From: Matt Mahoney (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2008 - 19:53:54 MST
--- Lee Corbin <email@example.com> wrote:
> Matt writes
> > Lee Corbin wrote:
> >> Krekoski writes
> >> > Why is whether something has experience or not even relevant?
> >> Because all moral questions revolve around the answer! And so unless
> >> you are a complete nihilist, solipsist, or sociopath, all actions
> >> that affect other sentients depend crucially upon the answer.
> > No it doesn't. Morality evolved (memetically) because it increases
> > fitness of the tribe. Thus, hunting, war, and judicial punishment are
> > permitted.
> Of course. And you do account nicely for its existence and properties
> What I was saying is that *your* own morality, e.g. the answers you would
> provide to morally challenging questions, depends utterly on the experiences
> you expect others to have.
> This is obvious. For example, if you could prevent extreme pain from
> afflicting one of two creatures of your acquaintance, and you are having
> a hard time deciding, the question is immediately resolved were you
> to learn the truth that one was a robot incapable of sensation.
> So, you see, whether something has experience or can be extremely relevant.
> > There is no test to tell whether something has experiences or just
> > belief in experience.
> Yes. But there will still be a fact of the matter, whether or not we are
> able to learn it.
The fact is that experience doesn't exist. Of course you will disagree. So
will the robot.
-- Matt Mahoney, firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT