> This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and
> instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a
> universe based on this description, what would we get? Where is the
> revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the deep and
> violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils of game
> They're found in your the banal neurons of your brain, so they could be
> part of the morals of a robot if we chose to build it that way. From our
> perspective as citizens in a very diverse and interconnected world of
> billions of people, we can see ways in which we might give a robot better,
> more adaptive, values than biology has given us.
Only a world about the last paragraph. There are greath differences between
evolutionary designs and
rational design. Contrary to the engineering-minded opinion of many
scientists, evolutionary design
is much better. evolution is holistic and operates at all scales and with
all the problems at the
same time. Rationality is focused, has limited resources, operate for a
limited time and can´t ever
consider all the factors at the same time. There are evidences everywhere.
Not only genetic algoriths
applied to design circuits produce more fast and reduced designs, but also
whenever rational social
engineering tried to replace naturally evolved institutions the result has
been a complete failure. Moreover
All the attemps of artificial intelligence have been pathetic to say
something (And I worked on it).
Because evolutionary design is holistic we never ever could know ALL the
reasons for which an evolutuonary
design has been made. Simply we can never know. To say that some
evolutionary design is a failure is a engineering minded sin which is the
sin of ignorance most of the times.
Also,because it is hollistic, the evolutionary designs are
not modular, neither each module has limited interfaces. These are rules of
good design for us who rationally
can not handle many balls in the air at the same time. this does not apply
to nature which for the effects
of design works as a infinitelly parallel computer.
I´m not raising neither nature nor natural selection to the deity status.
I´m only describing my humble
opinion of that, which I think is right, and is contrary to most if not all
the scientists. That is because
there are much ideology in science. The rational-centrism, the last phase
of the antropocentrism resist
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at