An ethical model tells you what is good or bad. It does not make useful
predictions.
What determines whether something is good or bad? Merely the declaration of
the model? That is precisely what makes *your* ethics ungrounded and
useless . . . .
Why should you be ethical? I would argue it is so that you will have the
best probability of having the best life possible. This is an eminently
testable hypothesis. Do what the model says is good, see what happens. Do
what the model says is bad, see what happens. Yes, you clearly need to
extrapolate but your model gives nothing except ivory tower pontification.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Mahoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of
consciousness
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you propose testing whether a model is correct or not?
By determining whether it is useful and predictive -- just
like what we always do when we're practicing science (as
opposed to spouting BS).
An ethical model tells you what is good or bad. It does not make useful
predictions.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
