Good

Iv recently been enlightened as to the nature of intelligence by a youtube video by Prof. Alex Wissner-Gross. In it he states that intelligence is fundamentally the maximizing of future freedom of action.

I see it in another light all together. I envision his equations not as intelligence, but as the very essence of what we refer to as 'good'. And by applying his algorithms to others we can have an objective foundation to morality.

Moral values could then be considered to be heuristics for the quick computation of that master formula.

There is at least one problem with this entire approach though. Systems (such as a capitalistic state) which dont adhere to the master equation can cause errors in evaluation if the equation is accepting arguments from constructs of such erroneous systems.
For example, we could imagine asking a resource allocation problem of the equation. But if the equation used the currency of a capitalistic system it may output some clearly wrong answer such as investing in pop music so as to maximize future earnings. The error is introduced very subtly into the system via asserting 'money' is inherently 'value'. A solution could be that the master equation is given the power to dictate the price of all things so that a things price directly corresponds to its objective value.

This equation not only can define personal ethics, but a rational and non contradictory system of rule. AND will be invaluable in the development of safe! superhuman synthetic general intelligence. In short, one of the most amazing advances man has ever attained.

Seems someone needs to research the history of fiat currencies......

Hint:
Edit, wait, are you a commie and is this supposed to be a justification for having big government dictate fixed prices of goods and services (and ethics)?

Dear Master Equation SkycoreNet Control Programm

i herby provide you with 150.000 funds which are completely free of service.
Now if you would please increase the price of all eggs worldwide (especially for russians)
by 0,20 pennycents, i would be able to make a fortune and afford myself a kindle instead of a notepad.

Thanks for your collaboration.


With kind regards
The Black Market

This is no joke.

This is the holy grail of philosophy and ethics; a mathematically formalized objective view of morality. This is IT. The ultimate in concepts. A religion or an entire branch of science could be formed around this.

The key to the next stage of human existence. The herald of the singularity.

Or am i overlooking some flaw?

I don't see how maximizing future freedom of action is inherently good.

For example, having access to napalm usually gives one more freedom of action - they can now firebomb villagers if they deem it appropriate. Yet I can't think of a single use for the substance which I'd file under "good." At the very least there is grey area.

You really need to explain yourself better.

"

Mark_GGG wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I don't see how maximizing future freedom of action is inherently good.

For example, having access to napalm usually gives one more freedom of action - they can now firebomb villagers if they deem it appropriate. Yet I can't think of a single use for the substance which I'd file under "good." At the very least there is grey area.

You really need to explain yourself better.

There are a lot of glossed over missing links in the argument, but this certainly stands out as the biggest. You've given no reason at all why we should consider maximising freedom to be good - you've simply asserted it and gone from there.

well shit

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

having access to napalm usually gives one more freedom of action - they can now firebomb villagers if they deem it appropriate.
...
You really need to explain yourself better.

If the formula was applied to just one entity then yes, increasing your capabilities would indeed be better for that specific entity; thus 'good' for it.

But if the formula is applied to everyone like i mentioned( or more precisely to all entities capable of learning the mutual cooperation which the formula suggests such as humans, powerful ai, and possibly some animals or alien intelligence). Then destruction doesnt necessarily equate to more freedom of action as the victims would suddenly have vastly less future freedom of action.

You can derive the 3 big moral axioms from the formula quite easily.

1) do not kill others. Dead people dont have a lot of freedom.
2) do not damage others. Damaging someone reduces their future freedom of action. Especially when its permanent damage.
3) do not hold someone against their will. And the trend continues- being tied to a chair reduces freedom of action every bit as much as physically damaging them.

But also included in the formula is the inherent value of technological advancement, spreading of useful truths, and resource creation. Essentially the underpinnings of empowerment. Giving each individual as many possible tools to shape their environment will indeed maximize their freedom of action.
Consequentially lies and useless information not only dont facilitate future freedom, but indeed retard it.

It all seems so self apparent to me i did not think i would even need to elaborate on it.

I think you may be making assumptions about misinformation. You say they prevent future freedom, but that depends on the nature of, specifically the uses of, that information. For example, withholding the recipe for napalm may prevent freedom-haters from using it.

Measurement is the core problem with your supposed revelation. Freedom of action for one party, unless specifically bounded, includes freedom to actions which hinder the freedom of other parties. Some of these are obvious, such as the uses of force you covered (and napalm), but others less so, such as building a superior product which revolutionizes an industry... and drives a competitor out of business. So there are winners and losers, and there are times where specifically hindering the freedoms of specific individuals yields greater freedom for the populace as a whole. In evaluating such options, no being has perfect foresight, and errors are bound to be made.

I'm not saying it is a bad definition of good. To be honest, I like it a bit better than my previous one, which was a special case of your definition (specifically, that which ensures the continued life of one's genes into the future). But I think calculation is a little more difficult than some formulas.

Interestingly, I feel epistemology has similar problems of measurement. I believe the right thing to believe is that which requires the smallest leap of faith considering the evidence (with the belief that leap cannot equal zero except in instances of pure logic or pure mathematics). However, in this instance too there is the problem of measuring faith, something which we apparently can do by gut feeling but have trouble formalizing. Measuring freedom in the field of ethics carries similar difficulties.

"

SkyCore wrote:

Consequentially lies and useless information not only dont facilitate future freedom, but indeed retard it.

What's left for you to do is to define what "lies" and "useless information" are. Because different people are going to have different interpretations of the notions "lies" and "useless information". Then you're gonna enforce the one homogenous interpretation of these notions and you've got yourself a nice totalitarian state. Well done.