If AGI is not sentient and sentience is required for Morality then surely you can see the conundrum here? If Morality does not require sentience then Moral Realism is correct ... — I like sushi

Why do you assume there is any relation between "sentience" and "morality"?

Does (e.g.) computating, protein folding, translating or regulating homeostasis "require sentience"? If not, then why does "morality"? If they do, however, then what are non-sentient machines doing when they perform such rules-bound (i.e. normative) functions?

I was more or less referring to Moral Realism not Moral Naturalism in what I said.

Well, the latter (re: pragmatics) afaik is a subset of the former (re: semantics).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/

[W]hy should philosophy not have a normative role as well. — Richard B

Insofar as one reflectively reasons in order to critique and interpret norms (i.e. rules, criteria, methods, conventions, customs, givens), philosophy is performative. To say, for example, 'one ought to philosophize' does not seem a philosophical statement.

Do you think the Hard Problem has been solved? — RogueAI

It's a pseudo-problem ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/611954

What question is not begged (is not fallaciously answered) by "a mystery"? None.

How is anything explained by or justified with "a mystery"? They are not.

If "god is the ultimate mystery", then a godly (i.e. inexplicable and unjustified) world is indistinguishable from a godless world (which is, after all, more parsimonious (begging fewer questions) than the "godly").

Under what circumstances could an interaction (Quantum Fluctuation) be simple and constructible? — Treatid

Guess #3: "The Big Bang" (i.e. planck-radius universe).

So you think every entity, including mind, is mind-dependent? (Btw, Spinoza dissolved the MBP with property dualism in the 17th century (Hume did so again with bundle theory a century or so later) and yet Kantian denial (Cartesian dogma) persists in philosophy despite cogent physicalist paradigms and developments in cognitive neurosciences).

AGI's lack of awareness (hence why I would prefer a conscious AGI than not). — I like sushi

I do not equate, or confuse, "awareness" with being "conscious" (e.g. blindsight¹). Also, I do not expect AGI, whether embodied or not, will be developed with a 'processing bottleneck' such as phenomenal consciousness (if only because biological embodiment might be the sufficient condition for a self-modeling² system to enact subjective-affective phenomenology).

objectives instituted by human beings

Unlike artificial narrow intelligence (e.g. prototypes such as big data-"trained" programmable neural nets and LLMs), I expect artificial general intelligence (AGI) to learn how to develop its own "objectives" and comply with those operational goals in order to function at or above the level of human metacognitive performance (e.g. normative eusociality³).

[W]ho is to say what is or is not moral?

We are (e.g. as I have proposed ), and I expect AGI will learn from our least maladaptive attempts to "say what is and is not moral"³.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight [1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop [2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality [3]

What is the simplest possible building block? — Treatid

Guess #1: A vacuum fluctuation.

What is the simplest possible component of change we could apply to that building block?

Guess #2: To make measurements with – interacting via – (massless) quanta.

:point: fighting nonsense with nonsense ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/910736

Context matters.

:eyes: :roll: :sweat:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

Explain what you mean by "moral truth".

If not habit-forming (i.e. flourishing / languishing) responses to "moral facts"¹, then in what does "moral truth" consist?

Or do you think "moral truth" is (like "moral facts" are) mere fiction? Even so, nonetheless, a more adaptive (eusocial) than maladaptive (antisocial) fiction, no?

I can't think of any reason why AGI would ignore, or fail to comply with, eusocializing norms (i.e. morals) whether, in fact, we consider them "truths" or "fictions".

I'm not convinced, I like sushi, that the 'aretaic negative consequentialism' I've proposed is just another "moral fiction"; therefore, I imagine it to be the least parochial, maladaptive or non-naturalistic point of departure² from which AGI could develop its 'real world understanding' of ethics³ and moral responsibility (i.e. eusociality).

re: harms / suffering / disvalues – reasons to (claims on) help against languishing [1]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857773 [2]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/589236 [3]

My point is that there is moral truth (i.e. either an agent prevents / reduces net harm to – dysfunction of – any agent or an agent fails to do so) and that, known to humans, I think 'AGI' will also learn this moral truth.

The AI doesnt know what a finish line is in relation to other potential games ,only we know that. — Joshs

Perhaps true of (most) "AI", but not true of (what is meant by) AGI.

:lol:

Fact: zionists are antisemites (re: Palestinians), ergo anti-zionists are anti-antisemities. However, antisemites (re: Jews), like rightwing evangelical Christians and Iranian/rightwing Israeli-backed 'Hamas terrorists', are, in fact, pro-zionists (i.e. anti-"Two-State Solution").

@BitconnectCarlos et al ...

:up: :up:

The fact is he [Orange Turd] was charged - with crimes - tried and convicted. — tim wood

:up: :up:

@NOS4A2 Sentencing on 11July24 ...

Well, my guess (today, 31May24) is that Convicted Felon-1 will be sentenced to 2-4 years for each of the 34 felonies that will run concurrently (so that if only 1 felony survives the appeal process, he will still serve 2-4 years in prison), probably starting in spring 2025. The basis of sentencing will be ... — 180 Proof

(Adults who can "handle the truth", click username link for my argument.) :victory: :mask:

???

:up:

None of the lawyers who frequent these fora have claimed the Campaign Violation Cover-Up trial in NYC was a "kangaroo court" proceeding. (I'm sure I would have noticed that having been in a paralegal once upon a time.) I've also not heard that claim made by any serious, reputable, conservative lawyers (including former prosecutors, former judges or former criminal defense attorneys), only by third-rate MAGA (morons against great america) hacks on Faux News, etc.

... I infer your assumption functional AGI will possess: consciousness, independence and self-interest. — ucarr

I assume neither the first nor the last, only AGI's metacognitive "independence". The rest of your post, therefore, does not follow from my speculations.

An excellent reminder that we must vote and struggle against the neofascist, jim crow candidate(s) whom grifted, confederate / insurrection flag-waving racists fanatically subsidize and will vote for in Roevember. :mask:

https://youtu.be/lV_09uObx0I?si=84CpW1RX4Oq6nnQW

How on earth are we to program AI to be 'ethical'/'moral'? — I like sushi

I don't think we can "program" AGI so much as train it like we do children and adolescents, mostly, learning from stories and by example ( :yikes: ) ... similarly to how we learn 'language games' from playing them.

Excerpts from from a recent thread Understanding ethics in the case of Artificial Intelligence ...

I suspect we will probably have to wait for 'AGI' to decide for itself whether or not to self-impose moral norms and/or legal constraints and what kind of ethics and/or laws it may create for itself – superceding human ethics & legal theories? – if it decides it needs them in order to 'optimally function' within (or without) human civilization. — 180 Proof

My point is that the 'AGI', not humans, will decide whether or not to impose on itself and abide by (some theory of) moral norms, or codes of conduct; besides, its 'sense of responsibility' may or may not be consistent with human responsibility. How or why 'AGI' decides whatever it decides will be done so for its own reasons which humans might or might not be intelligent enough to either grasp or accept. — 180 Proof

:chin:

I think you are envisioning some sentient being here. I am not. There is nothing to suggest AI or AGI will be conscious. — I like sushi

:up: :up:

we, or it, can discover Moral Truths (Moral Realism) — I like sushi

Yes – preventing and reducing² agent-dysfunction (i.e. modalities of suffering (disvalue)¹ from incapacity to destruction) facilitated by 'nonzero sum – win-win – resolutions of conflicts' between humans, between humans & machines and/or between machines.


¹moral fact

²moral truth (i.e. the moral fact of (any) disvalue functions as the reason for judgment and action / inaction that prevents or reduces (any) disvalue)

On the first day of summer 2024 in the US, a FOX Noise poll shows that POTUS is pulling ahead of Fraudster-Ra(p)ist-Convict-1...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/06/20/trump-rages-about-trash-fox-news-survey-showing-biden-winning/ :mask: :up:

:up:

'Miracles are not against nature but against what we know of nature' ~ St Augustine. — Wayfarer

In other words, 'signs of the holy sacred divine ...' are just, at minimum, expressions of human ignorance. Lord forgive me but again I agree with the ernestly confessing Bishop of Hippo. :pray: :sweat:

I get the feeling that people equate beauty to goodness, do you? — Rob J Kennedy

No.

FWIW, from an old post ...

• the Beautiful property indicates attention-symmetry

• the Good property indicates intention-symmetry.

• the Truth property indicates translation-symmetry — 180 Proof

... or, in other words, "beauty" gives pleasure more memorably than not-beauty whereas "goodness" gives purpose less arbitrarily than not-goodness.

I wonder if we sometimes confuse happiness with joy — Tom Storm

I think so. I often experience joy listening to music, reading, creating, orgasming, helping someone in non-trivial ways and from long vigor walks/hikes even when I'm not happy.

ecstasy — Vera Mont

Yes, sobriety's ego-suspending flow state that's sometimes joyful too.

"The One" is unbounded nature (or existence) and materialism is one way of talking about, or describing, nature that explicitly excludes "immaterial" entities.

'Happiness', I think (ime), corresponds to freedom from fear and pain. Sometimes I'm happy; most of the time, however, I'm striving to be (briefly) happy again.

:death: :flower:

True.

:cool: Your affinity for daoism speaks to me as well. I also agree our close but differing insights in metaphysics are helpful.

180 Proof: If you agree hard solipsism cannot be disproven, then wouldn’t the minimum that we must necessarily presuppose be our consciousness and sensations, and nothing else? — Art48

There are compelling grounds to doubt "solipsism" (e.g. disembodiment, immaterialism, brain-in-vat, etc) which suffice for dismissing it.

Of course, the evidence for an external material world is very, very strong but the point of the video is that the evidence does not prove materialism.

By your own admission, Art, grounds against doubting "materialism" (e.g. embodiment, multiplicity, dis-order) far exceed grounds for doubting it, which suffice for not dismissing "materialism", especially compared to much more doubtful alternatives (e.g. immaterialism, solipsism).

Are you saying a metaphysical position isn’t true or false?

It doesn't make sense to ask whether grammar is "true or false" any more than it does to ask this of metaphysics. I think (Western) metaphysics consists in what is necessarily presupposed (e.g. ontology) in order for epistemological statements (e.g. physics (i.e. cosmology)) and axiological statements (e.g. ethics, aesthetics) to make sense as domain-specific criteria for truth and falsity. In other words, physics models computable aspects of nature (just as ethics maps eusocial aspects of human nature) whereas metaphysics indefeasibly describes physics' model-making (& ethics' map-making).

Also, I’d say Newtonian Mechanics is wrong.

Well I say that beyond all doubt, above the Planck scale, shorter than Relativistic distances and slower than Relativistic velocities, "Newtonian Mechanics" is (almost) completely accurate.

I believe “supernatural” is a vacuous term because we do not yet know the limits of the natural world.

Physical laws and constants make explicit (some? many? most?) "limits of the natural world" and, after countless billions upon billions of experimental observations, that there is no evidence of violations of any physical laws is, imo, compelling grounds to doubt your "belief", Art.

I wasn't expecting people to come out and say, "l love Trump because his a bigot, a racist and a misogynist, and so am I." So I'm not very surprised it didn't happen. — unenlightened

:up: :up:

It's interesting to me that humans make sense of he world with narratives and models which may often be useful but not be true. — Tom Storm

It seems "narratives and models" are "useful" in the broadest scope only, in fact, when they are approximately true. Maybe not but I can't think of any counter-examples which you & @Art48 might be talking about.

:100: :smirk:

Well done. I especially appreciate the distinction between being 'materialistic' and being a 'materialist'. :up:

As for 'the fundamental unity', Einstein famously favors Spinoza's natura naturans (i.e. substance) and later quantum field theory corresponds, imho, to Democritean-Epicurean void. I think the Cartesian-Kantian (& Planckian) mistake of prioritizing epistemology (i.e. what humans can know directly) over above ontology (i.e. what subjectivity / what knowing necessarily presupposes, and therefore, can only be inferred) – or, worse: reducing the latter ("what is") to the former ("what i know") – leads to subjectivist / idealist / phenomenalist antireality (e.g. immaterialism, supernaturalism) that is implicitly assumed by "evil demon" & "brain-in-a-vat" (à la gnostic) thought-experiments which invariably yield "transcendental illusions" as Kant points out.

Anyway, my own position is philosophical naturalism (which, as I conceptualize it, begins with a hybrid 'Epicurean-Spinozist' immanentist ontology) and, in sum, proposes this: nature is the aspect of reality that limits (like the encompassing horizon) what we natural beings can know about reality given only natural capabilities for knowing (i.e. explaining) reality. As (pragmatic) epistemic shorthands about nature, 'material' means embodied (data), 'physical' means informational (model) and 'a truth' means a good explanation (a rigorously well-tested, fallibilistic model aka "theory") ... constitutive of A View From Everywhere (i.e. more-than-subjective) rather than "the view from nowhere" (or god's eye view).

Retrospectively, not prospectively or "instinctively".

Nonsense. For instance, we seek "territory and food" in order to sustain ourselves biologically (like all other non-human animals do) and not because of "imaginary stories". And I don't see the relevance here of tychism (though I've always agreed with 'the principle' ... from the perspective of classical atomsm / philosophical daoism (i.e. necessary non-necessity)).

BTW David Duke sides with the anti-Israel protesters. — BitconnectCarlos

DD's been an antisemite for decades long before the latest protests (by many Jews too) against Israeli apartheid and war crimes. Unlike the majority of anti-zionist (pro-Palestinian) protesters, you ignoramus, he is a KKK-racist advocate for oppressing non-white & non-christian people everywhere. :shade:

Head up arse :point:

All our social control structures will eventually, and necessarily be given over to AI. — punos

:up: :up:

As for what we were conscious of; these were stories. Stories end. Or they live on, already in other stories, just as they were constructed from other stories [...]

The body lives on because it's not [the] body but the universe.

The Mind lives on because it's not an individual spirit but universal history.

It is only the ego, never alive to begin with, that finally becomes obsolete. Nothing feels nor experiences that loss. And, nothing was there to begin with. — ENOAH

:100: :fire:

"Survival" of the many (re: clean water scarcity like accelerating climate change) isn't "as important" structurally to the few as ... "transportation". A million down to perhaps fifty thousand people provide more than enough robust, genetic diversity to withstand even acute man-made extinction pressures, so, as a species, we have a 7.999 billion surplus population as far as our elite movers & shakers (i.e. financier-fiscal planners) are likely concerned.

Apparently, the problems aren't bad enough yet for enough of the people or the elites. And there are more seemingly immediate and pressing problems impacting large, mostly urban populations like crime, housing, unemployment, healthcare, etc than water scarcity & potability at the moment. Short-term reacting tends to be prioritized over near & long-term planning under the prevailing conditions of resource & fiscal scarcity especially, though not exclusively, in developing (non-G7) countries like Mexico. We're smug or negligent, chattering primates who amuse ourselves watching the proverbial frog slowly boil and still bet heavily (despite the data-trends) on "thoughts & prayers" to work that old magic. :sparkle:

Just my 2 pesos, señor..