Artificial Intelligence

Time will tell if AI can “be happy”. Right now, I would say that is only in the realm of biologics as the brain releases hormones. We are electro-chemical machines. Sure, it can be simulated in silicon and maybe even fool us.

Unseen wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

I disagree. One can go from happiness to being distraught in a millisecond, without the state of things changing at all.

A state of being is not a “state of things.” It’s about how one IS. At one moment being happy and a millisecond later of being distraught. A state of being describes ones state at a parti…

[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:

I disagree. One can go from happiness to being distraught in a millisecond, without the state of things changing at all.

A state of being is not a “state of things.” It’s about how one IS. At one moment being happy and a millisecond later of being distraught. A state of being describes ones state at a particular time, which can…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

I disagree. One can go from happiness to being distraught in a millisecond, without the state of things changing at all.

Maybe you can call it a mood.

Sure, the main point being that a deterministic, rational, but emotionless human existence is probably subpar.

_Robert_ wrote:

I disagree. One can go from happiness to being distraught in a millisecond, without the state of things changing at all.

Maybe you can call it a mood.

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

Yeah, and this is also why some say we need a god…watching, looking, keeping score.

We’re all monitored and evaluated the entire time, by ourselves and everybody who knows us. There’s a big eye watching us all the time, and it’s called the human race.

Yes, but the level of detail varies widely, and the wat…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

Happiness is an emotion, after all.

Happiness is not an emotion. Properly categorized, it’s a state of being.

I disagree. One can go from happiness to being distraught in a millisecond, without the state of things changing at all.

_Robert_ wrote:

Yeah, and this is also why some say we need a god…watching, looking, keeping score.

We’re all monitored and evaluated the entire time, by ourselves and everybody who knows us.  There’s a big eye watching us all the time, and it’s called the human race.

_Robert_ wrote:

Happiness is an emotion, after all.

Happiness is not an emotion. Properly categorized, it’s a state of being.

Unseen wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

I agree emotions do play a role in morality because we are not Vulcans.

A belief in determinism helps one to leave emotion out of decisions because a determinist isn’t thinking in terms of praise and blame. His behavior will be more in terms of fixing things.

Not sure even the hardest determinist can manage to be e…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

however for those who only make good choices for recognition or some other form of payback you might say the ends justify the means. It is still weak morality, IMHO.

Some people say that something good done for its own sake is the only kind of real virtue.

Yeah, and this is also why some say we need a…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:

I agree emotions do play a role in morality because we are not Vulcans.

A belief in determinism helps one to leave emotion out of decisions because a determinist isn’t thinking in terms of praise and blame. His behavior will be more in terms of fixing things.

_Robert_ wrote:

however for those who only make good choices for recognition or some other form of payback you might say the ends justify the means. It is still weak morality, IMHO.

Some people say that something good done for its own sake is the only kind of real virtue.

I agree emotions do play a role in morality because we are not Vulcans. Much of the time suppression of emotions leads to the best moral decisions, however for those who only make good choices for recognition or some other form of payback you might say the ends justify the means. It is still weak morality, IMHO.

Simon Paynton wrote:

I think the task is to come up with alternatives to utilitarianism, consequentialism etc., which are an intuitive way in but don’t actually really go anywhere in the real world. A good alternative is morality as collaboration – both what happens within the collaboration, and its goal, are subjects for morality.

What is nee…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

…We need emotions and consequences to govern us morally. Rationality can guide us up some weird paths……

I would suggest the converse of that is true.

All three together is ideal.

...We need emotions and consequences to govern us morally. Rationality can guide us up some weird paths……

I would suggest the converse of that is true.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

The Categorical Imperative could be considered a foundational principle of morality. It is grounded in the belief that moral actions must be guided by rationality and universalizable principles, rather than emotions or consequences. I don’t really see what it wrong with that.

That sounds good, but there’s a lot w…[Read more]

The Categorical Imperative could be considered a foundational principle of morality. It is grounded in the belief that moral actions must be guided by rationality and universalizable principles, rather than emotions or consequences. I don’t really see what it wrong with that. It emphasizes the inherent dignity of every individual. Moral actions a…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Group Selection: Groups with cooperative, moral members tend to survive and thrive better, promoting the evolution of moral behavior.

Ethical Frameworks: Philosophical doctrines like Kant’s categorical imperative or utilitarianism guide moral actions through reasoned principles.

These are flat-out wrong.  Beyond th…[Read more]