0 Members and 284 Guests are viewing this topic.
, Quoteyou shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven;I don't know how you translate that into re-education.
you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven;
The trolley problem demonstrates just how dire the coronavirus pandemic is becoming — with a touch of surrealist humor, of course.
So. I was reading the London Review of Books the other day and came across this passage by the philosopher Kieran Setiya:Some of the most striking discoveries of experimental philosophers concern the extent of our own personal inconsistencies . . . how we respond to the trolley problem is affected by the details of the version we are presented with. It also depends on what we have been doing just before being presented with the case. After five minutes of watching Saturday Night Live, Americans are three times more likely to agree with the Tibetan monks that it is permissible to push someone in front of a speeding train carriage in order to save five. . . .I’m not up on this literature, but I was suspicious. Watching a TV show for 5 minutes can change your view so strongly?? I was reminded of the claim from a few years ago, that subliminal smiley faces had huge effects on attitudes toward immigration—it turns out the data showed no such thing. And I was bothered, because it seemed that a possibly false fact was being used as part of a larger argument about philosophy. The concept of “experimental philosophy”—that’s interesting, but only if the experiments make sense.
And, just to be clear, I agree that there’s nothing special about an SNL video or for that matter about a video at all. My concern about the replication studies is more of a selection issue: if a new study doesn’t replicate the original claim, then a defender can say it’s not a real replication. I guess we could call that “the no true replication fallacy”! Kinda like those notorious examples where people claimed that a failed replication didn’t count because it was done in a different country, or the stimulus was done for a different length of time, or the outdoor temperature was different.The real question is, what did they find and how do these findings relate to the larger claim?And the answer is, it’s complicated.First, the two new studies only look at the footbridge scenario (where the decision is whether to push the fat man), not the flip-the-switch-on-the-trolley scenario, which is not so productive to study because most people are already willing to flip the switch. So the new studies to not allow comparison the two scenarios. (Strohminger et al. used 12 high conflict moral dilemmas; see here)Second, the two new studies looked at interactions rather than main effects.
"The Trolley Problem"—as the above situation and its related variations are called—is a mainstay of introductory ethics courses, where it is often used to demonstrate the differences between utilitarian and Kantian moral reasoning. Utilitarianism (also called consequentialism) judges the moral correctness of an action based solely on its outcome. A utilitarian should switch the tracks. Just do the math: One dead is better than five, in terms of outcomes. Kantian, or rule-based, ethics relies on a set of moral principles that must be followed in all situations, regardless of outcome. A Kantian might not be able to justify switching the track if, say, their moral principles hold actively killing someone to be worse than being a bystander to death.
The rise of autonomous vehicles has given the thought experiment a renewed urgency. If a self-driving car has to choose between crashing into two different people—or two different groups of people—how should it decide which to kill, and which to spare? What value system are we coding into our machines?These questions about autonomous vehicles have, for years, been haunting journalists and academics. Last month, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released the results of its "Moral Machine," an online survey of two million people across 200 countries, demonstrating their preferences for, well, who they'd prefer a self-driving car to kill. Should a car try to hit jaywalkers, rather than people following the rules for crossing? Senior citizens rather than younger people? People in better social standing than those less well-regarded?
One concern I have is with regard to how the moral machine project has been publicized is that, for ethicists, looking at what other cultures think about different ethical questions is interesting, but [that work] is not ethics. It might cause people to think that all that ethics is is just about surveying different groups and seeing what their values are, and then those values are the right ones. I'm concerned about moral relativism, which is already very troubling with our world, and this may be playing with that. In ethics, there's a right and there's a wrong, and this might confuse people about what ethics is. We don't call people up and then survey them.
Quote from: alancalverd on 25/02/2020 06:24:38Cogito ergo sum is just one of an infinite number of possible axioms. It's not a strong foundation.Decartes demonstrated by reductio ad absurdum, that if a thinker rejects its own existence, it leads to contradiction. QuoteAt the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt—his argument from the existence of a deceiving god—Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17[v])There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he claims only the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he does not say that his existence is necessary; he says that if he thinks, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition "I am, I exist" is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) or on empirical induction but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition. Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to discover further truths.[35] As he puts it:Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable. (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum#Interpretation
Cogito ergo sum is just one of an infinite number of possible axioms. It's not a strong foundation.
At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt—his argument from the existence of a deceiving god—Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17[v])There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he claims only the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he does not say that his existence is necessary; he says that if he thinks, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition "I am, I exist" is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) or on empirical induction but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition. Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to discover further truths.[35] As he puts it:Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable. (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl0yTN-P0TYThe video is titled "The Self - A Thought Experiment". Spoiler: showAn omniscient conscious being doesn't have subjectivity.QuoteProfessor Patrick Stokes of Deakin University gives a thought experiment from Thomas Nagel. This comes from a talk given at the Ethics Centre from an episode of the podcast The Philosopher's Zone.
Professor Patrick Stokes of Deakin University gives a thought experiment from Thomas Nagel. This comes from a talk given at the Ethics Centre from an episode of the podcast The Philosopher's Zone.
Typical philosopher's problem. Based on a dangerously faulty premise! The list of everything in the universe must include the list itself, but the existence of the list is itself a fact that must now be added to the list, so we must add the fact that we have added a fact to the list..... But a philosopher would set that aside, allowing an infinitely expanding list (on the basis that cogito ergo sum applies also to lists). Now look yourself up in the list. You are doing something that isn't already on the list, so we have to add that to the description of you, ad infinitum... The problem becomes one of mathematics: you can't define "you" on the basis of that particular model. It's an inherently crap model because it imposes divergency on any proposed solution.
In many situations we don't need infinite precision. We can often make good decision with finite information.
I conclude that their purpose is to preserve the existence of consciousness in objective reality.
I bet you can't define any of those words!
Without delving too deeply into the definition of morality or ethics, I think we can usefully approach the subject through "universal". The test is whether any person considered normal by his peers, would make the same choice or judgement as any other in a case requiring subjective evaluation.
their purpose is to preserve the existence of consciousness in objective reality.
for moral rules... I conclude that their purpose is to preserve the existence of consciousness in objective reality.
How about moral rules being the lubricant of society?
Mass murder in JonestownHouses in Jonestown, Guyana, the year after the mass murder-suicide, 1979Later that same day, 909 inhabitants of Jonestown,[94] 304 of them children, died of apparent cyanide poisoning, mostly in and around the settlement's main pavilion.[95] This resulted in the greatest single loss of American civilian life (murder + suicide, though not on American soil) in a deliberate act until the September 11 attacks.[96] The FBI later recovered a 45-minute audio recording of the suicide in progress.[97]On that tape, Jones tells Temple members that the Soviet Union, with whom the Temple had been negotiating a potential exodus for months, would not take them after the airstrip murders. The reason given by Jones to commit suicide was consistent with his previously stated conspiracy theories of intelligence organizations allegedly conspiring against the Temple, that men would "parachute in here on us," "shoot some of our innocent babies" and "they'll torture our children, they'll torture some of our people here, they'll torture our seniors." Jones's prior statements that hostile forces would convert captured children to fascism would lead many members who held strong opposing views to fascism to view the suicide as valid. [98]With that reasoning, Jones and several members argued that the group should commit "revolutionary suicide" by drinking cyanide-laced grape-flavored Flavor Aid. Later-released Temple films show Jones opening a storage container full of Kool-Aid in large quantities. However, empty packets of grape Flavor Aid found on the scene show that this is what was used to mix the solution, along with a sedative. One member, Christine Miller, dissents toward the beginning of the tape.[98]When members apparently cried, Jones counseled, "Stop these hysterics. This is not the way for people who are socialists or communists to die. No way for us to die. We must die with some dignity." Jones can be heard saying, "Don't be afraid to die," that death is "just stepping over into another plane" and that it's "a friend." At the end of the tape, Jones concludes: "We didn't commit suicide; we committed an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world."[98]According to escaping Temple members, children were given the drink first by their own parents; families were told to lie down together.[99] Mass suicide had been previously discussed in simulated events called "White Nights" on a regular basis.[83][100] During at least one such prior White Night, members drank liquid that Jones falsely told them was poison.[83][100]
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 29/04/2020 10:58:44In many situations we don't need infinite precision. We can often make good decision with finite information.Precision isn't the problem. It's the more fundamental issue of the properties of a set which is member of itself - maths, not philosophy or morals!
The cogito ergo sum provide subjective certainty as a starting point. To get to objective certainty, we need to collect and assemble more information and knowledge to build an accurate and precise model of objective reality.
The progress to build better AI and toward AGI will eventually get closer to the realization of Laplace demon which is already predicted as technological singularity.QuoteThe better we can predict, the better we can prevent and pre-empt. As you can see, with neural networks, we’re moving towards a world of fewer surprises. Not zero surprises, just marginally fewer. We’re also moving toward a world of smarter agents that combine neural networks with other algorithms like reinforcement learning to attain goals.https://pathmind.com/wiki/neural-networkQuoteIn some circles, neural networks are thought of as “brute force” AI, because they start with a blank slate and hammer their way through to an accurate model. They are effective, but to some eyes inefficient in their approach to modeling, which can’t make assumptions about functional dependencies between output and input.That said, gradient descent is not recombining every weight with every other to find the best match – its method of pathfinding shrinks the relevant weight space, and therefore the number of updates and required computation, by many orders of magnitude. Moreover, algorithms such as Hinton’s capsule networks require far fewer instances of data to converge on an accurate model; that is, present research has the potential to resolve the brute force nature of deep learning.
The better we can predict, the better we can prevent and pre-empt. As you can see, with neural networks, we’re moving towards a world of fewer surprises. Not zero surprises, just marginally fewer. We’re also moving toward a world of smarter agents that combine neural networks with other algorithms like reinforcement learning to attain goals.
In some circles, neural networks are thought of as “brute force” AI, because they start with a blank slate and hammer their way through to an accurate model. They are effective, but to some eyes inefficient in their approach to modeling, which can’t make assumptions about functional dependencies between output and input.That said, gradient descent is not recombining every weight with every other to find the best match – its method of pathfinding shrinks the relevant weight space, and therefore the number of updates and required computation, by many orders of magnitude. Moreover, algorithms such as Hinton’s capsule networks require far fewer instances of data to converge on an accurate model; that is, present research has the potential to resolve the brute force nature of deep learning.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf for moral rules... I conclude that their purpose is to preserve the existence of consciousness in objective reality.Many species have been observed to have rules of moral behavior that work for them.But we can't easily define consciousness in humans, let alone define what it means for other species (even familiar ones like the domesticated dog).- Of course, the anthropocentric chauvinists default to "consciousness is unique to humans..."
Given that superintelligence will one day be technologically feasible, will people choose to develop it? Thisquestion can pretty confidently be answered in the affirmative. Associated with every step along the road tosuperintelligence are enormous economic payoffs. The computer industry invests huge sums in the nextgeneration of hardware and software, and it will continue doing so as long as there is a competitive pressureand profits to be made. People want better computers and smarter software, and they want the benefits thesemachines can help produce. Better medical drugs; relief for humans from the need to perform boring ordangerous jobs; entertainment—there is no end to the list of consumer-benefits. There is also a strong militarymotive to develop artificial intelligence. And nowhere on the path is there any natural stopping point wheretechnophobics could plausibly argue "hither but not further."—NICK BOSTROM, “HOW LONG BEFORE SUPERINTELLIGENCE?” 1997It is hard to think of any problem that a superintelligence could not either solve or at least help us solve.Disease, poverty, environmental destruction, unnecessary suffering of all kinds: these are things that asuperintelligence equipped with advanced nanotechnology would be capable of eliminating. Additionally, asuperintelligence could give us indefinite lifespan, either by stopping and reversing the aging process throughthe use of nanomedicine, or by offering us the option to upload ourselves. A superintelligence could alsocreate opportunities for us to vastly increase our own intellectual and emotional capabilities, and it couldassist us in creating a highly appealing experiential world in which we could live lives devoted to joyfulgameplaying, relating to each other, experiencing, personal growth, and to living closer to our ideals.—NICK BOSTROM, “ETHICAL ISSUES IN ADVANCED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE," 2003Will robots inherit the earth? Yes, but they will be our children.—MARVIN MINSKY, 1995
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Kohlberg began work on this topic while being a psychology graduate student at the University of Chicago in 1958 and expanded upon the theory throughout his life.[1][2][3]The theory holds that moral reasoning, a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for ethical behavior,[4] has six developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor.[5] Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment far beyond the ages studied earlier by Piaget, who also claimed that logic and morality develop through constructive stages.[6][5] Expanding on Piaget's work, Kohlberg determined that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice and that it continued throughout the individual's life, a notion that led to dialogue on the philosophical implications of such research.[7][8][2]The six stages of moral development occur in phases of pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional morality. For his studies, Kohlberg relied on stories such as the Heinz dilemma and was interested in how individuals would justify their actions if placed in similar moral dilemmas. He analyzed the form of moral reasoning displayed, rather than its conclusion and classified it into one of six stages.[2][9][10][11]
Kohlberg's six stages can be more generally grouped into three levels of two stages each: pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional.[9][10][11] Following Piaget's constructivist requirements for a stage model, as described in his theory of cognitive development, it is extremely rare to regress in stages—to lose the use of higher stage abilities.[16][17] Stages cannot be skipped; each provides a new and necessary perspective, more comprehensive and differentiated than its predecessors but integrated with them.[16][17]Kohlberg's Model of Moral DevelopmentLevel 1 (Pre-Conventional)1. Obedience and punishment orientation(How can I avoid punishment?)2. Self-interest orientation(What's in it for me?)(Paying for a benefit)Level 2 (Conventional)3. Interpersonal accord and conformity(Social norms)(The good boy/girl attitude)4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation(Law and order morality)Level 3 (Post-Conventional)5. Social contract orientation6. Universal ethical principles(Principled conscience)The understanding gained in each stage is retained in later stages, but may be regarded by those in later stages as simplistic, lacking in sufficient attention to detail.