--- Lukasz Stafiniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/14/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I would avoid deleting all the files on my hard disk, but it has nothing > to do > > with pain or empathy. > > > > Let us separate the questions of pain and ethics. There are two > independent > > questions. > > > > 1. What mental or computational states correspond to pain? > > 2. When is it ethical to cause a state of pain? > > > There is a gradation: > - pain as negative reinforcement > - pain as an emotion > - pain as a feeling > > When you ask if something "feels pain", then you don't ask if "pain" > is adequate description of some aspect in that thing or person X, but > whether X can be attributed as feeling. And this is related to the > comlexity of X, and this complexity is related with ethics.
I don't believe this addresses the issue of machine pain. Ethics is a complex function which evolves to increase the reproductive success of a society, for example, by banning sexual practices that don't lead to reproduction. Ethics also evolves to ban harm to other members of the group, but not to non-members (e.g. war is allowed), and not to other species (hunting is allowed), except to the extent that such actions would harm the group. Instances of the ethics function vary in implementation from one person to another. Some people would extend ethical convention against causing harm to people of all religions and ethnic groups, while others would not. Some will also extend the convention to certain higher animals. The result is a complex set of laws that try to satisfy everyone. For example, animal cruelty laws are not written to protect animals from pain, but to protect humans from displays of cruelty. Thus, we ban cockfighting but not packing chickens into tiny cages from birth to slaughter. Similarly, acts of brutality against humans, whether by criminals, police, or soldiers, will result in a much greater public outcry and more severe consequences when the act is videotaped and widely viewed, even if the other facts are equal and well established. There is no precedent for ethics with regard to machines. We protect machines only to the extent that harming them harms the owner. Nevertheless, I think your argument about pain being related to complexity relates to the more general principle of protecting that which resembles a human, even if that resemblance is superficial or based on emotion. I was reminded of this when I was playing Grand Theft Auto III. Besides carjacking, murder, and assorted mayhem, the game allows you to pick up prostitutes. Afterwards, the game gives you the option of getting your money back by beating her to death, but I declined. I felt empathy for a video game character. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
