On Jan 29, 2008 10:28 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Mark, Nature doesn't even have survival as its 'goal', what matters is only survival in the past, not in the future, yet you start to describe strategies for future survival. Yes, survival in the future is one likely accidental property of structures that survived in the past, but so are other properties of specific living organisms. Nature is stupid, so design choices left to it are biased towards keeping much of the historical baggage and resorting to unsystematic hacks, and as a result its products are not simply optimal survivors. When we are talking about choice of conditions for humans to live in (rules of society, morality), we are trying to understand what *we* would like to choose. We are doing it for ourselves. Better understanding of *human* nature can help us to estimate how we will appreciate various conditions. And humans are very complicated things, with a large burden of reinforcers that push us in different directions based on idiosyncratic criteria. These reinforcers used to line up to support survival in the past, but so what? -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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=91706178-a90dcf
