From: Tommy McCabe (rocketjet314@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2004 - 06:24:35 MST
--- "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> wrote:
>
> Tommy McCabe <rocketjet314@yahoo.com> writes:
> > For the ten thousandth time, Darwinian evolution
> and
> > its associated complex functional adaptations do
> not
> > 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)
> is
> 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.
So?
> >> >> > And if you have Friendly human-equivalent
> AI,
> >> >>
> >> >> 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
> take
> > 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
> enlightenment.
CFAI makes a few extremely good points. It's also good
reading.
> >> > Perhaps I should clarify that: subjective
> morality is
> >> > not only unproven, it is nowhere near certain.
> Neither
> >> > is objective morality. The matter is still up
> for
> >> > 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
> are
> > communicating with us about the giant planet that
> is
> > going to come careening through the solar system
> > stopping the Earth's rotation in May 2003 (yes,
> May
> > 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
> conduct
> 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
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:43 MDT