From: Jef Allbright (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 10:56:48 MDT
Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:
> Jef Allbright wrote:
>> As in the "arrow of morality" stated earlier, if we agree that that
>> the universe operates according to physical laws that can be
>> understood (to an ever-increasing degree) and that the kind of
>> "morality" that matters is simply the kind that works, then I would
>> suggest that a greater benefit to humanity will be achieved though
>> study and understanding of the principles underlying the dynamics of
>> organizational complexity (and many related fields), and developing
>> enabling technologies, in a bottom-up approach, to facilitate people
>> achieving their evolving goals, wherever they might lead us.
> I value love and laughter, and I will not give it up in favor of
> something that is easier to define. The kind of morality that matters
> is the kind that leads to love and laughter. This "works" stuff
> sounds like a naturalistic fallacy, and implies that an ideal universe
> is one tiled with tiny efficient thermodynamic systems.
> Preserve the full humane pathway defined by the human starting point.
> Don't settle for less. Get it all.
I enjoyed your heartwarming statement on love and laughter, but am led
to believe you intentionally misconstrued my point about morality that
works [... to facilitate people achieving their evolving goals.] Your
approach continues to get closer to alignment with human goals and
volition, but still intends to impose top-down controls (for humanity's
own good.) My suggestion is that efforts can be better applied to
giving people the tools they can use to bottom-up decide their own
Disagreement here comes down to basic differences on the the need of
humanity to be saved versus enhanced and I won't try to change your
thinking on that (at this time.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT