On 30 Aug 2012, at 23:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with
invariants.
in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired
programs.
codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic
program, which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this
is an amazing homogeneity for a single specie).
These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact
in a social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there
are Nash equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of
well being for all withing the constraints of human nature called
nash equilibriums are the moral code.
These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly
according with the social coordinates. They are lines of surface
maximums. These maximums are know by our intuition because we have
suffered social selection, so a knowledge of them are intuitive.
That we have suffered social selection means that the groups of
hominids or the individual hominids whose conducts were away from
the nash equilibriums dissapeared. To be near these equilibriums
was an advantage so we have these hardwired intuitions, that the
greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul.
What happens a broad variety of moral behaviours are really the
expression of the same moral code operating in different
circunstances where the optimum has been displaced. There are very
interesting studies, for example in foundational book of
evolutionary psychology "The adapted mind"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind
about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child
in extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would
be at the extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a
affluent society close to ours, the rules are quite "normal". Both
the normal behaviour or the extreme behaviour is created by the same
basic algoritm of individual/social optimization. No matter if we
see this from a dynamic way (contemplating the variations and
extremes) or a static one contemplating a "normal" society, the
moral is a unique, universal rule system. Thanks to the research on
evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game theory, It
is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that await
a development of evolutionary morals
Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of
morality.
I agree with this. But we must not confuse compuational analogies,
which can be inspiring but are analogies only, and the comp
hypothesis, where we bet we digitally truncable at some level. the
second assertion does indeed break many computer analogies, like it
breaks down digital physics, or the idea that consciousness is a
program or a computation.
Bruno
Should I eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on
the anticipation of statistical probabilities, etc...no different
than how the equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood determines
whether I inhale or exhale.
This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies
and instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a
person or a universe based on this description, what would we get?
Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and
shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found
in the banal evils of game theory.
To understand morals we must look at sense and motive, and how the
association of transgressive motives (criminality) is associated
fairly and unfairly with transgressive sense (images, characters
worthy of disgust, shame, etc). We must understand how super-
signifying images are telegraphed socially through and second-hand
exaggeration and dramatization, of story-telling and parenting,
demagoguery, religious authority, etc. Morality is politics. It is
the subjective topology which elevates and lowers events, objects,
people, places, behaviors, etc so that we enforce our own behavioral
control before outside authorities need to. It isn't only a
mathematical system of rules, it is a visceral drama. Consciousness
computes, but consciousness itself has almost nothing to do with
computation. It is experience. That is all there is.
Consciousness, as a first person experience, is provably not a
computable phenomenon. This is a consequence of comp, not an argument
against it.
One can experience the computation of other experiences, but without
experience, there is no access to computation.
That is arithmetical solipsism, and is wrong in the comp theory.
Bruno
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/5ukgWqsvjuUJ
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
