From: Phillip Huggan (cdnprodigy@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue May 16 2006 - 13:28:22 MDT
Not really infinite considering some physical constant limits and resource limitations (but still much diversity).
The safest way to assign brain-state heirarchy is to somehow have one mind experience two different states simultaneously. Otherwise have trusted actors experience them both at separate points in time and report their preference. Otherwise have memories of the events implanted. It is hardwired into our central nervous systems what is pleasurable and what hurts. A proper answer would be a string of brain chemical reactions and a perfected theory of mind. The uncertainty is always there so your solipsist position can't be 100% disproved that I'm not real. But we can take moral actions on a probabilistic basis.
If I dump coffee on myself, I can be +99.9999% certain it will hurt. If I dump coffee on you, it becomes a moral act and the world becomes either a better or a worse place.
m.l.vere@durham.ac.uk wrote:
Especially considering the infinite number of possible posthuman mind-states
(but even with current human ones), how/by who is it arbitrated which mind
states are most desirable. This is my moral skepticism again - I dont believe
the question of which states are most desirable has an objective answer.
Thus (my original argument), it is foolish to have an AGI seek them out for
everyone - self-determination is therefore the best way.
---------------------------------
Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT