Brent Meeker writes:
Do you not think it is possible to exercise judgement with just a
hierarchy of motivation?
Yes and no. It is possible given arbitrarily long time and other resources to
work out the consequences, or at least a best estimate of the consequences, of
actions. But
Mark,
Let me make it clear at this late point in the debate that, just because I
don't believe there is any absolute morality, I don't thereby think it is OK
for anyone to do any horrible thing they want. I have my own values, as it
happens broadly in agreement with what you have outlined
Le 28-déc.-06, à 01:32, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
OK, an AI needs at least motivation if it is to do anything, and we
could call motivation a feeling or emotion. Also, some sort of
hierarchy of motivations is needed if it is to decide that saving the
world
Le 27-déc.-06, à 23:40, Jef Allbright a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 27-déc.-06, à 19:10, Jef Allbright a écrit :
All meaning is necessarily within context.
OK, but all context could make sense only to
some universal meaning. I mean I don't know,
it is difficult.
But this can be
Le 27-déc.-06, à 19:39, Brent Meeker a écrit :
I do infer from experience that there is some reality. Sometime ago,
Bruno wrote:
Hence a Reality, yes. But not necessarily a physical reality. Here is
the logical dependence:
NUMBERS - MACHINE DREAMS - PHYSICAL - HUMANS - PHYSICS -
NUMBERS.
Jef Allbright writes:
My personal experience is that there's no paradox at all if one is
willing to fully accept that within any framework of description there
is absolutely no difference at all between a person and a zombie, but
even the most philosophically cognizant, being evolved human
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 28-déc.-06, à 01:32, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
OK, an AI needs at least motivation if it is to do anything, and we
could call motivation a feeling or emotion. Also, some sort of
hierarchy of motivations is needed if it is to
I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy. If there is
something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted
me to address, just bring it back up.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 26-d c.-06, 19:54, Tom Caylor a crit :
On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL
Tom Caylor writes (quoting Bruno Marchal):
[TC]
My whole argument is that without it our hope eventually runs out and
we are left with despair, unless we lie to ourselves against the
absence of hope.
[BM]
Here Stathis already give a genuine comment. You are just admitting
your
Hi Jef,
Please, don't hesitate to skip the remarks you could find a bit too
technical, but which could help others who know perhaps a bit more on G
and G*, which are theories which I use to tackle many questions in this
list. You can come back on those remarks if ever
you got time and
Le 28-déc.-06, à 21:54, Brent Meeker a écrit : (to Jef)
I think objective should just be understood as denoting subjective
agreement from different viewpoints.
Curiosuly enough perhaps I could agree if you were saying physically
objective can be understood as denoting subjective
Le 29-déc.-06, à 10:39, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
You seem to be including in your definition of the UM the
*motivation*, not just the ability, to explore all mathematical
objects. But you could also program the machine to do anything else
you wanted, such as self-destruct when it
Bruno -
It appears that you and I have essential agreement on our higher-level
epistemology.
But I don't know much about your comp so I'll begin reading.
- Jef
Bruno Marchal wrote:
With increasing context of self-awareness, subjective values
increasingly resemble principles of the
Le 29-déc.-06, à 10:57, Tom Caylor a écrit :
I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy. If there is
something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted
me to address, just bring it back up.
No problem, Tom. In fact I will print your post and read it
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Jef Allbright writes:
My personal experience is that there's no paradox
at all if one is willing to fully accept that within
any framework of description there is absolutely
no difference at all between a person and a
zombie, but even the most philosophically
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I realised when I was about 12 or 13 years old that there
could not be any ultimate meaning. I was very pleased and
excited with this discovery, and ran around trying to explain
it to people (mostly drawing blank looks, as I remember).
It seemed to me just another
Thanks Bruno. Much of your terminology at this point escapes me.
I do see that a small part of our differences below are simply due to the
imprecision of language (and my somewhat sloppy writing.)
I also sense that at the core of much of this discussion is the idea that, although we are
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Jef Allbright writes:
My personal experience is that there's no paradox at all if one is
willing to fully accept that within any framework of description there
is absolutely no difference at all between a person and a zombie, but
even the most philosophically
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
Do you not think it is possible to exercise judgement with just a
hierarchy of motivation?
Yes and no. It is possible given arbitrarily long time and other
resources to work out the consequences, or at least a best estimate of
the
Tom Caylor wrote:
I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy. If there is
something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted
me to address, just bring it back up.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 26-d c.-06, 19:54, Tom Caylor a crit :
On Dec 26, 9:51 am,
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes (quoting Bruno Marchal):
[TC]
My whole argument is that without it our hope eventually runs out and
we are left with despair, unless we lie to ourselves against the
absence of hope.
[BM]
Here Stathis already give a genuine comment. You
SP: ' I don't thereby think it is OK for anyone to do any horrible thing
they want. I have my own values, as it happens broadly in agreement with
what you have outlined below.'
MP: I assumed as such :-)
Furthermore I tend to think that we also will agree on a tenet I believe
is attributed
Bruno Marchal writes:
You seem to be including in your definition of the UM the
*motivation*, not just the ability, to explore all mathematical
objects. But you could also program the machine to do anything else
you wanted, such as self-destruct when it solved a particular theorem.
Brent meeker writes:
and if so what would determine if that negative emotion is pain,
disgust, loathing or something completely different that no
biological organism has ever experienced?
I'd assess them according to their function in analogy with biological
system experiences.
24 matches
Mail list logo
