I’m wondering if its a legitmate line of argumentation to draw the line somewhere.

If someone uses an argument and then someone else uses that same argument further down the line, can you reject the first arguments logic but accept the 2nd argument logic?

For example someone is arguing that AI isnt real music because it samples and rips off other artists music and another person pointed out that argument was the same argument logically as the one used against DJs in the 90s.

I agree with the first argument but disagree with the second because even though they use the same logic I have to draw a line in my definition of music. Does this track logically or am I failing somewhere in my thoughts?

  • YappyMonotheist@lemmy.world
    12·
    16 hours ago

    The Bible has a lot of nonsense but if “thou shalt not kill”, then “thou shalt not hurt unnecessarily” is definitely there too, which includes the pinecone. And how can I talk about objective morality without God? How can anyone? Without that objective “POV” all you have are perspectives, and the is-ought problem remains a thing.

    • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      14 hours ago

      And how can I talk about objective morality without God?

      Here it is! Here it fucking is! The single most overused thought-terminating fallacy that Jesus nuts like to pull out!

      The answer to your question is that we don’t need a deity to declare what objective right and wrong are. We can use game theory. If you want to watch an admittedly better explanation of it, Veritasium made a video on it last year, but I’ll recap it below.

      Decades ago, researchers set up an experiment where they paired various algorithms against each other, with each algorithm having different rules for approaching the prisoner dillema. And each pairing went on for hundreds of turns. Then the researchers tallied up all the scores. Thry noticed that almost all of the “nice” algorithms scored higher then almost all of the “mean” algorithms. And they redid the experiment multiple times with tweaks to the experiment, like randomizing the length of interactions between algorithms.

      The overall rules that caused this highest scores were:

      1. Start off picking the option to cooperate
      2. After the first exchange, respond in the same way they were treated in the first round
      3. A decision to not cooperate only affects the next decision, it doesn’t continuously affect every decision after that
      4. On rare occasions (<10%), cooperate on the next turn even if the other algorithm chose to not cooperate.

      Essentially it boils dowm to being polite, treating others how you wish to be treated, and being forgiving past transgressions. Strangely similar to what religions tend to teach, right?

      It turns out, these are actually emergent properties that appear in any system where you have series of interactions between individuals. It’s not divine provenance, it’s natural selection.