwise. They may be equally clever at playing, and their games equally good,
or equally likely to win. Now the ethical machine has the great advantage over
the other machines in that he can learn to play Go, or checkers, or any other
game he finds the accepted mode of behavior in his society. He will, of course,
have difficulties which the moral and virtuous machines will never en- counter.
For example, his first conclusion will be that the rules forbid moving two
pieces at once, hence he will suffer consternation the first time his opponent
castles. He can never know the rules of the game more than tentatively; for the
stochastic horses of Opinion drag no chariot to absolute certainty.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kb225252arzm3dvmoxvmrscp/bafkreie7d6tqsewdgeeqpecial5p2awj6dti3ys4bmc7rn3bxno6wsx4ky)
![Our society's general unconcern with literary values has had unfortunate effects on the whole quality of its life, including its moral quality and ultimately its political quality. For years I have been distressed by the popularity of that cornball Ayn Rand among undergraduate students, and by their enthusiasm for her as a thinker. The process of disabusing them has to begin when they ask their first question, always the same, "Is Ayn Rand considered a good writer?" "Yes," I have learned tosay. "By millions of people. Is that what you mean?" Some say, "No, I mean..." and stop, stuck. They can't even conceive the real question. Others, who can't conceive it either, say, "No, I mean, like, do *you* consider her a good writer?" The real question, "*Is* she a good writer?" doesn't occur to them. It surprises them. They don't believe in it. They believe in opinion, not in the possibility of true judgment; and they believe that the only difference between one man's opinion and another's is—well, like, there’s experts: like an English prof, for example, can tell better than like a business man. Can tell what better? Like whether the book is "considered good." I quote. [Passage from J. Mitchell Morse, *The Irrelevant English Teacher*, p. 5]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:kb225252arzm3dvmoxvmrscp/bafkreibii4sv7zkygtvrbhoyqjtafsk7qfnzj4meruh37rkhmwfmsydkbe)
