From: Thomas Buckner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 31 2005 - 15:21:04 MST
--- Phil Goetz <email@example.com> wrote:
> --- Patrick Crenshaw
> > > Did I understand your words correctly?
> > >
> > > - Jef
> > >
> > >
> > Almost. What I meant was that what people
> > right or wrong can
> > be given by a value function. People think
> > something is the best
> > thing to do when it maximizes their pet value
> > function. For a given
> > moral system that is consistent, I can give
> you a
> > value function.
> > Then I started blathering on about the
> > that a physically
> > realizable value function would have. What I
> > trying to say was
> > that there is a class of value functions that
> > objective, and that
> > the "correct" morality would use a value
> function in
> > this class.
> Um. What Jef said.
> Aren't you conflating moral value with numeric
> You think there is a class of objective moral
> functions? Can you give an example?
> - Phil
Actually, I do have an ethical (or 'moral') value
function I might suggest, which consists of two
simple rules. Timothy Ferris once said that,
without embracing teleology, it can be said that
our universe looks pretty much they way it would
had it been carefully designed for maximum
creativity, self-expression, and play (I can't
find the exact quote).
So a good simple ethics can be expressed as:
Express and create yourself, as freely and
joyously as you can.
And try not to hurt those people over there.
To turn that into numerical functions, I should
think you'd need to think hard about boundaries
between self and other, resource allocation,
conserving complexity (i.e. no paperclips or
monoculture), cooperative strategies vs.
predatory strategies, etc. The end result might
remind one of a lush and varied flower garden.
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 23 2013 - 04:01:13 MDT