0 Members and 295 Guests are viewing this topic.
You seem to have defined a conscious entity as something that can verify a Boolean variable. In my experience the crosscoupled NAND debouncer is the simplest device that can do so.
You can try to debunk my universal moral standard by showing an exception to the universal terminal goal.
Thus it requires self awareness
In this thread, anytime I write consciousness, I mean the ability to determine one's own future.
The conscious system must have some input and output interface, either directly or indirectly, such as sensor and actuator.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 11/02/2022 21:29:28In this thread, anytime I write consciousness, I mean the ability to determine one's own future. So slaves, prisoners, and sailors in a damaged submarine, are not conscious, but sunflowers are.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2022 07:40:57The conscious system must have some input and output interface, either directly or indirectly, such as sensor and actuator.The switch debouncer has an SPCO switch input and a logic-level output. Its function is to tell the downstream system unequivocally whether the switch has been flipped between its two states.
In this thread, anytime I write consciousness, I mean the ability to determine one's own future. Thus it requires self awareness, which means some portion of the entity's memory space is used to represent itself apart from its environment. Since the environment is dynamic, the entity must involve a dynamic process too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monsterRobert Nozick, a twentieth century American philosopher, coined the term "utility monster" in response to Jeremy Bentham's philosophy of utilitarianism. Nozick proposed that accepting the theory of utilitarianism causes the necessary acceptance of the condition that some people would use this to justify exploitation of others. An individual (or specific group) would claim their entitlement to more "happy units" than they claim others deserve, and the others would consequently be left to receive fewer "happy units".Nozick deems these exploiters "utility monsters" (and for ease of understanding, they might also be thought of as happiness hogs). Nozick poses utility monsters justify their greediness with the notion that, compared to others, they experience greater inequality or sadness in the world, and deserve more happy units to bridge this gap. People not part of the utility monster group (or not the utility monster individual themselves) are left with less happy units to be split among the members. Utility monsters state that the others are happier in the world to begin with, so they would not need those extra happy units to which they lay claim anyway.[1]It can be shown that all consequentialist systems based on maximizing a global function are subject to utility monsters.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UtilitarianismProponents of utilitarianism have disagreed on a number of points, such as whether actions should be chosen based on their likely results (act utilitarianism), or whether agents should conform to rules that maximize utility (rule utilitarianism). There is also disagreement as to whether total utility (total utilitarianism), average utility (average utilitarianism) or the utility of the people worst-off[3] should be maximized.
You forget the first requirement.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2022 13:25:57You forget the first requirement.The interface is a piece of wire (well, four, actually) through which it senses its environment and talks to other systems.
Even deontological moralities have their own versions of utility monsters.
Individual neurons do those things too. We don't call them conscious.On the other hand, adequately advanced AI can meet the criteria.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2022 21:37:23Individual neurons do those things too. We don't call them conscious.On the other hand, adequately advanced AI can meet the criteria.Come on, HY, you keep moving the goalposts - that's a foul in my book!
What makes you think that sunflowers have the ability to determine their own future? Can they decide what kind of future they will have?
F10 months ago (edited)Ok I'm an truly anti moral realist.Maybe it's a bit because of nihilism or so.HAMDANI YUSUF4 months agoAre you ok with slavery?Nayer Yayer3 days ago @hamdani yusuf I'd love to own slaves. Slavery has been accepted by humanity for thousands of years. It was only abolished recently. Morals are arbitrary and changeable.HAMDANI YUSUF3 days ago @Nayer Yayer Are you ok with genocide?Nayer Yayer3 days ago @hamdani yusuf Yeah, it's entertaining. We're all going to die anyway, what's the big deal if some people die sooner?HAMDANI YUSUF3 days ago @Nayer Yayer Why do you want to be entertained? What makes seeing or doing genocide entertaining to you?Nayer Yayer3 days ago (edited) @hamdani yusuf Because I enjoy violence. No other reason needed. We're all just sacks of meat on a floating rock in space. We're all going to die soon. So what if some random people are killed?HAMDANI YUSUF2 days ago @Nayer Yayer Will you let someone kill you? Why or why not?HAMDANI YUSUF2 days ago @Nayer Yayer Non-universal moralities are conditional. They have their own time, space, and situation to be applied. On the other hand, a universal morality always applies.Nayer Yayer2 days ago (edited) @hamdani yusuf I act in my own self-interest and do whatever benefits me. I have no reason to care about others. I live my short life to the fullest.HAMDANI YUSUF13 hours ago @Nayer Yayer What do you think benefits you the most? Why do you think so? Do you have a reason, or is it just your instinct or emotion?Nayer Yayer13 hours ago (edited) @hamdani yusuf Why do you ask? I’m going to ask you some questions. Explain your “universal morality” and give me evidence that it exists?HAMDANI YUSUF2 minutes ago @Nayer Yayer Besides of curiosity, perhaps to prevent regrets. Either by you, or someone you will interact with. I discussed the universal morality extensively in a forum. You can search for "universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal". Essentially, it's to extend the existence of consciousness into the future.
Sensei9 months agoWouldn't moral antirealism simply be the same as non-morality? Why call it a moral stance at all?To me it sounds like a cop-out, a way to throw your hands up on morality and just say, "Whatever!" If what a moral antirealist values is tolerance, what would that have to do with ethics at all in the first place?ant9 months agoMoral antirealists can still view moral statements as true or false, they just don't think that there are moral facts. For example you could believe that morality is decided by the individual or by the society. Additionally there are views which reject the idea that moral statements can have a truth value but still have something to say about moral statements like emotivism or prescriptivism.Note: I'm just learning this myself so I may say some stuff that's wrong.Sensei8 months ago @ant Thing is that you discount yourself from moral argument as soon as you disavow the existence of moral fact. The moment you engage in moral argument you are acknowledging the existence of moral fact, otherwise you'd have no basis for a moral argument.Yes a moral antirealist can view moral statement as true of false but they wouldn't have anything to back their view of it as true or false based on their own view. Moral antirealists that engage in moral arguments are closet moral realists. Otherwise all you could argue about as an antirealist would be the metaethics of morality. There's no point in arguing morality from an antirealist perspective, since by definition it does not accept the existence of moral fact, or claims moral facts cannot be known.ant8 months ago (edited) @Sensei It may not have been clear what I meant by moral fact but forms of ethical subjectivism allow for moral discussion/justification without admitting moral fact by grounding morality in individual attitudes. These can be cultural or individual, which would make morality relative, but they can also be universal like ideal observer theory and arguably divine command theory. Even the relative positions allow for justified moral argument within certain contexts. And all these positions are generally considered antirealist.Some people actually define moral realism to include these views, although my understanding is that this is a less common usage of the term. The simplest way I've heard this usage summarized is "moral realism = cognitivism - error theory"Sensei8 months ago @ant That's the qualm I have with absolute relativism/antirealism. In some sort of god-given irony a pure subjectivist falls into the same pitfall as the pure objectivist. In either case morality becomes purely arbitrary, that is, there's no actual basis to it other than "just because".And yeah I think I understood what you were trying to say. Most subjectivsts do believe in some semblance of moral fact despite the fact that they'll tell you otherwise. I do believe subjectivists can make statements that are more so morally factual than not, but that's because I believe human beings are capable of knowing moral truth. This would apply no matter what you believe about morality assuming that what I state is true.I don't think you can really enter into a moral conversation without believing in moral fact. To believe in moral fact is simply a foundation that is necessary for moral argument. It's the simple fact of believing that there are some things that are right and some things that are wrong. If the basis for morality is purely subjective then there might as well be no such thing as moral fact, since morality would only exist relative to some arbitrarily preset instantiation.Transient cog8 months ago @Sensei I agree sir. I always thought the term moral relativism to be an oxymoron. Moral relativists cannot make moral judgements, only moral descriptions. That is because they believe Taliban’s actions are valid, for example, as valid as any other action. “To each his own” kinda philosophy. At least that’s what I think If everything is valid, nothing is. So they’re moral nihilists. Moral subjectivism is not a possible moral philosophy because it says nothing about moral actions/principles.
https://thisviewoflife.com/a-universal-principle-within-moralitys-ultimate-source/There is a dilemma that must be solved by all beings that form highly cooperative societies. This dilemma is how to obtain the benefits of cooperation without future benefits being destroyed by exploitation, such as by free riders accepting a benefit but not reciprocating. Solving the cooperation/exploitation dilemma is difficult because exploitation is virtually always the ‘winning’ strategy in the short term and can be in the longer term.Fortunately for us, our ancestors came across solutions that have enabled us to become the incredibly successful social species we are. Evolution encoded some of these solutions in our moral sense and cultural moral codes as “morality”. The science of the last 50 years or so reveals human morality to be elements of cooperation strategies2,3,4,5,9 which have made us “SuperCooperators”6.Cultural moralities are solutions to the cooperation/exploitation dilemma, but they are also diverse, contradictory, and sometimes strange. Exploitation of out-groups (such as slaves, women, and “others”) has been common. Strange markers of being a moral person such as circumcision, dress and hairstyle, and food and sex taboos have been required.
Could there be a universally moral subset of these “descriptively moral” behaviors (behaviors described as moral in one culture but perhaps not in others)? Even when cooperating to exploit or make war8 on out-groups, we must necessarily begin by solving the cooperation/exploitation dilemma within an in-group. To sustainably obtain these benefits of cooperation, people within this in-group “circle of moral concern”7 are not exploited.This defines a universal moral principle: “Solve the cooperation/exploitation dilemma without exploiting others in your circle of moral concern”. This principle is universal because it is a necessary component of all cultural moralities, even sub-cultures which restrict in-groups to family or friends and exploit everyone else. We can simplify this universal principle as “Increase the benefits of cooperation without exploiting others”, leaving “others” undefined for the moment.This universal moral principle is an attractive reference for refining moral codes to better meet shared needs and preferences. It advocates increased cooperation which both increases material goods benefits and triggers the emotional rewards evolution encoded that motivate further cooperation. Because our moral sense was selected for by the benefits of cooperation, these cooperation strategies are innately harmonious with our moral sense. This moral principle is practical. Following common moral norms such as the Golden Rule is universally moral when the benefits of cooperation are increased. But when following such norms would not solve the cooperation/exploitation dilemma, as when dealing with criminals and in wartime, following them would not be moral. Since this universal moral principle defines only moral ‘means’ (actions that increase cooperation’s benefits without exploiting others) and is silent on moral ‘ends’ (what those benefits are), societies are free to define what those benefits of cooperation ought to be and change them as circumstances change. The universal moral principle also sheds light on the morality of two human invented solutions to the cooperation/exploitation dilemma: money economies (which efficiently enable cooperation that produces material goods) and rule of law (which effectively uses force to punish exploiters). Finally, because universally moral means are accurately tracked, this moral principle is a useful objective reference for resolving many moral disputes. (Disputes can persist about how “others”, “exploiting”, ultimate moral ‘ends’, and other implementation details are defined even among people who accept the principle.)Individuals can benefit from this science by realizing that, properly understood, morality is not a burden; it is an effective means for increasing the benefits of cooperation, especially emotional well-being resulting from sustained cooperation with family, friends, and community. Also, cultural moral norms are best understood not as moral absolutes but as heuristics (usually reliable, but fallible, rules of thumb) for sustainably increasing the benefits of cooperation. Further, if “others” are defined as all people, then all ‘moral’ norms that exploit out-groups contradict the universal moral principle. These include economic systems based on the unfettered pursuit of self-interest leading to exploitation and prohibitions against homosexuality that exploit homosexuals as imaginary threats.This purely science-based definition of what ‘is’ universally moral appears to be culturally useful independent of any arguments for mysterious1 sources of obligation or moral authority. However, the principle does not answer all moral questions. What benefits for acting morally ought we seek and who ought to be included in “others” who are not to be exploited? Common preferences might be “increased well-being” and “everyone”. But here objective science goes silent; answers to these questions are in the domain of moral philosophy.
Where was the initial goalpost? Where did I move it to?
the conscious system must have some input and output interface, either directly or indirectly, such as sensor and actuator.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 15/02/2022 05:15:13Where was the initial goalpost? Where did I move it to?Quotethe conscious system must have some input and output interface, either directly or indirectly, such as sensor and actuator. And as soon as I described a simple logic circuit that does exactly that, you said it didn't qualify!
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 11/02/2022 21:29:28Thus it requires self awarenessThe other requirement is access to objective reality. The conscious system must have some input and output interface, either directly or indirectly, such as sensor and actuator.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2022 13:21:27What makes you think that sunflowers have the ability to determine their own future? Can they decide what kind of future they will have?It seems like you've missed to answer these questions.