0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
An existential risk is any risk that has the potential
existential[ˌeɡzəˈsten(t)SH(ə)l]ADJECTIVErelating to existence.philosophyconcerned with existence, especially human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.logic(of a proposition) affirming or implying the existence of a thing.
Quote„Religions exist because people would rather have a wrong answer than no answer at all.“ — Chuck Palahniuk, book DoomedSource: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1489111-chuck-palahniuk-religions-exist-because-people-would-rather-have-a/So, perhaps the best way to remove it is to find the right answer.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/07/2021 06:15:57An existential risk is any risk that has the potential Aha!Merriam Webster Quote existential[ˌeɡzəˈsten(t)SH(ə)l]ADJECTIVErelating to existence.philosophyconcerned with existence, especially human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.logic(of a proposition) affirming or implying the existence of a thing.Silly me, using the logical meaning of the word, which is exactly opposite to the use you quoted!
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/07/2021 14:10:53Quote„Religions exist because people would rather have a wrong answer than no answer at all.“ — Chuck Palahniuk, book DoomedSource: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1489111-chuck-palahniuk-religions-exist-because-people-would-rather-have-a/So, perhaps the best way to remove it is to find the right answer.But there's the problem. Every religion claims to be the right answer, and they are all different. The honest, scientific answer is usually "we don't know, but this equation summarises what we have seen and usually predicts what happens next" and nobody is despised for edging closer to the truth.
Never as clearly demonstrated as when Jonathan Van Tam appeared on TV and talked honestly about COVID, including all the unknowns and unknowables. Massively favorable public response after a year of being told lies presented as absolute truth by politicians.
On the subject of AI, why would anyone build a new machine that dislikes people, can deploy lethal force in its own defence, and can commandeer all the resources it needs to keep functioning? We already have religion and politics.
It appears evident that the ultimate ends of human actions can never, in any case, be accounted for by reason, but recommend themselves entirely to the sentiments and affections of mankind, without any dependence on the intellectual faculties. Ask a man why he uses exercise; he will answer, because he desires to keep his health. If you then enquire, why he desires health, he will readily reply, because sickness is painful. If you push your enquiries farther, and desire a reason why he hates pain, it is impossible he can ever give any. This is an ultimate end, and is never referred to any other object.Perhaps to your second question, why he desires health, he may also reply, that it is necessary for the exercise of his calling. If you ask, why he is anxious on that head, he will answer, because he desires to get money. If you demand Why? It is the instrument of pleasure, says he. And beyond this it is an absurdity to ask for a reason. It is impossible there can be a progress in infinitum; and that one thing can always be a reason why another is desired. Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection. (from An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals, Appendix 1, V.)
Quote from: alancalverd on 04/07/2021 16:39:59On the subject of AI, why would anyone build a new machine that dislikes people, can deploy lethal force in its own defence, and can commandeer all the resources it needs to keep functioning? We already have religion and politics.
It's unfortunate that Hume stopped at pleasure as the final answer to why question. He could have continued that pain and pleasure helped our ancestors to survive and thrive, by telling them in advance if their latest actions would likely get them killed, or continue to survive and thrive. He could still chase the why question one more time. The answer would be, only surviving conscious beings can think, and have some control over their own future. In the end, only conscious entities can ask all of those why questions in the first place.
Plato realised that immoral actions are usually caused by lack of thoughtfulness. But we know that not all mistakes are classified as immoral. They are usually caused by shortsightedness. They sacrifice long term goals just to try to achieve shorter term goals.
All the more reason to adopt a simple test of morality with no invocation of belief. Would you behead yourself or the person you love most? If yes to the first test, then why haven't you done it?
Quote from: alancalverd on 15/06/2021 11:39:02"Kill infidels" thus becomes a moral imperative. But it fails my tests: you wouldn't want to kill yourself (if you think the order is legitimate, you aren't an infidel) and your nearest and dearest (by definition of near and dear). Your moral tests, are two steps algorithm to determine if an action is considered moral or immoral. It depends on following assumptions:Everyone is pursuing self preservationEveryone loves someoneEveryone is rationalIt turns out that those assumptions are not always true.Sometimes someone stops pursuing self preservation. But commonly used moral standards don't grant them right to harm others for that. So you add the second test, based on second assumption. In your opinion, moral actions must pass both tests. This additional test reduces the case where an action can pass your tests while failing commonly used moral standards. But the second assumption is not always true either. Although extremely rare, it's still possible that someone loves noone. If it happens that they don't love themselves either, they can do immoral things without failing your tests.Perhaps the most cases of immoral actions are done when third assumption turns out to be false. In this case, they can do immoral actions without failing your tests.
"Kill infidels" thus becomes a moral imperative. But it fails my tests: you wouldn't want to kill yourself (if you think the order is legitimate, you aren't an infidel) and your nearest and dearest (by definition of near and dear).
If he has no loved ones he can't answer "yes" to Q2.
The problem with any argument around "false beliefs" is the impossibility of falsifying some beliefs, such as an eternity in paradise for the killer of infidels.
Intentional ignorance is a strange concept, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the morality of an action has anything to do with the knowledge or intention of the person doing it. That leads dangerously close to the evangelical concept of damnation by education. The principle there is that our merciful god doesn't condemn or punish the ignorant, but as soon as I have preached the gospel to you, you are damned if you disobey the rules I have just set out.
On the other hand the legal principle is that ignorance of the law does not excuse you from obeying it. And yet we have the concept of "reading the riot act" that requires those in authority to proclaim that authority before taking punitive action.