From: Tommy McCabe (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2004 - 06:24:35 MST
--- "Perry E. Metzger" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Tommy McCabe <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > For the ten thousandth time, Darwinian evolution
> > its associated complex functional adaptations do
> > apply to transhumans.
> Yes, and capitalist economics will not apply after
> the revolution,
> comrade. We will build the new communist man, and he
> will be free of
> these base drives you speak of. The very notion of
> supply and demand
> driven economics is a product of the class logic of
> the bourgeoisie,
> and with the end of the bourgeoisie and the triumph
> of the proletariat
> we will have a new, proletarian economics based on
> need rather than on
> base greeds.
Very funny. These 'base drives' don't pop up out of
nowhere; they are complex functional adaptations
instilled in humans by Darwinian evolution.
> > And you're telling me Ghandi isn't altruistic?
> Gandhi (please spell the Mahatma's name correctly)
> a) dead, thus the past tense should be used.
> b) had a number of human children and thirteen
> grandchildren, whom he
> spent considerable resources on.
> >> >> > And if you have Friendly human-equivalent
> >> >>
> >> >> You've taken a leap. Step back. Just because
> we know
> >> >> we can build AI doesn't mean we know we can
> build "Friendly" AI.
> >> >
> >> > Again, there are humans which are very
> friendly, and
> >> > humans weren't built with friendliness in mind
> at all.
> >> I don't think there are many humans who are
> friendly the way
> >> "Friendly AI" has to be. A "Friendly AI" has to
> favor the
> >> preservation of other creatures who are not
> members of its line
> >> (humans and their descendents) over its own.
> > Read CFAI extermely thoroughly, (literally), then
> > a hammer, and pound CFAI into your head
> > (metaphorically, please!).
> I apologize for not having read the Gospels often
> enough. I realize
> that if I only peruse them sufficiently, I will gain
CFAI makes a few extremely good points. It's also good
> >> > Perhaps I should clarify that: subjective
> morality is
> >> > not only unproven, it is nowhere near certain.
> >> > is objective morality. The matter is still up
> >> > debate. A good Friendliness design should be
> >> > compatible with either.
> >> 1) I argue quite strongly that there is no
> objective morality. You
> >> cannot find answers to all "moral questions" by
> making inquiry to
> >> some sort of moral oracle algorithm. Indeed, the
> very notion of
> >> "morality" is disputed -- you will find plenty of
> people who don't
> >> think they have any moral obligations at all!
> > And you can find people who think that Zeta aliens
> > communicating with us about the giant planet that
> > going to come careening through the solar system
> > stopping the Earth's rotation in May 2003 (yes,
> > 2003, the month that has already passed).
> I can conduct experiments to determine whether or
> not the earth has
> stopped rotating (numerous ones in fact). I can also
> experiments to determine whether proposed "alien
> signals" do indeed
> appear to be of intelligent origin from outside the
> solar system.
> What is the experiment I can conduct to determine if
> it is immoral to
> eat meat? How do I determine what is the correct
> objective moral
> position on meat eating?
My point was, because humans believe something doesn't
make it true.
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:43 MDT