This does not mean that certain practices are good or bad. If there was
such a thing, then there would be no debate about war, abortion,
euthanasia, capital punishment, or animal rights, because these questions
could be answered experimentally.
Given a goal and a context, there is absolutely such a thing as good or bad.
The problem with the examples that you cited is that you're attempting to
generalize to a universal answer across contexts (because I would argue that
there is a useful universal goal) which is nonsensical. All of this can be
answered both logically and experimentally if you just ask the right
question instead of engaging in vacuous hand-waving about how tough it all
is after you've mindlessly expanded your problem beyond solution.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Mahoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:58 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive
experimentation
--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your 'belief' explanation is a cop-out because it
does not address any of the issues that need to be addressed
for something to count as a definition or an explanation of
the facts that need to be explained.
As I explained, animals that have no concept of death have nevertheless
evolved to fear most of the things that can kill them. Humans have learned
to associate these things with death, and invented the concept of
consciousness as the large set of features which distinguishes living
humans from dead humans. Thus, humans fear the loss or destruction of
consciousness, which is equivalent to death.
Consciousness, free will, qualia, and good and bad are universal human
beliefs. We should not confuse them with truth by asking the wrong
questions. Thus, Turing sidestepped the question of "can machines think?"
by asking instead "can machines appear to think"? Since we can't (by
definition) distinguish doing something from appearing to do something, it
makes no sense for us to make this distinction.
Likewise, asking if it is ethical to inflict simulated pain on machines is
asking the wrong question. Evolution favors the survival of tribes that
practice altruism toward other tribe members and teach these ethical
values to their children. This does not mean that certain practices are
good or bad. If there was such a thing, then there would be no debate
about war, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, or animal rights,
because these questions could be answered experimentally.
The question is not "how should machines be treated"? The question is "how
will we treat machines"?
My proposal is being written up now and will be available
at the end of tomorrow. It does address all of the facts
that need to be explained.
I am looking forward to reading it.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
