0 Members and 299 Guests are viewing this topic.
Did they have the same goal when they were still children?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2020 21:55:24Did they have the same goal when they were still children?Quite probably. The one thing career politicians of all colors have in common is that they obviously had no friends at school.
If we know what the universal terminal goal is, than the answer to morality would become straightforward. The more information we have about the situation can only be useful if we have the fundamentals right. As I mentioned before, not every bit of information has the same significance. In every project, the goal is always one of the most significant bit of information, if not the most. If we set the wrong goal, then the more other bits of information that we get will only bring us further away from achieving the right goal. The project I'm talking about here is living a meaningful life.In another thread I've mentioned about deep believe network which models how a conscious agent work. The terminal goal of a conscious agent would reside in the deepest layer of the believe network.Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 12/11/2020 04:23:51Intelligent agents are expected to have the ability to learn from raw data. It means that they have tools to pre-process those raw data to filter out noises or flukes and extract useful information. When those agents interact with one another, especially when they must compete for finite resources, the more important is the ability to filter out misinformation. It requires an algorithm to determine if some data inputs are believable or not. At this point we are seeing that artificial intelligence is getting closer to natural intelligence. This exhibits a feature similar to critical thinking of conscious beings.Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/11/2020 22:04:11Descartes has pointed out that the only self evident information a conscious agent can get is its own existence. Any other information requires corroborating evidences to support it. So in the end, the reliability of an information will be measured/valued by its ability to help preserving conscious agents.QuoteIn machine learning, a deep belief network (DBN) is a generative graphical model, or alternatively a class of deep neural network, composed of multiple layers of latent variables ("hidden units"), with connections between the layers but not between units within each layer.[1]When trained on a set of examples without supervision, a DBN can learn to probabilistically reconstruct its inputs. The layers then act as feature detectors.[1] After this learning step, a DBN can be further trained with supervision to perform classification.[2]DBNs can be viewed as a composition of simple, unsupervised networks such as restricted Boltzmann machines (RBMs)[1] or autoencoders,[3] where each sub-network's hidden layer serves as the visible layer for the next. An RBM is an undirected, generative energy-based model with a "visible" input layer and a hidden layer and connections between but not within layers. This composition leads to a fast, layer-by-layer unsupervised training procedure, where contrastive divergence is applied to each sub-network in turn, starting from the "lowest" pair of layers (the lowest visible layer is a training set).The observation[2] that DBNs can be trained greedily, one layer at a time, led to one of the first effective deep learning algorithms.[4]:6 Overall, there are many attractive implementations and uses of DBNs in real-life applications and scenarios (e.g., electroencephalography,[5] drug discovery[6][7][8]).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_belief_network
Intelligent agents are expected to have the ability to learn from raw data. It means that they have tools to pre-process those raw data to filter out noises or flukes and extract useful information. When those agents interact with one another, especially when they must compete for finite resources, the more important is the ability to filter out misinformation. It requires an algorithm to determine if some data inputs are believable or not. At this point we are seeing that artificial intelligence is getting closer to natural intelligence. This exhibits a feature similar to critical thinking of conscious beings.Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/11/2020 22:04:11Descartes has pointed out that the only self evident information a conscious agent can get is its own existence. Any other information requires corroborating evidences to support it. So in the end, the reliability of an information will be measured/valued by its ability to help preserving conscious agents.QuoteIn machine learning, a deep belief network (DBN) is a generative graphical model, or alternatively a class of deep neural network, composed of multiple layers of latent variables ("hidden units"), with connections between the layers but not between units within each layer.[1]When trained on a set of examples without supervision, a DBN can learn to probabilistically reconstruct its inputs. The layers then act as feature detectors.[1] After this learning step, a DBN can be further trained with supervision to perform classification.[2]DBNs can be viewed as a composition of simple, unsupervised networks such as restricted Boltzmann machines (RBMs)[1] or autoencoders,[3] where each sub-network's hidden layer serves as the visible layer for the next. An RBM is an undirected, generative energy-based model with a "visible" input layer and a hidden layer and connections between but not within layers. This composition leads to a fast, layer-by-layer unsupervised training procedure, where contrastive divergence is applied to each sub-network in turn, starting from the "lowest" pair of layers (the lowest visible layer is a training set).The observation[2] that DBNs can be trained greedily, one layer at a time, led to one of the first effective deep learning algorithms.[4]:6 Overall, there are many attractive implementations and uses of DBNs in real-life applications and scenarios (e.g., electroencephalography,[5] drug discovery[6][7][8]).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_belief_network
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemmaThe Heinz dilemma is a frequently used example in many ethics and morality classes. One well-known version of the dilemma, used in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, is stated as follows[1]:QuoteA woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?QuoteFrom a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:
A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:
Would you want someone to do it for you? Yes.Did Heinz do it to his wife? Yes. Keep it simple.If you want to make it complicated, not paying your taxes to a corrupt government is illegal but not immoral.
In the light of universal terminal goal, the six stages above could be extended up and down to cover systems with higher as well as lower consciousness levels than average human individuals. The pattern here is that the lower the level, the more localized in space and time the causality of actions/decisions is under consideration.
Go back to Heinz. Theft is illegal but in this case not immoral. Tax evasion is another example.
2. Drunken driving is a particular criminal offence whether or not anyone is injured, and because it puts "persons unknown" in danger, is morally reprehensible
1 is an accident."death by misadventure" would be recorded and the driver cannot be considered guilty or morally flawed.2. Drunken driving is a particular criminal offence whether or not anyone is injured, and because it puts "persons unknown" in danger, is morally reprehensible3 In a civilised society the state investigates and punishes criminals. You may not kill except in selfdefence or to prevent an ongoing crime - and even then, "reasonable force" is a test. So the action is immoral under test 1: you wouldn't want anyone to kill you just because you looked like someone else.4, 5 and 6. Intentional random killing is against any recognisable moral code. Your motives and beliefs are irrelevant: you wouldn't want anyone else to kill you for his beliefs or pleasure, even if you are motivated to kill your wife, so they fail Test 1.
Let's change the word drunk with sleepy. Does it make a difference?
Does paying taxes pass your tests?
I'd like to know some hidden assumptions underlying those statements to prevent misunderstandings.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 01/12/2020 01:13:49I'd like to know some hidden assumptions underlying those statements to prevent misunderstandings. There are none. AFAIK everyone has an idea of how he likes to be treated and how he should treat his chosen partner.
Quote from: alancalverd on 01/12/2020 00:48:471 is an accident."death by misadventure" would be recorded and the driver cannot be considered guilty or morally flawed.2. Drunken driving is a particular criminal offence whether or not anyone is injured, and because it puts "persons unknown" in danger, is morally reprehensible3 In a civilised society the state investigates and punishes criminals. You may not kill except in selfdefence or to prevent an ongoing crime - and even then, "reasonable force" is a test. So the action is immoral under test 1: you wouldn't want anyone to kill you just because you looked like someone else.4, 5 and 6. Intentional random killing is against any recognisable moral code. Your motives and beliefs are irrelevant: you wouldn't want anyone else to kill you for his beliefs or pleasure, even if you are motivated to kill your wife, so they fail Test 1.I wonder if you made those moral judgements using your morality tests. How do you make them work?