[tt] [FoRK] The neuroscience of morality

Thu May 17 03:13:42 UTC 2007

----- Forwarded message from "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw at lig.net> -----

From: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw at lig.net>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:52:36 -0400
To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
Subject: Re: [FoRK] The neuroscience of morality
Organization: High Performance Technologies, Inc. / OptimaLogic
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070104)
Reply-To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>

Due to travel, work, family, friends, exercise, etc., I am woefully 
behind.  I'll try to catch up.

BTW, I'm in Mountain View for another couple days if anyone wants to 
have dinner or a drink or something.

sdw

Lion Kimbro wrote:
>On 5/14/07, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
>...
>>> (And
>>>  why?)
>>
>>Why what?
>
> If we were to accept that utiltarianism were *the highest*
> philosophy, (as I expect sdw is want to do,) then my question
> would be: "Why?"  On what grounds?
If not utilitarianism then randomness.  If you aren't striving toward a 
goal of making things better, then you are a no-op or a negative.

The difficult part is determining a worthy goal to create a fitness 
function from.  This is a lot of what we have been discussing.  Saying 
that religion serves that purpose is A) wasteful, B) essentially putting 
the decision entirely in someone else's hands (and I don't mean a 
supernatural being), C) not a rational or not a fully rational goal.
>
> For we must live a fully rational life,
> completely grounded in Reason.
Otherwise we are animals.  Having goals beyond instincts, and complexly 
derived from instincts, is what makes us humans.  Being sure that those 
goals are superational rather than parational is the advanced, modern, 
civilized form of being human.
>
>>>  What are the proper concerns of pure reason?
>>
>>Far be it from me to say.  I'm not sure, as I'm sadly still in
>>possession of that little bit of brain tissue that apparently (per
>>the article) prevents me from being purely rational. ;-)  As you
>>might (or might not) put it, I'm still "human."  ;-)
The article was illustrating the major effect of our emotional / limbic 
processing of relationships, human empathy, etc.  I wouldn't say that 
removing those inputs to the decision making process makes a person more 
rational.  I would say that they just weight those aspects of the 
situation lower or zero.
>
> What I'm trying to do, is cast skepticism on the idea that
> the people in the article are purely rational, and live "pure reason."
I agree, they just became less sensitive or more blind to aspects of the 
decision.  In a particular case that may make some people more correct, 
but that just illustrates they weren't weighting things properly before.
>
> (If they do, though, I have some great economics questions
>  I'd love them to give The Answer to...)
>
> That is, that seeking "pure rationality" is something that cannot
> be attained, even in theory, even for the greatest post-singularity
> AI, as a mode of living.
Why?  I think you are implying certain things are non-rational that are.
>
> sdw's written that the goal is to be maximally rational.
> I'm trying to cast doubt on the feasibility (or desirability) of such
> a thing.  We *could* rationalize everything to *some point,* but
> that choice of point would not itself be fully rational.  It might be
> reasonable (you could convince someone it a good idea,) but it
> wouldn't be "completely rational," as if we were living math.
Maybe our definitions differ.  I rationalize and use reason on 
everything I do.  Of course I also memoize that reasoning when 
possible.  I also consider fuzzy aspects of relationships, caring, etc.  
Just because an input has uncertainty and impreciseness does not 
indicate that you are not reasoning rationally when you incorporate it 
into a decision.
>
>
>>I don't actually disagree with you on the rather over-the-top use of
>>language, there, btw.  But I find it amusing that *you* have quibbles
>>over somebody else's sloppy use of language, given your own
>>rhetorical proclivities...  Pot / kettle / black, I'd say.
>
> So, when I use language like "Pure Reason," I want it to be clear
> that I'm talking poetically.
>
> I want to talk that way, for motivational reasons, and for communicating
> "the truths of the spirit" (feelings, emotions, commitments,) but I
> want to do it firm in the knowledge that both I, and the audience, is
> understanding it poetically.
>
> But that is not the case.  The way most people understand "reason,"
> is that it's a thing that people do, or not do.
>
> When atheists, for example, say, "Those people *do not reason!*",
> a lot of them actually mean it.  They don't understand it as, "Those
> people reason, they have just not come to the conclusions we have
> come to," rather, they actually believe (and often times propose brain
> theories to explain it) that the people actually do not reason, and
> perhaps we should look to genetic reasons to figure out why.
>
> When sdw is seeking a totally rational life, he actually believes
> that there *is* such a thing, or that it is, at least, a maximum point
> that could in theory (at least) be reached.
>
> I'll make up a name for it:
>   "Secular Inerrantism."
What is inerrant?  Is Science inerrant?  You might say it is because the 
process readily replaces any error found by a better answer.  As I've 
said before, a superational, one that lives in a fully-informed and 
rational way, is essentially living by a philosophy of the scientific 
method.
>
> I can't ignore the obvious overlap with religious inerrantism.
> (That is, the belief that, "What the bible says about something is
>  obvious, and if you mis-interpret it, you must be doing something
>  wrong, or consciously working for Satan, ...")
I think a number of religious sects assume that people will have 
interpretation errors here and there.  The inerrantism is the belief 
that there is a meaning that people know that is true.

sdw

_______________________________________________
FoRK mailing list
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE