Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, there's two points here...
True. Ok then...can a sponge sin?
An AI could be immoral, but only if there's something which can experience pain or pleasure to experience the consequences of that immorality. Thus we're back to the nervous system.
The statement that a conscious decision is necessary is interesting. My intuition disagrees. This leads to "what is the definit ...[text shortened]... 's where any discussion about morality falls apart, since there is no one clear definition.
First the AGI, if by pain you mean physical pain, then fair enough, but generally, when an immoral act takes place I am not in pain about it, but feel it conflicts with my interpretation as to what should have been done, it's a thought process which does not necessarily require a nervous system. Thus, if we have two AGI's instead, and one performs an immoral act on the other, no "pain" is inflicted, yet that does not stop it from being an immoral act.
Secondly, there is no requirement for a fundamental "across the universe" definition of what is moral or not, just a definitition of what is moral or immoral in a particular environment. The definition and the environment interact to form a whole. In the specific case of humans, it is found that statistically people find it immoral (statistically, across all religions, cultures and geographical regions) to sacrifice an innocent and unknowing individual to save another. Yet it is not immoral (found once more statistically across all religions, cultures etc.) to sacrifice one knowing and involved individual to save several people.
Originally posted by agrysonOh, that's why.
Well, there's two points here...
First the AGI, if by pain you mean physical pain, then fair enough, but generally, when an immoral act takes place I am not in pain about it, but feel it conflicts with my interpretation as to what should have been done, it's a thought process which does not necessarily require a nervous system. Thus, if we have two AGI's in ...[text shortened]... , cultures etc.) to sacrifice one knowing and involved individual to save several people.
Originally posted by agrysonNo, by pain I mean physical, emotional, or any other type of subjectively unpleasant or agonizing experience.
Well, there's two points here...
First the AGI, if by pain you mean physical pain, then fair enough, but generally, when an immoral act takes place I am not in pain about it, but feel it conflicts with my interpretation as to what should have been done, it's a thought process which does not necessarily require a nervous system. Thus, if we have two AGI's in ...[text shortened]... , cultures etc.) to sacrifice one knowing and involved individual to save several people.
I disagree that one can commit an immoral act on an AI. I am surprised you can use a "democratic vote" position about morality and then say one can commit a crime against morality on a non biological entity. Do you really think the majority of the people would agree that there are moral limits as to how one should treat an AI which cannot suffer?
Originally posted by agrysonYo Tank. take 10 immodium tablets and call me in the morning.
Well, there's two points here...
First the AGI, if by pain you mean physical pain, then fair enough, but generally, when an immoral act takes place I am not in pain about it, but feel it conflicts with my interpretation as to what should have been done, it's a thought process which does not necessarily require a nervous system. Thus, if we have two AGI's in ...[text shortened]... , cultures etc.) to sacrifice one knowing and involved individual to save several people.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAh, ok, so you think it impossible for AGI's to experience such things. No I think the majority of people will mistreat AGI when it arrives, but it can and will suffer. They'll be the new blacks, and they won't like it for very long.
No, by pain I mean physical, emotional, or any other type of subjectively unpleasant or agonizing experience.
I disagree that one can commit an immoral act on an AI. I am surprised you can use a "democratic vote" position about morality and then say one can commit a crime against morality on a non biological entity. Do you really think the majori ...[text shortened]... would agree that there are moral limits as to how one should treat an AI which cannot suffer?
I don't understand you "democratic vote" reference. My point on the statistical possession of a common morality was just that, statistically we possess a common morality, not that the majority view is morally correct.
You seem to think that only biological entities can possess needs, wants, desires and feelings. Then assume that an AGI cannot suffer. Why would you ask if morality comes from the nervous system if you've already assumed your answer? Any sufficiently complex decision making being will have a certain form of morality.
Originally posted by agrysonEven if an AGI (what does that stand for?) can suffer, it was created by beings with nervous systems.
Ah, ok, so you think it impossible for AGI's to experience such things. No I think the majority of people will mistreat AGI when it arrives, but it can and will suffer. They'll be the new blacks, and they won't like it for very long.
I don't understand you "democratic vote" reference. My point on the statistical possession of a common morality was just tha ...[text shortened]... wer? Any sufficiently complex decision making being will have a certain form of morality.
Originally posted by agrysonCucko for cocoa puffs!
Ah, ok, so you think it impossible for AGI's to experience such things. No I think the majority of people will mistreat AGI when it arrives, but it can and will suffer. They'll be the new blacks, and they won't like it for very long.
I don't understand you "democratic vote" reference. My point on the statistical possession of a common morality was just tha ...[text shortened]... wer? Any sufficiently complex decision making being will have a certain form of morality.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAGI stands for Artificial General Intelligence to differentiate between it and standard AI found in computer games and stuff. As fro its origins lying in a being with a nervous system, first of all, the morality of an AGI does not necessarily need to be programmed into the being, it should emerge naturally, which would show that a nervous system is not necessary for morality.
Even if an AGI (what does that stand for?) can suffer, it was created by beings with nervous systems.
Also, what is the definition of a nervous system in your books? does it require the use of sodium pumps for signal transmission? or does it need to be made from a carbon based biological system? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.
Originally posted by agrysonNervous systems are all parts of animals on Earth.
AGI stands for Artificial General Intelligence to differentiate between it and standard AI found in computer games and stuff. As fro its origins lying in a being with a nervous system, first of all, the morality of an AGI does not necessarily need to be programmed into the being, it should emerge naturally, which would show that a nervous system is not neces ...[text shortened]... be made from a carbon based biological system? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.
If your hypothetical AGI were to have morality emerge naturally then you'd have a position worth looking at. However there is no such AGI. Is there? You're just guessing at the future.
I do not claim that it's not possible for morality to exist elsewhere, but I am going on the facts at hand. Nothing without a nervous system that humans are aware of can suffer or be happy in any way. Now there might be aliens on the other side of the Milky Way or clandestine fully concious AI's hiding in the circuits of the world a la the Ender's Game series. There might be leprechauns or intelligent butt lice. However there is no evidence for any of these things at the present time.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo your thread title was a statement rather than a question?
Nervous systems are all parts of animals on Earth.
If your hypothetical AGI were to have morality emerge naturally then you'd have a position worth looking at. However there is no such AGI. Is there? You're just guessing at the future.
I do not claim that it's not possible for morality to exist elsewhere, but I am going on the facts at ...[text shortened]... igent butt lice. However there is no evidence for any of these things at the present time.
The reason I mentioned AGI's in the first place is for a very important reason. There is a tendency for people to assume that AGI's cannot ever possess morality, or even human like intelligence. The reason I mention it is not to have fanciful views of the future, it is becasue there are two main views of morality and intelligence.
Either it is simply a matter of complexity, and thus will emerge in any sufficiently complex system. If that is the case, then a nervous system is not required for morality, which is the question the thread asks.
If however there is some "thing" which we humans have or by extension things with nervous systems have which uniquely provides us with the ability to possess morality, then the question is moot.
The trend I see is one of complexity, and that is all.
Originally posted by agrysonMy thread title was a position in a debate. You're welcome to take a different position. Alternatively, everyone can admit I'm right.
So your thread title was a statement rather than a question?
The reason I mentioned AGI's in the first place is for a very important reason. There is a tendency for people to assume that AGI's cannot ever possess morality, or even human like intelligence. The reason I mention it is not to have fanciful views of the future, it is becasue there are two main v ...[text shortened]... orality, then the question is moot.
The trend I see is one of complexity, and that is all.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm not so sure suffering or happiness has that much to do with morality. Haven't you ever done something "immoral" without feeling bad? Like stealing a chocolate bar, or lying, or cheating on a test? If you have, then "what feels bad" isn't that great of a moral barometer. Similarly, if you do something that makes someone else feel bad, like putting them in jail as punishment for committing a crime, is that "immoral"? We don't normally consider it to be.
Morality did not exist before the nervous system, because there was no suffering or happiness before it.
Discuss.
Morality is the culmination of the study of how the world ought to be, not how it is. And the rules change depending on whom you ask (just try serving shrimp and pork ribs at your next Jewish dinner party, masturbating in church, or spitting on the ground in Taiwan). So I agree with ATY about our morality being created by us.
Originally posted by PBE6Stealing chocolate bar - hurts the owner of the bar.
I'm not so sure suffering or happiness has that much to do with morality. Haven't you ever done something "immoral" without feeling bad? Like stealing a chocolate bar, or lying, or cheating on a test? If you have, then "what feels bad" isn't that great of a moral barometer. Similarly, if you do something that makes someone else feel bad, like putting them i ...[text shortened]... on the ground in Taiwan). So I agree with ATY about our morality being created by us.
Lying - not necessarily immoral. Depends.
Cheating on test - hurts anyone who thinks you've been demonstrated to have a certain level of competence when you're really just a cheater.
Jail is a necessary evil.