Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 18-déc.-06, à 20:04, Brent Meeker a écrit : > >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >> ... >>>> Moreover, I don't have to justify it in terms of other >>>> ethical principles or commandments from God: >>> >>> With (a)comp, you have to NOT justify it in terms of God. With comp >>> (and God = +/- Plotinus'one) we could justify that any *action* made >>> in >>> the name of God is bad, even saving the planet from some attack by >>> horrible monster ... >> That seems to be a reductio against comp. > > > I know it seems a little bit paradoxical, but then it is my methodology > to take seriously the interview of the lobian machine, which is > "famous" for its many paradoxical thoughts. > It is certainly not a reductio against comp, given that we are not > arriving at a genuine contradiction. It just happens that "goodness" is > as unnameable as truth. > Now, concerning this paradox, it seems to me intuitively > comprehensible. If someone saves me from some horrible pain, then that > is (arguably) good; but if he does that in the *name* of "good", I can > understand that this naming depreciates its action. Even if personally > I am still benefiting from that situation, the naming could make me > uneasy, and who knows what will be done under that or any name.
A little uneasiness about what someone might do in the future is hardly enough to transform a good act into a bad one. It seems you are saying that if the good samaritan claimed to have performed his kind act *for any reason whatsoever* it would become a bad act. That sounds like a reductio to me. >>> Witrh comp (and the "ideal" case of self-referentially correct >>> machine) >>> it is just impossible for a machine to do something good and at the >>> same time telling she is doing something good ... (similar paradoxes >>> are illustrated in taoist and buddhist tales). >> So one cannot be reflective about one's actions and conclude they are >> good? That sounds like nonsense. > > > We can be reflective about one's actions and conclude *for ourselve* > that they are good, but lobianity prevents correct machine to > communicate it to others *as such*, if only to prevent any normative > use of a notion like "goodness". It prevents also idolatry toward names > or descriptions of "good", "true", "correct". With comp a judge can put > a machine in jail, despite its total inability to ever judge the > machine deserve jail. OK. That comports with my thought that good/bad are personal. So one can say, "I did that because I think it was good to do so." And I can try to persuade you that you should think it good too. It's just wrong to assume that there is a knowable, objective "good". > > Some buddhist told this in some provocative way: if you really love > buddha, kill it. (Not to take literally OC). > > Recall that once we interview a correct machine, be it Peano-Arithmetic > PA, or the far richer Zermelo-Fraenkel, or even the "angel" > Analysis+OmegaRule (which has infinite cognitive abilities), the first > interesting thing such machines or entity say is that they will told us > some bullshit or that they may told us some bullshit. So am I. Please, > don't infer from that that I believe to be such a *correct* machine > (that does not follow logically). I know "I" am lobian, assuming comp > or (much) weaker. I don't know (and will never known) if I am > consistent and I still less know if I am correct. > > Bruno Yes, I understand and agree with that. But you are using "know" in an absolute sense. In the everyday sense of uncertain, but probably correct belief, one can know many things - though of course not that one is consistent. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
