[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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. >Full > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
