From: H C (lphege@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 10 2005 - 22:48:03 MDT
And I meant to add last post:
You need to be asking yourself the same questions I just asked you.
>From: Marc Geddes <marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz>
>Reply-To: sl4@sl4.org
>To: sl4@sl4.org
>Subject: 'Collective Volition' ripped to pieces
>Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:27:31 +1200 (NZST)
>
>*Geddes's guns continue to blaze away at the bullet
>riddled corpse of 'Collective Volition'
>
>Sl4 er's should oberve my past few posts - I scarcely
>had to think much at all for my final hurrah you know
>- but note that Eliezer's current 'Collective
>Volition' model has been ripped to pieces.
>
>The relevant key points are summarized here:
>
>Firstly, note the clear difference between 'Collective
>Volition' and 'Universal Volition'.
>
>My definitions:
>
>Collective Volition:
>
>Something defined by reference to all
>*currently* existing sentients in some context
>
>Universal Volition:
>
>Something deifned by reference to all
>*logically possible* sentients.
>
>
>
>Note that I showed that neither individual, nor
>collective volition could be at the foundation of
>values:
>
>"Is ‘Volition’ (indivudual or collective) the
>foundation of mind? No, because one
>can ask what is it about mind that allows us to reason
>
>and think about ‘Volition’ in the first place?
>Clearly there are fundamental laws of cognition that
>determine how thought is correlated with the physical
>substrate (i.e. brain) on which thought is enacted.
>But these ‘functional laws’ (which determine how
>thought maps to physical processes) must be the same
>for all sentients and are hence objective. This shows
>that there is an objective core to cognition which
>goes beyond mere volition. Further, the *process of
>cognition itself* must be of more importance than
>volition, because we couldn’t reason about volition or
>
>act upon volition without it. For instance: when
>helping someone fulfill their desires (altruism), it
>is not only the desires of others that we value (or
>place utility on), but also *the cognitive process by
>which we reason and take action* - because without
>this cognitive process we would not be able to reason
>about or act on volition in the first place.
>
>
>This shows that the real foundation of value judgments
>
>is not volition, but *self actualization*, the ability
>
>to reason about (be aware of) and act upon our true
>nature (‘true nature’ being the fundamental laws of
>cognition that determine how thoughts map to the
>physical substrate of our brains). But these
>fundamental laws of cognitive science which determine
>how thoughts map to brain state are objective in
>nature."
>
>
>For establishing that "Self-Actualization" (Learning
>about and acting on our 'true nature') are the *real*
>foundation for values, I elaborated on what was meant
>by our 'true nature':
>
>"Again, ignore all the kludges and hodge-potch
>features
>of your mind. These are not part of your true nature
>as I have defined it here.
>
>Which parts of your mind enable you to be self-aware,
>to reason and to be altruistic? *These* are your true
>nature. All the other evolutionary kludges are just
>fluff."
>
>In the next thread, I explained why 'true nature' in
>the sense of 'the cognitive principles required for
>self-awareness and reasoning' are UNIVERSAL goods:
>
>" I pointed out a mind which cannot reason
>cannot reason about ethics. Therefore the ability to
>reason is a prequiste to ethics. I pointed out that
>reasoning depends on Induction and Deduction, for
>which there are well-defined theories with UNIVERSAL
>applicability. Since reasoning is needed for ethics,
>and since the cognitive processes needed for ethics
>are objective, it follows that the cognitive processes
>
>needed for reasoning must be *universally good*.
>
>
>Similarly, with consciousness. A mind which is not
>conscious is not a moral subject. Therefore the
>ability to be conscious is a prequiste to being a
>moral subject. But there's an *objective* theory of
>consciousness - by John Taylor - consciousness is
>caused by the interaction of current experience with
>past memories. Since consciousness is neeeded to be
>an ethical subject and since the cognitive processes
>needed for consciousness are objective, it follows
>that cognitive processes needed for consciousness must
>
>be *universally good*
>
>ALL sentients everywhere, in order to be consistent,
>must conclude that the cognitive proccesses resulting
>in reasoning and consciousness are good. If any
>sentient tried to say that these cognitive proccesses
>were bad, they would be contradicting themslves, since
>
>without these cognitive proccesses the sentient would
>be unable to reason about ethics in the first place."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>
>Please vist my website:
>http://www.riemannai.org
>
>Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy
>
>---
>
>THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,
> For, put them side by side,
>The one the other will include
> With ease, and you beside.
>
>-Emily Dickinson
>
>'The brain is wider than the sky'
>http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html
>
>Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT