Yaroslav Boichuk

Karma: −21

Yaroslav Boichuk 31 May 2026 19:34 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: pjohn’s comment on: AI Researchers, Ask Yourself These 6 Questions to Strengthen Your Moral Muscles
Thank you for understanding.

Even here it is observable that morality appears even there where people try to hide it.

Yaroslav Boichuk 30 May 2026 13:59 UTC
6 points
3
in reply to: pjohn’s comment on: AI Researchers, Ask Yourself These 6 Questions to Strengthen Your Moral Muscles
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed reply—and no need to apologize for the disagreement, I genuinely appreciate the engagement! I want to add that I’m not a native speaker and my words in some cases may sound rude. I’m deeply sorry. I’m trying to be polite. Thank you.
I think there may be a misunderstanding worth clarifying: I never actually claimed that morality is external. I was observing that the mainstream discourse tends to treat morality as external rules—and then pointing out that the “moral muscles” metaphor implicitly contradicts that mainstream framing by treating morality as something internal and subjective. And we accept this internalization naturally.
My point to notice that people casually switch between these two framings (internal and external) without acknowledging the tension—and that this tension is worth examining more deeply.
So actually, I think we largely agree! Your point that morality is “applied conscience” existing within the mind—shaped by external training but ultimately internal—is precisely the kind of deeper examination I was calling for.
Where I was trying to go with this is your own conclusion: maybe morality is “objective, universally-true”—not just a cultural construct, not just “some guy’s opinion”, but something built into the nature of conscious beings. Your “hell-world” argument is a beautiful illustration of exactly this.
So my real question was never “is morality internal or external?” but rather: “Why does morality exist at all, and is it inevitable given the nature of conscious experience?”
Which, I think, is where you ended up too.
What we dismiss as subjective opinion may actually be a foundational structure of consciousness itself—not something consciousness possesses, but something consciousness requires in order to appear and be.

Yaroslav Boichuk 30 May 2026 7:58 UTC
−4 points
−5
on: AI Researchers, Ask Yourself These 6 Questions to Strengthen Your Moral Muscles
It is very interesting analogy that you use—“moral muscles”. I suggest to making a look at this analogy more deeply.

on the one hand—muscles are subjective thing that is managed internally.
on the other hand—the current mainstream says that moral is external rules.

this is a contradiction—merging internal and external as one thing. But most of us do not mention this contradiction. why? maybe because, there is no contradiction at our basic understanding? but something is wrong when we define internal as external or vice versa.

more details: in some way environment influences us how we manage our muscles and our morality. In general, we manage them in the way we were trained during childhood. Both are trained. Both can be affected by our environment. And both are internal subjective properties?

If it is true. How it can be? Is moral the internal structurally inevitable thing? That …

or in other words:
the beginning question should be: “What is morality, and why is it inevitable?”
not: “How do I become more moral?”

Yaroslav Boichuk 29 May 2026 10:39 UTC
1 point
0
on: Bad Problems Don’t Stop Being Bad Because Somebody’s Wrong About Fault Analysis
I think that it is the real issue. About the price and subjectivity.
All cases are estimated subjectively. Yes, some portion of estimation can be rationalised. But rationalisation requires energy. And experience dictates/chooses between price and results. It can wait, it is not so important, it is a weak disturbance. For them. For you all these cases are crucial, and you are ready to spend energy to resolve it, but again, it is your subjective view.
Could you suggest anything else that we can align our vision only through a dialogue (mutual reasoning)?

It is the dark side of thinking/reasoning, I think.

Yaroslav Boichuk 27 May 2026 8:53 UTC
1 point
0
on: Only Law Can Prevent Extinction
Hi, I’m just registered. So, can be not so aligned (it’s not about agreement) with community. Give me a pardon, please :)

This long read raises many question I’m interesting in. But at beginning the first one. About predictable violence and bad laws. Let’s try to make a look at violence and laws like any other human things in this world—tools. And from this point of view—the question is moved into other area. Not what is it and how it can be regulated. It is impossible to create an ideal tool. But how to get the most effective tool? And what? There is again not a such. In different cases different hammer is required. From this point of view the issue not violence or laws or even state—but stagnated monopoly. The state or the laws currently and violence as conscience are fixed. Technically the state is an analogy of іnsurance. Violence is required in specific cases, even unpredictable. That’s it. In the moment when everyone will have possibility to choose the state without changing the whole life, we lost most problems of laws and violence. It will be choiceable.

Not laws prevent extinction. But adaptability—the possibility to change.