From: Metaqualia (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jan 11 2004 - 23:13:14 MST
>unable to choose differently. I said I choose not to support someone who
>is quite ok to kill off his entire species.
That is how you interpreted it; I said that if an objective morality exists
and the AI gets there, then, whether the entire species should be killed is
a decision that can be made with that morality. I am not pro-killing humans.
I am against taking "don't kill humans" as the ultimate truth. It probably
will not become moral any time soon to kill humans. Just like netwonian
dynamics won't stop being useful any time soon, but we now know there is a
deeper level of reality from which newtonian dynamics arise. We know there
are some fancy cases in which newtonian dynamics cease to be valid. Get
close to the speed of light, newton stops working. Have to choose between
happiness and freedom, or between preserving Either the human race Or a race
of more numerous more intelligent beings, or between letting a person be
miserable for a lifetime Or dying painlessly, and regular human morality
_stops_ working. Not that the AI is likely to have to face such a choice,
but in principle it is possible. I made it as clear as it could possibly be,
and as I said it's highly controversial as a topic, with very few benefits
for the immediate future, so I won't explain this further for now. I will
answer private mails about it, if they contain no sarcasm.
> Ah, I see. It all centers in your mind around how you feel. How
I hope it will be clear if you read my message and your answer once again
that that is not the case. I am proposing an objective morality to transcend
even the personal interest of humanity itself, while you are choosing to
stick to your evolved egocentric needs. Which is not a bad thing or an
insult, it's just what you have to do. But you can't quite accuse me of
everything centering around how I feel, that is illogical and backwards.
Again, let's keep this non-personal and about the ideas, please. Attack my
ideas, not me. I just happen to experience the qualia of the brain that is
deterministically producing them.
> Wait! You have previously claimed there is no absolute morality. Thus
there is no
>yes? Your position appears to be more and more incoherent.
Are you reading what I write? This is all about me proposing that there is
an absolute, objective morality.
> If you aren't going to stand up for what you like and present as
authoritative on a
>question then why bother to pretend to be answering?
Standing up for something requires effort, I am willing to put that in after
you have read the essay.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:45 MDT