From: Marc Geddes (marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 22:56:28 MST
--- Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:
>
> However, there are a couple problems here:
>
> 1) Though Friendly AI seems a difficult goal, I'm
> not quite ready to assume
> it's as difficult as the Omega Point. I.e., I
> consider it reasonably
> plausible that the Omega Point of heaven-via-physics
> doesn't exist and yet
> Friendly AI is achievable by some simpler means...
Huh? Under my scheme the goal of the Friendly A.I
would be to carry out the *process* of trying to move
the universe towards the Omega Point in the optimal
way. A process can be much simpler than the actual
end goal (The Omega Point itself is only an abstract
mathematical limit in any case, not something which is
ever reached from the point of view of sentients in
the universe).
>
> 2) It seems very unlikely that being nice to anyone
> is critical for getting
> to the Omega Point, at least according to Tipler's
> conception of it. A la
> Tipler, getting there should involve reshaping
> matter across the universe in
> such a way as to cause the right sort of (geometric)
> singularity at the Big
> Crunch. This has little to do with nice-ness except
> in the sense that the
> end goal is supposed to be very nice.
I admit it seems unlikely. But it's not impossible.
What *seems* to be intuitively so is definitely not a
good guide as to what actually *is* so ;)
>
> So, it seems that you're extending Tipler's
> conception of the Omega Point in
> a big way, by hypothesizing some kind of subtle
> connection between *the laws
> of physics* and your posited *laws of universal
> morality*. Is that right?
That's corrrect yes. That's exactly what I'm
suggesting.
>
> IMO the only "laws of morality" we find embedded in
> the laws of physics are
> simple and generic things like "increase growth and
> diversity" or
> something....
>
> But evidently you think that "don't cause pain to
> highly conscious beings"
> is going to be tied up with "move maximally fast
> toward the Omega point"
> inside the as-yet-unknown future laws of physics.
Right! That's what I'm suggesting.
>
> But why do you think that? Is it just an intuition
> from out of nowhere, or
> is there some detailed philosophical justification?
>
> -- Ben
>
As you probably realize from reading on SL4, I never
really liked Eli's CV scheme - I'm a fan of 'Objective
Morality' and it seems to me that Eli gave up on the
idea a bit too easily. I didn't really like the
subjectivity that has crept into morality in the CV
scheme (there is a partial facts/values distinction).
So I was continuing to try to come up with ideas to
make objective morality work. And eventually it
seemed to me that the only possible way it can work is
to directly tie the laws of morality to the laws of
physics in order to define an 'ultimate goal' (telos)
that is truly universal (holds at all times and
places). The goal 'move towards the Omega Point in
the optimal way' is the only possible one I know that
could fit the bill.
Any way, it's a long shot but I'll continue to plug
away at the idea as a hobby over the next couple of
years, see if I can eventually write up a solid chain
of reasoning.
=====
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT