> On Jun 5, 5:05 am, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>> However, what would be wrong with a super AI that just had large
>>> amounts of pattern recognition and symbolic reasoning
>>> intelligence, but no emotions at all?
>> Taken strictly, I think this idea is incoherent.  Essential to
>> intelligence is taking some things as more important than others.
>> That's the difference between data collecting and theorizing.  It
>> is a fallacy to suppose that emotion can be divorced from reason -
>> emotion is part of reason.  An interesting example comes from
>> attempts at mathematical AI.  Theorem proving programs have been
>> written and turned loose on axiom systems - but what results are a
>> lot of theorems that mathematicians judge to be worthless and
>> trivial.
> Yeah.  That's the difference between *reflective intelligence* and 
> ordinary *symbolic logic*+*pattern recognition*.  I would say that 
> ordinary reason is a part of emotion.  (or reflective intelligence 
> encompasses the other two types).  But you're right, you can't
> divorce conscious experience from reason.  It's from conscious
> experience that value judgements come.
>>> Finally, the majority of evil in the world is not done by
>>> psychopaths, but by "normal" people who are aware that they are
>>> causing hurt, may feel guilty about causing hurt, but do it
>>> anyway because there is a competing interest that outweighs the
>>> negative emotions.
>> Or they may feel proud of their actions because they have supported
>> those close to them against competition from those distant from
>> them.  To suppose that empathy and reflection can eliminate all
>> competition for limited resources strikes me as pollyannish.
>> Brent Meeker-
> The human brain doesn't function as a fully reflective system.  Too 
> much is hard-wired and not accessible to conscious experience.  Our 
> brains simply don't function as a peroperly integrated system.  

On the contrary, they are well tuned for evolutionary survival in a 
hunter-gatherer society.  Your ancestors are more likely to have been killers 
than victims.

> reflection would enable the ability to reach into our underlying 
> preferences and change them.

But how would you want to change them.  Or put another way, you can change your 
preferences - you just can't want to change them.  

I think you are assuming that empathy trumps all other values.  I see no reason 
to believe this - or even to wish it.

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to