Gregg R Thomas

_Robert_ wrote:
absolute morality

There’s “absolute morality” – whatever that is – nobody can say – and “moral absolutes”, which are the strict rules necessary for ethical behaviour.

@unseen – if moral values are absolutes, then what do we do when two or more values apply?  Which one is “absolutely” correct overall?  Are the others wrong?  Do…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Facts are in one realm and values are in another one and never the twain shall meet because facts are value neutral

You’re right, I’m being a bit glib and disingenuous.  It’s true, they’re different realms, and we don’t treat them the same when making judgments of what to do.  We take both into account.

In a way, moral values are j…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
So there are really no “absolutes”. “Killing is wrong” is  meaningless.

No phrase I can understand is literally “meaningless.”

There are an infinite number of “killings” possible. And when you say “If one person feels” as in your fetus example, well that’s not exactly an absolute.

When someone expresses a feeling in a moral…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:

Unseen wrote:
You can’t have any sort of ethical system without absolutes. You can make ethical pronouncements till the cows come home, but without some sort of absolute value(s), you have no foundation to build one on.

It seems that with any sort of absolutes there ends up being a gazillion exceptions. Give us an absolute that h…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
You can make ethical pronouncements till the cows come home, but without some sort of absolute value(s), you have no foundation to build one on.

Yes you do, you have physical and scientific facts to build the foundation on.

Facts are in one realm and values are in another one and never the twain shall meet…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
But it doesn’t follow from that that it can’t be intelligent or conscious in a way it that serves its interests rather than ours.

You’re right, it doesn’t.  But your statement is also consistent with the idea that it can never be human.

Unseen wrote:
You can make ethical pronouncements till the cows come home, but without some sort of absolute value(s), you have no foundation to build one on.

Yes you do, you have physical and scientific facts to build the foundation on.

You can’t have any sort of ethical system without absolutes. You can make ethical pronouncements till the cows come home, but without some sort of absolute value(s), you have no foundation to build one on.

Simon Paynton wrote:
An AI can never be human-centred, because it’s Artificial.

But it doesn’t follow from that that it can’t be intelligent or conscious in a way it that serves its interests rather than ours.

Unseen wrote:
Your considerations are all human-centered. An intelligent AI needn’t be.

An AI can never be human-centred, because it’s Artificial.

State-of-the-art, which is to say, pretty dumb in some places but fair enough a lot of the time.  Yes, the AI has done a good job of summarising the field in my opinion.

The question of whether morality must originate from an absolute authority, particularly a supernatural one, is central to a lot of philosophical debate between theists and secularists. Many religious apologists argue that without a divine authority, there can be no objective basis for morality, meaning there’s no ultimate “right” or “wron…[Read more]

I met up with a cousin of mine a while back. He said “I gotta say thanks man for making me listen to Volume 4 when I was 12. I have discovered so much great music because of that and it has enhanced my life at all of it stages”.

Forty years later, it is still a great album. It has inspired many bands but none have surpassed it.

Sometimes I read…[Read more]

The aibient Youtube channel puts out hyperrealistic AI-created 11-12 hour long simulated 3D videos like this virtually daily:

Imagine how much it would cost and how much time it would take to hire a video artist to create anything like this if the stipulation was “no AI”.

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
We don’t know what to ask or we ask the wrong questions. What’s the key difference?

AI isn’t capable of coming up with an intelligent, guided question. It can come up with random questions, but it knows not what it is to love, or value things, or breathe the fresh air. In other words, it’s not guided by human v…

[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
I would be much more interested in knowing if morality must originate with an absolute authority (who is a supernatural being) as so many apologists claim and if not, what/who is the basis for secular morality.

I think that giving a sensible explanation of secular ethics, provides a credible alternative to any story about divine…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
We don’t know what to ask or we ask the wrong questions. What’s the key difference?

AI isn’t capable of coming up with an intelligent, guided question.  It can come up with random questions, but it knows not what it is to love, or value things, or breathe the fresh air.  In other words, it’s not guided by human values, exper…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
Music is interesting because of musicians. And well AI just doesn’t have that.

And yet, even “real” musicians are faking it as the Wings of Pegasus guy is exposing it. I’m referring to artists who lip sync live and others who abuse Autotune.

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
I think AI is already doing research to answer questions I ask.

That’s the point I’m making. You have to ask the questions. AI doesn’t know what to ask.

But doesn’t that describe US as well? We don’t know what to ask or we ask the wrong questions. What’s the key difference?

I suppose one key difference is th…[Read more]

Well, I suppose that humans asking AI the right questions will help humans to do research.