Ethics only becomes snarled when one is unwilling to decide/declare what the goal of life is.
Extrapolated Volition comes down to a homunculus depending upon the definition of wiser or saner. Evolution has "decided" what the goal of life is . . . . but most are unwilling to accept it (in part because most do not see it as anything other than "nature, red in tooth and claw"). The "goal" in life is simply continuation and continuity. Evolution goes for continuation of species -- which has an immediate subgoal of continuation of individuals (and sex and protection of offspring). Continuation of individuals is best served by the construction of and continuation of society. If we're smart, we should decide that the goal of ethics is the continuation of society with an immediate subgoal of the will of individuals (for a large variety of reasons -- but the most obvious and easily justified is to prevent the defection of said individuals). If an AGI is considered a willed individual and a member of society and has the same ethics, life will be much easier and there will be a lot less chance of the "Eliezer-scenario". There is no enslavement of Jupiter-brains and no elimination/suppression of "lesser" individuals in favor of "greater" individuals -- just a realization that society must promote individuals and individuals must promote society. Oh, and contrary to popular belief -- ethics has absolutely nothing to do with pleasure or pain and *any* ethics based on such are doomed to failure. Pleasure is "evolution's reward" to us when we do something that promotes "evolution's goals". Pain is "evolution's punishment" when we do something (or have something done) that is contrary to survival, etc. And while both can be subverted so that they don't properly indicate guidance -- in reality, that is all that they are --> guideposts towards other goals. Pleasure is a BAD goal because it can interfere with other goals. Avoidance of pain (or infliction of pain) is only a good goal in that it furthers other goals. Suicide is contrary to continuation. Euthanasia is recognition that, in some cases, there is no meaningful continuation. Life extension should be optional at least as long as there are resource constraints. ----- Original Message ----- From: Joshua Fox To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [agi] OpenMind, MindPixel founders both commit suicide When transhumanists talk about indefinite life extension, they often take care to say "it's optional" to forestall one common objection. Yet I feel that most suicides we see should have been prevented -- that the person should have been taken into custody and treated if possible, even against their will, How to reconcile a strong belief in free choice with the belief that suicide is most often the result of insanity, not the victim's "true" free will? Eliezer's "Extrapolated Volition" suggests that we take into account what the suicidal person would have wanted if they were wiser or saner. That is one solution, though it does not quite satisfy me. This is a basic ethical question, which takes on more relevance in the context of transhumanism, life extension, and F/AGI theory. Joshua ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=91171134-d7a01a
