0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
There you go again, presuming the validity of a terminal goal concept and not specifying what the TG might be.
This thread is dedicated to discuss about universal terminal goal and try to answer the what and why questions on it. Related to this thread, I also started another threads to discuss some consequences and necessary instrumental goals to help achieving that universal terminal goal. But course of discussion led me to answer the what question there too, which makes them overlap. Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 30/06/2020 16:10:06Quote from: alancalverd on 28/06/2020 18:35:44Please remind me, in one paragraph, of your universal terminal goal, and whether we agreed on it!Keeping the existence of the last conscious being.Any conscious being can be considered as a modified copy of it, hence there is some value in keeping their existence.In other word, the universal terminal goal is to protect conscious being from existential threats. The death of the last conscious being means that there could be no goals anymore and everything becomes indifferent.
Quote from: alancalverd on 28/06/2020 18:35:44Please remind me, in one paragraph, of your universal terminal goal, and whether we agreed on it!Keeping the existence of the last conscious being.Any conscious being can be considered as a modified copy of it, hence there is some value in keeping their existence.
Please remind me, in one paragraph, of your universal terminal goal, and whether we agreed on it!
You can't require morality to span across species. What is good for homo sapiens is not good for malarial plasmodia. I doubt that lions and wildebeeste would agree on a definition of a terminal goal, though they might concur, for different reasons, on the desirability of a clean kill.
Competition, such as evolutionary arms race can be viewed as a tool to achieve better systems faster. That's why NASA doesn't want to have single supplier, even when there was a clear winner.
I started this thread with definition in the hope to prevent unnecessary debates due to informal fallacies which makes it inefficient.This is from Google.Quotenoun: moralityprinciples concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.a particular system of values and principles of conduct.the extent to which an action is right or wrong.Finding a universal morality requires that we don't add arbitrary restrictions into our definition of morality, such as:It's only applicable to certain tribe, culture, nationality, species, molecular structure.How good or how bad a behaviour of an agent is is evaluated by its effect to the achievement of the terminal goal of the agent. A behaviour is good if it helps achieving the terminal goal, and bad if it prevents/hinders the achievement of the terminal goal. Hence a universal morality is closely related to the universal terminal goal.
noun: moralityprinciples concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.a particular system of values and principles of conduct.the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
The problem of individuality is very important to clarify if we want to build argumentation about morality. People often limit their scope of individuality to commonly found cases, which are biological human individuals. Some have expanded its definition to include other biological animal. But very few seem to be willing to expand it further to other systems, such as non-biological entities.Even if we restrict individuality to only include biological entities, we still face problems, e.g:- people with multiple personality disorder.- conjoined twins- double headed animals- half brained person (e.g. the other half has been removed due to a disease)- biological colony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_(biology)#Modular_organisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree) - symbionts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen - parasites- cancer cells- organellesHow should we count the number of individus when being presented with those things? The problem arise if we treat individuality as a discrete thing. Using the concept of individuality as mentioned in my previous post can help solve this problem.If we look back to biological evolutionary process, multicellular organisms are products of cells letting go some of their individuality to form a bigger system which gains some individuality. Those cells lose some basic functionalities so they can no longer survive when set free in an open environment. But they can develop special functionalities which are useful for the bigger system they are being part of, such as photosensitivity, nervous system, circulatory system, armor for protection, food digestion, chemical weaponry. Similar story also happened when ancestor of mitochondria were engulfed by archaea to form eukaryotic organisms. Another similar story is the formation of ant or bee colonies.The case of modern human has similarity too. Many of them have very specialised skill set which make no longer capable to survive in the wilderness for long duration. They depend on their society. How many people still grow/hunt their own food, build their own house, knit their own clothes, or heal their own wound?
IMO, any actions can be classified morally into 3 categories : - moral actions lead to desired conditions. The desired result can be achieved more reliably with better information.- immoral actions lead to undesired conditions. The undesired result can be achieved more reliably with better information.- amoral actions are indefferent to resulting conditions. The reliability of result isn't affected by any amount of information.At a glance, they seem to be applicable for consequentialist ethics only, and not rule based ethics. But that's not the case, since rule based ethics merely elevate "obedience to some arbitrary rules" as the desired conditions. Those rules in turn need justification from a more fundamental principle.
A universal utopia, if there is one, would be classified as a meme. And just like any other memes, it will compete for its existence in memory space, whether in people's minds or computer's storage devices.
Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways, including:"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."Probably named after a Robert J. Hanlon, it is a philosophical razor which suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior.
Jephthah is referenced once in the Epistle to the Hebrews 11:32 where he is commended for his faith.
- moral actions lead to desired conditions. The desired result can be achieved more reliably with better information.
- immoral actions lead to undesired conditions. The undesired result can be achieved more reliably with better information.
- amoral actions are indefferent to resulting conditions. The reliability of result isn't affected by any amount of information.
And what happened when the Aztecs stopped sacrificing humans? They were wiped out by the Christians.
desired by whom? We both fancy the same woman. I know enough about her to start a conversation that leads to marriage, wherein I treat her badly. You are a good bloke who would treat her well but don't know where to begin.
Quote from: alancalverd on 27/08/2020 10:58:50desired by whom? We both fancy the same woman. I know enough about her to start a conversation that leads to marriage, wherein I treat her badly. You are a good bloke who would treat her well but don't know where to begin.Desired by a conscious system.
What do you think would happen if they didn't stop sacrificing humans? Would it prevent them from being wiped out by the Christians?
And in this example, both you and I are presumed to be conscious, whatever that means.
If you aren't very careful, you will end up defining a moral action as an action that is moral!
Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logical conclusion.Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.Deductive reasoning ("top-down logic") contrasts with inductive reasoning ("bottom-up logic") in the following way; in deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules which hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) is left (there is no epistemic uncertainty; i.e. unrecognized parts of the currently available set; all parts of the currently available set are available and recognized). In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from specific cases to general rules, i.e., there is epistemic uncertainty (unrecognized parts of the currently available set). However, the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full assurance, for the truth of the conclusion. It is also described as a method where one's experiences and observations, including what are learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth. Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations (arguing from specific to general), although there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form.
The law seems to be reasonably consistent: humans use machines, not the other way around, and humans make decisions. The decision to engage autopilot or rely on an AI diagnosis, immediately confers liability on the person who made that decision, not on the machine or the machine designer, unless the machine is explicitly sold as "life critical". So for all practical purposes we can ignore the consciousness, whatever that is, of any person or thing other than the primary agent, in deciding whether an action is moral. Thus the Golden Rule is all you need.