From: John Donaldson <John.Donaldson.nul> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:09:27 +0000 Archived: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:38:55 -0500 Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 15:17:59 -0000 >Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >>From: John Donaldson <John.Donaldson.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 22:26:32 +0000 >>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence ><snip> >>That doesn't settle the realism/anti-realism debate in ethics, >>of course; but even anti-realists about ethics acknowledge that >>the default position is realism ><snip> >>anti-realists face the burden of argument, and we can assume >>moral realism is true until it is proven otherwise. That isn't >>to say that it can't be proven otherwise (or that it can), >>rather that if you want to make claims about the likelihood of >>amoral or evil super-AIs based on a rejection of moral realism >>then you better be prepared to argue for it, at length and with >>sophistication. >Hello John, >Nope, as you can see my position is that 'morality' +/or 'ethics' >are evolutionary outcomes which have developed (because they >work) to increase a species chances of survival. It's as simple >as that. >As you might also see, a corollary is that a different species >will necessarily have different morals/ethics, which are maybe >not even understood by themselves - just as most of us don't >seem to understand the meaning, origin or purpose of our own >'morals'. Hi Ray, You're now simply asserting that moral realism is false without addressing any of the arguments in favour of moral realism, or presenting any new argument in favour of moral anti-realism. As our thread has already covered, the only argument you offered previously was that it is possible to explain the appearance of moral behaviour in the human species by appeal to evolutionary forces. I responded by pointing out that explaining the appearance of moral behaviour in humans by appeal to evolutionary forces does not in any count against the claim that there are moral facts. I drew the comparison of explaining "light-seeing" behaviour in humans by appeal to evolutionary forces - it is true that evolutionary forces enabled our species to see, but that doesn't mean there are no facts about light. There are a large number of extant arguments on either side of moral realism/anti-realism debate - see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/ some of which I have mentioned. These arguments need to be considered before coming to any firm conclusion, and, as I have also previously stated, it needs to be remembered that the moral anti-realist faces the burden of argument in this debate. Best, John Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp