How do you propose grounding ethics?
Ethics is building and maintaining healthy relationships for the betterment
of all. Evolution has equipped us all with a good solid moral sense that
frequently we don't/can't even override with our short-sighted selfish
desires (that, more frequently than not, eventually end up screwing us over
when we follow them). It's pretty easy to ground ethics as long as you
realize that there are some cases that are just too close to call with the
information that you possess at the time you need to make a decision. But
then again, that's precisely what intelligence is -- making effective
decisions under uncertainty.
I have a complex model that says some things are right and others are
wrong.
That's nice -- but you've already pointed out that your model has numerous
shortcomings such that you won't even stand behind it. Why do you keep
bringing it up? It's like saying "I have an economic theory" when you
clearly don't have the expertise to form a competent one.
So does everyone else. These models don't agree.
And lots of people have theories of creationism. Do you want to use that to
argue that evolution is incorrect?
How do you propose testing whether a model is correct or not?
By determining whether it is useful and predictive -- just like what we
always do when we're practicing science (as opposed to spouting BS).
If everyone agreed that torturing people was wrong, then torture wouldn't
exist.
Wrong. People agree that things are wrong and then they go and do them
anyways because they believe that it is beneficial for them. Why do you
spout obviously untrue BS?
How do you prove that Richard's definition of consciousness is correct and
Colin's is wrong, or vice versa? All you can say about either definition
is that some entities are conscious and others are not, according to
whichever definition you accept. But so what?
Wow! You really do practice useless sophistry. For definitions, correct
simply means useful and predictive. I'll go with whichever definition most
accurately reflects the world. Are you trying to propose that there is an
absolute truth out there as far as definitions go?
Because people nevertheless make this arbitrary distinction in order to
make ethical decisions.
So when lemmings go into the river you believe that they are correct and you
should follow them?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Mahoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of
consciousness
--- On Sun, 11/16/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wrote:
>> I think the reason that the hard question is
interesting at all is that it would presumably be OK to
torture a zombie because it doesn't actually experience
pain, even though it would react exactly like a human being
tortured. That's an ethical question. Ethics is a belief
system that exists in our minds about what we should or
should not do. There is no objective experiment you can do
that will tell you whether any act, such as inflicting pain
on a human, animal, or machine, is ethical or not. The only
thing you can measure is belief, for example, by taking a
poll.
What is the point to ethics? The reason why you can't
do objective experiments is because *YOU* don't have a
grounded concept of ethics. The second that you ground your
concepts in effects that can be seen in "the real
world", there are numerous possible experiments.
How do you propose grounding ethics? I have a complex model that says some
things are right and others are wrong. So does everyone else. These models
don't agree. How do you propose testing whether a model is correct or not?
If everyone agreed that torturing people was wrong, then torture wouldn't
exist.
The same is true of consciousness. The hard problem of
consciousness is hard because the question is ungrounded.
Define all of the arguments in terms of things that appear
and matter in the real world and the question goes away.
It's only because you invent ungrounded unprovable
distinctions that the so-called hard problem appears.
How do you prove that Richard's definition of consciousness is correct and
Colin's is wrong, or vice versa? All you can say about either definition
is that some entities are conscious and others are not, according to
whichever definition you accept. But so what?
Torturing a p-zombie is unethical because whether it feels
pain or not is 100% irrelevant in "the real
world". If it 100% acts as if it feels pain, then for
all purposes that matter it does feel pain. Why invent this
mystical situation where it doesn't feel pain yet acts
as if it does?
Because people nevertheless make this arbitrary distinction in order to
make ethical decisions. Torturing a p-zombie is only wrong according to
some ethical models but not others. The same is true about doing animal
experiments, or running autobliss with two negative arguments. If you ask
people why they think so, a common response is that the things that it is
not ethical to torture are conscious.
Richard's paper attempts to solve the hard problem by
grounding some of the silliness. It's the best possible
effort short of just ignoring the silliness and going on to
something else that is actually relevant to the real world.
I agree. This whole irrelevant discussion of consciousness is getting
tedious.
-- 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
