The SEP article you cited states what universal means: "Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances." — MoK

Within the country you live in, by the law and by the judgements of the society, they are the universal law.

You already mentioned that societies have different moral codes based on their opinions, beliefs, and practical reasoning, yet you claim morality is objective. — MoK

Please read above.

It is what it is. Morality is subjective when there is no solid ground, the pure reason, that all rational agents can agree on. — MoK

Practical reason deals with the moral judgements on your moral actions. Pure reason deals with reflections on your reasoning itself. But if one denies the objectivity of reasoning, then reason cannot help to guide you into truth. As Hume said, "Reason is a slave of passion." Passion and emotions on your beliefs on the wrong ideas and falsity could blind your faculty of reason.

I am unsure of what self reference entails because I am not convinced that it comes down to knowing one's name. Identity involves so much more of lived experience and goes beyond the persona itself. Some of it comes down to processing and in some ways a computer may be able to do that. I wonder if artificial intelligence would have dream sleep which is essential to subconscious processing, and what such dreams would entail. As the Philip K Dick novel title asks, ''Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' — Jack Cummins

I suppose AI could be programmed to project what the central processor is processing in the form of dreams, imaginations and remembrances, hopes and wishes into the monitors with special effect sound reproduction system. It could be actually quite interesting to see what type of data would be outputting into the screens and sound system from the AI processors.

However, the question still remains needing to clarify whether such dreams, imaginations, remembrances, hopes and wishes, or even depressions are genuine in nature. The word "artificial" in AI reminds us that they are ultimately the creation of human intelligence, not genuine intelligence.

A sense of self and self awareness involves so much about the fantasy aspects of identity. We don't just assimilate facts about oneself but the meaning of facts. Self is not just about raw data but hopes, aspirations and intentions. — Jack Cummins

println() "Hello world!!".
printlin() "Agreed"
printlin() "Have a good day"
printlin() "Logged out"

To me, two things help us distinguish objects from each other: essence and attributes. Essence is about what an object is—attribute however allows us to distinguish objects that have the same essence. — MoK

Could you have used the word "property" or "attribute" rather than "essence"? I am sure the concept "essence" can mean different things.

The main attributes of God are Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent. — MoK

Herein arises questions. You claimed that you are an agnostic. If you don't know if God exists, then how do you know what God is, and how do you know God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent?

Are you able to know the properties of God without knowing if God exists, or what God means?

I rather consult the SEP webpage that you cited to see what Kant means with the universal laws. — MoK

The SEP articles are written in standard English. To understand them, you need to understand the standard definition of the words in English.

Morality is objective only if it is based on pure reason. I claim that there is no such thing as pure reasoning when it comes to morality. Therefore, morality is subjective. — MoK

If everyone was saying, what they feel and believe is morality, then there would no point talking about morality. It would be better to say, what everyone feels and believes is right. That would be same as saying there is no morality.

Saying morality is subjective is denying morality, but also at the same time denying the fact that morality is being denied.

Again, how is what you are saying AI does is any different from what you are doing right now reading this? Are you a glorified search engine? What is needed to make one more than a glorified search engine? — Harry Hindu

I wonder if AI can understand and respond in witty and appropriate way to the user inputs in some metaphor or joke forms. I doubt they can. They often used to respond with totally inappropriate way to even normal questions which didn't make sense.

We often say that the one of the sure sign of mastering a language is when one can fully utilize and understand the dialogues in jokes and metaphors.

It's not designed to hallucinate users. It is a tool designed to provide information using everyday language use instead of searching through irrelevant links that appear in your search, like ads. — Harry Hindu

It is perfectly fine when AI or ChatBot users take them as informational assistance searching for data they are looking for. But you notice some folks talk as if they have human minds just because they respond in ordinary conversational language which are pre-programmed by the AI developers and computer programmers.

I did define intelligence earlier in the thread:

Let's start off with a definition of intelligence as: the process of achieving a goal in the face of obstacles. What about this definition works and what doesn't? — Harry Hindu

I am not sure the definition is logically, semantically correct or fit for use. There are obscurities and absurdities in the definition. First of all, it talks about achieving a goal. How could machines try to achieve a goal, when they have no desire or will power in doing so?

The process of achieving a goal? Here again, what do you mean by process? Is intelligence always in the form of process? Does it have starting and ending? So what is the start of intelligence? What is the ending of intelligence?

I just deny objective morality. To me, each individual has all rights to his/her life and has no right to the lives of others. — MoK

Of course, there is. People as you mentioned yourself have different opinions about an action, whether it is right or wrong. That means that morality is subjective and not objective. — MoK

Think of this example. It is a fact, and truth that there is a book titled "General Logic" on my desk right now. But you wouldn't have known the fact until you read what I typed up above. You would have never believed that the book existed on my desk until you read the sentence. What does it tell you?

Even if some folks don't believe a fact or truth, that doesn't mean the fact or truth don't exist.
Likewise, moral rights or wrong is objective whether some folks have different ideas, feelings, beliefs or judgements. Just because you have different morality doesn't mean morality is subjective.

Opinion, belief, feeling, and like play an important role in morality to me. These are however personal, therefore I believe in moral subjectivism. — MoK

Well, they are just your psychological state, which has nothing to do with morality. People can have different feelings, beliefs and opinions, but that doesn't mean morality is subjective. If you say morality is subjective, and what you feel and believe is morality, then it is no longer morality. It is just your feelings and beliefs on certain aspects of human actions to other humans.

Neither did your comment about AIs being overrated search engines. — Harry Hindu

If you looked into the coding of AI, they are just a database of what the AI designers have typed in to hard drives in order to respond to the users' input with some customization. AI is glorified search engine.

You cannot have a philosophical discussion with a search engine. The only other object I can have a philosophical discussion with is another human being. Does that not say something? — Harry Hindu

Exactly. But AI is designed to hallucinate the users as if they are having the real life conversations or discussions with them.

It says that we could still investigate and discuss what makes AI to get the users to project human minds onto them. It is still an interesting topic I guess.

All I'm trying to do is get at the core meaning of intelligence, not its boundaries. — Harry Hindu

Yes, still waiting for your definition of intelligence. If you don't know what intelligence is, then how could you have asked if AI is intelligent? Without clear definition of intelligence, whatever answer would be meaningless.

The boundary of concept is critical for analysis of their the logic of implications and legitimacy of applications.

I say that morality is personal. A person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his/her life for example. — MoK

Morality is value judgements on the actions of humans by the other humans, hence saying morality is personal is negating morality. Life is precious, and should be prolonged no matter what circumstances the life is in.

That is the moral code from the ancient times which is accepted by the majority of the civilized countries even now. Hence it would be morally wrong to assist in terminating life of the locked-in man. That would be a judgement from morality. TBC~

Saying that, I think that the solid structure of self is just as questionable as mind. I draw upon the Buddhist idea of 'no self'. That is the self, even though it is has ego identity, is not a permanent structure, despite narrative continuity. But the nature of identity is dependent on a sense of 'I', which may be traced back to Descartes. There is the idea of I as self-reference, which artificial intelligence may be able to achieve, but probably not as the seat of consciousness, once referred to as 'soul'. — Jack Cummins

I can sympathise your experience of various ups and downs events with your mobile phone. And suppose the idea of self is a massive and illusive topic of philosophy, psychology and religion on its own.
I am not sure if, self-reference could be regarded as part of the idea of self. You seem to sound not quite concrete about the suggestion.

My thought on the idea of self was to include the psychological states including emotions, sensations and feelings as well as reasoning backed by historical memories since the birth of an individual all bundled into a perception of reflective "I". Hence machines cannot have it.

Two substances could have different essences. Two substances could have the same essence but different properties, such as location. Two Omnipresent substances however have to have different essences if all their other properties are the same. — MoK

Here again, your understanding on "essence" seems to be wrong. The essence of God means all the attributes that make God for what the God is. You should have listed all the attributes or properties what make the God Jesus, and also the God who created the world.

The question was looking for the details of the attributes and properties for those Gods.

I don't think that there is such a thing as objective morality. I gave you time to defend objective morality. You mentioned Kant's formulations that are based on pure reason, at least his first formulation to the best of my understanding. You on the one hand believe in objective morality and on the other hand believe that different societies are allowed to have different beliefs on the rightness and wrongness of an action. — MoK

I think your problem seems to come from not understanding what "universal" means. Universal doesn't mean the whole universe in here. It means in all occasions. Please consult the Oxford Dictionary on the meaning. A word has different meanings, and here it is being used for the specific meaning. Hence the universal law can be effective in one country or the society you live in.

For Kant's morality, he was talking about the way moral judgements are made. Not what the morality is.
I wasn't defending objectivity of morality. I was just trying to clarify your misunderstandings.

I am busy on doing other stuff the now, but will get back to you with the other points. But this is just a quick post to point out the main problem you seem to have on the topic.

We say that two substances are intrinsically different when they have different essences. — MoK

Of course they are different essences, but the question is in what way they are different. Aren't there any details of the properties between the different essences?

That is not correct. There is no moral truth in moral nihilism. Moral subjectivism is however based on a person's perspectives so moral truth depends on the individual subjective perspective. — MoK

Well, that is exactly same thing as saying the other folks judgements on the morality don't count or matter at all. Morality itself implies objectivity and universality in the judgements. When you deny that you are denying morality itself. There is no such thing as subjective morality. That would just mean a psychological state or disposition, nothing to do with morality.

God and Jesus accepting that Jesus is God have different substances. Their substances differ because their essences are different. — MoK

How are the substances different?

Quite the opposite. If an action is proven to be objectively right or wrong then any society must accept it as right or wrong. — MoK

It is the same meaning as " Any society prove an action is objectively right or wrong, they must accept it as right or wrong.", but you just changed the sentence from active to passive form, and then wrote it is quite the opposite.

That is a matter of their opinion that is different from the opinion of people in other countries. — MoK

Different countries and societies could have their own objective and universal laws in morality.

If it is so then morality is not objective. — MoK

It is objective within the countries, and societies.

But practical reasoning is different from pure reasoning. I think that Kant believed that morality is objective based on pure reasoning. Don't you think? — MoK

Practical reason is what deals with the moral judgements, not pure reason.

That does not answer my question. I asked whether you can derive that killing is wrong under all circumstances using the first formulation of Kant. — MoK

The answer is "It depends on which country you are residing, when the killing took place." It will be judged by the universal law in the country where the action had been taken.

But people have different opinions, beliefs, feelings,... How could we agree on a maxim if we want to derive rightness or wrongness from opinions, beliefs, feelings,...? How could morality be objective then? — MoK

Hume was a moral relativist. He said, you cannot derive "ought from is". But still human beliefs, feelings and emotions are common in most times in the form of sympathy.

Indeed, that is quite ironic! — MoK

Hume has his points.

No, I believe in subjective morality. — MoK

Subjective morality means a moral nihilist.

One aspect of the difference between artificial intelligence and a human being is that it is unlikely that they will ever be constructed with a sense of personal identity. They may be given a name and a sense of being some kind of entity. However, identity is also about the narrative stories which we construct about one's life. It would be quite something if artificial intelligence could ever be developed in such a way as it would mean that consciousness as we know it had been created beyond the human mind. — Jack Cummins

Sure. All computers and mobile phones on earth have been allocated with the unique ID either via IP address or MAC address, hence they could be identified and located. But the ID is not self identity.
It is doubtful if these devices including AI agents would know who they are.

Identity has subjective and objective aspects in its nature. Machines have objective IDs, so they can be identified by other machines or humans. But they don't seem to have the subjective aspect of ID.

Idea of self is more than just names, address and DOB etc. It is also the psychological and historical reflections and mental states.

Sure. A valid view is one that allows you to accomplish some goal. We change our views of humans depending on what it is we want to accomplish - genetic views, views of an individual organisms, a view as the species as a whole, cultural views, views of governance, etc. It's not that one view is wrong or right. It's more about which view is more relevant to what it is you are trying to accomplish. — Harry Hindu

Your post with the genetics point of view on humans

just a baby-making (gene dispersal) engine — Harry Hindu

sounded too restricted and even negative, which didn't help adding more useful information on understanding or describing humans.

The question now is, what point of view do we start with to adequately define intelligence, one of a particular organism (each organism is more or less intelligent depending upon the complexity of its behaviors), species (only humans are intelligent), or universal (any thing can be intelligent if it performs the same type function)? — Harry Hindu

I am not sure, if intelligence is a correct word to describe the AI agents. Intelligence is an abstract concept with no clear boundary in its application, which has been in use to describe the biologically living animals with brains.

Could usefulness or practicality or efficiency better terms for describing the AI agents, unless you would come up with some sort of reasonable definition of intelligence? What do you think?

An essence to me describes what makes a thing what it is. Essence is about whatness. — MoK

What are the essences of the God who made Jesus into another God? And what are the essences of the God Jesus?

According to Kant, accepting a maxim as a universal law is a way to determine whether an action is right or wrong. Once people agree that an action is right or wrong, they can establish the legislative code accordingly. — MoK

If a community or society come to agreement on certain moral codes, they could make them into the objective and universal law. Then the moral code becomes the legal legislation. For example, in some countries of South Asia such as Singapore and Indonesia, drug trafficking offenses are punishable by death. Where does the legislation come from? It must have from the moral code which they have agreed to make into their universal law.

Note here "universal" doesn't mean for the whole universe, but for all cases in the country or society or group.

Anyhow, it would be a result of their practical reasoning on the cases which drug uses and trades cause harm to the population in the countries. And it must have been derived from the universal law that harming others is morally evil.

Could you derive whether killing a person with locked-in syndrome is morally right or wrong using Kant's first formulation? How about people who are terminally ill? How about when your country is at war with another country and the enemy is about to occupy your country? — MoK

If you or the society you belong to, have accepted the maxim that killing is bad under all circumstances, then it would be morally wrong to assist the locked-in man to die.

However, in some countries in Europe, assisted killing is legal in such cases. Hence it would depend on the society the situation has risen. Again here, "universal" doesn't mean the whole universe. It means for all cases in the country or society or group.

If morality is based on reason only then it is objective. — MoK

Not just reasoning, but humans also share similar emotions in the form of sympathy according to Hume. But Hume was, I gather, a moral nihilist. He said, you cannot derive "ought from is", hence there is no obligation for one to be expected to perform moral good out of the maxims or universal law.

From what you have been saying on morality, Hume seems to be on the same side as your idea.

So are you a Christian? — Corvus

I am undecided about believing in God. The same applies to life after death. — MoK

If you believed in Science, then life after death looks unlikely. But from the religious point of view, and some QM ideas, life after death seems a possibility. How and to what would be subject to depending on which religion and QM theories we are talking about of course.

Sure good point.  I used to see mind as the totality of mental operation and reflective consciousness including sensation, perception, reasoning as well emotional states i.e. desire, pleasure, good will, moral judgements and even depression which rose from the biological body evolved from the lived experience.

If machines or tools can have all that, then yes we could say they have mind.  But I doubt they do.  For example, I don't see machines ever having desire, love and hate, volition, moral judgements and depression and elation, fear, idea of God, idea of life and death via aging due to lack of the lived experience which real humans have.

From my point of view, intelligence is a type of reasoning, learning and understanding as well as capacity for solving problems in the real world.  But how wide that boundary should be, that seems a tricky task for defining the concept. I am sure @HaryHindu and some others will come up with different, and their own versions of definitions of intelligence of course.

AI is definitely very effective and efficient in searching and finding the requested data via computer search algorithms. However, can it be called intelligence? It cannot even make a coffee, let alone being aware of their inevitable death via aging.

Yes, even machines will all die due to aging of the electrical parts. The aging part of the machines could get replaced with the new parts, unlike human bodies which will die eternally, when their biological organs fail due to aging. But without the human intervention of servicing and replacing the parts of the machinery of aging, obsoleting and malfunctioning AI, they will also face the eternal death in the form of the physical destruction into scrap metal recycling.

I have just thrown out a bunch of my old ipads (still working in hardware), but non-functional in software into the rubbish collection bin, all broken into small metal and plastic pieces with the hammer for data deletion in rough and barbaric way (but very quick, easy and cheap).

They were excellent machines in their own days (10 years ago), but not really usable these days due to the OS no longer supported by Apple Inc. I am adamant, they would have had no idea of their eventual and necessary deaths in the physical form, if they ever had any form of mind of their own, which is pretty doubtful.

OK IPads are not AI, but we can draw an analogy on their fate which will necessitates their inevitable deaths and destruction via aging and obsoleting usefulness in real world.

Is mind a necessary condition for intelligence? — RogueAI

But what is mind? Is mind only from the biological brain in the living bodies? Or could non-living entities such as machines and tools have mind too?

Only if you have a peculiarly limited view of genetics. Everything humans do is a subgoal of survival and dispersing the genes of the group. The design of your adaptable brain is in your genes. — Harry Hindu

No, I don't have any idea what genetics suppose to be or do in depth. I just thought that genetic is one way to describe humans, but to define humans under the one tiny narrow subject sounds too obtuse and meaningless. Because humans are far more than genes, and they cannot be reduced into just genes.

Genetics supposed to add the bio-structural information to the knowledge of understanding humans, not to reduce it, in other words. Makes sense?

Please define intelligence. — Corvus

I am attempting to do so: — Harry Hindu

Let us know when you do.

No problem mate! :) — MoK

:pray: :smile:

I am undecided about believing in God. The same applies to life after death. I have to face these to be certain. — MoK

You made clear that you are not an atheist. So, the choice for you seems to be between being an agnostic and theist.

Or different essences, if you prefer? — Corvus

Yes. — MoK

What are the two essences in nature and character, and how are they different?

Aren't we going to end up in the Chinese Room? No matter how the Ai is programmed, it's following a rules-based system that produces output we perceive as intelligent answers. Even if Ai's start solving outstanding problems in science and logic and mathematics, aren't there still going to be doubts about their intelligence? — RogueAI

Intelligence is a unclear concept. @HarryHindu asked me, if AI blokes are intelligent. Before answering the question, I need to know what intelligence means.

but my question is why we should generalize a maxim to become a universal law.

Think of a person with locked-in syndrome. He suffers from being in such a condition greatly. He wishes to die desperately. Isn't it right to assist him to die? Is it right to keep him in such a condition? Accepting that we only can find the rightness of a maxim by generalizing it to become a universal law has this danger of putting people in an undesirable and unfair situation such as people with locked-in syndrome. — MoK

Universal law doesn't mean some legislative codes or official declaration.  It means the way moral good and bad is judged.   It is judged by our practical reasoning on the actions, decisions on the moral situations.

In Kant, reason is an objective and universal way of thinking.   Everyone on the planet says 1+1=2 (by analytic reason), and killing is morally bad (by practical reason).  This is what Kant means by universal and objective.

Moral good is not something God tells you what to do, and it is not an absolute concept existing somewhere in space, in Kant's view.

OK there are some controversial cases in real world, where decisions and judgements could be controversial or contradictory such as your example of the locked-in man.  Even in that case, the judgement and decision on the situation are to be made from practical reasoning, so that the result is thought to be best for achieving moral good (not by God's instruction or the absolute moral Good as some folks seem to think).

Moral good is not about what some folks feels different on certain situations. It is about the actions which have been performed, and decisions which have been made. It is not about the feelings. It is about the actions. In that sense moral judgements are reflective and analytical which are made via practical reasoning.

You may feel about something totally different in moral judgements from the rest of the folks in the universe. That is not morality. That is just a psychological disposition or beliefs which can change through time and by rethinking. But when you performed a certain act on the moral situation, it will then be judged morally good or bad.

Never did I claim such a thing. — MoK

I thought you did. Maybe it was someone else. My sincere apologies for mistaking your religious stance. So are you a Christian?

Different substances are different in their essences. — MoK

Of course, they would be different in some ways. What would be the difference be? Or different essences, if you prefer?

Ok, I will read them when I have time. — MoK

:ok: :wink:

I am wondering what is the argument for objective morality. As I mentioned Kant's argument is false. Hume's argument is based on specific feelings that are not common between human beings. — MoK

Please read the SEP article on Kant's Moral Philosophy. Here is an article about Hume's Morality as well. And this is Kant vs. Hume on Morality.

After your reading, please let us know the reason why you think they are false. You cannot say they are false, if you don't know what they are.

From a genetic point of view humans are just a baby-making (gene dispersal) engine. — Harry Hindu

A genetic point of view seems to have a peculiarly limited idea of humans.

, could we then say AI (the robot) is intelligent? — Harry Hindu

Please define intelligence.

Well, God can teach us the truth so we can become Omniscient if knowledge is bound. — MoK

You claimed you are an atheist. If God doesn't exist, how could he teach you to become omniscient?

I think two entities with the same sort of substance cannot occupy the same location. Therefore, two Omnipresent entities must have different substances. — MoK

What would the different substances be in their nature?

It may be shown after great errors that AI is not as intelligent as human beings, as it is too robotic and concrete. — Jack Cummins

:ok: :sparkle: From computer programming point of view, AI is just an overrated search engine.

The biggest problem is the creation of consciousness itself, which may defy the building of a brain and nervous system, as well as body parts. Without this, the humans fabricated artificially are likely to be like Madam Tussard models with mechanical voices and movements, even simulated thought. Interior consciousness is likely to be lacking, or substance. It comes down to the creation of nature itself and a probable inability to create the spark of life inherent in nature and consciousness. — Jack Cummins

:ok: :up:

Well, that is not an argument in favor of objective morality. The majority of the human population feels the same way in the same situations. But there is a minority that enjoys from inflicting pain on others. Therefore, the feeling cannot be a base or fact for objective morality. — MoK

The universal and objective morality as a human nature is the principle of Ethics. It doesn't mean 100% human beings understand and practice the moral law.

There would be real life cases where some of the minority folks' judgements and understandings get impaired due to various reasons. And there will always be some minority folks going against the human nature and the normativity also for various reasons.

The principle cannot do anything against them apart from saying that they are morally wrong. However, the principle still stands as the normativity of morality.

I already mentioned the problem within Kant's argument, first formulation. I am currently reading this article on Hume's argument on the topic. The article is however very long. Could you summarize Hume's argument? — MoK

Sure. It is rather simple. When we see a fellow human being suffering, we want to offer help to save the folk if we can. It is out of our sympathy in our emotion which we share with all the human beings in the world.

When we see the fellow human being saved from our help, we feel moral good, that we have done something good for other human beings. It is the nature of our mind which are loaded with these sharable emotions called sympathy, Hume says.

What is the argument for that? — MoK

The argument is based on the logical implication from the Ethics and Practical Reasoning by Kant, and the concept of Sympathy of Hume in A Treatise of Human Nature.

By whom? A person who is hungry and steals food does not think so. And where is the argument for that? — MoK

The universal moral law will say stealing is wrong. The hungry folk should have asked for some food explaining his / her situation from those around him. Without doubt some charitable folks out of sympathy would have offered the hungry fellow man with hot food and drinks.

Under the universal and objective moral law which is residing in all human reasoning, stealing is morally wrong.

Accepting stealing as permissible negates the right of having a property, not the ability to have a property. A person could be politically, socially, ... strong and steal from others and keep it as his/her property. — MoK

Stealing is universally regarded as morally wrong. No one in the world would think stealing is morally right regardless the property were personally or publicly owned. Stealing shouldn't be permitted in any circumstances by universal law.

As for AI, sentience and philosophy, the issue is that without sentience AI does not have life experiences. As it is, it doesn't have parents, self-image and sexuality. It does not have reflective consciousness, thereby, it is not able to attain wisdom. — Jack Cummins

Recently I bought a few items from some of the online shops, and the items were described by A.I. generated texts. When the items arrived, I found out the most of the descriptions by the AI were wrong. It was just meaningless praise of the goods without accuracy in detail and functionality.

I had to return the 2 items out of 3 for full refund. I asked the online sellers not to use the AI generated descriptions for their items for sale.

Aestheticism and the Philosophy of Death: Walter Pater and Post-Hegelianism by Giles Whitely (Author)