Good

"

Metronomy wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

There is a huge difference though. This is a mathematical formalization, and not merely a collection of abstractions of abstractions loosely defined and associated together.

Yes, but this is the problem. You think you are correct just because you have a mathematical formula for intelligence, and then used some loosely defined abstractions of your own to relate it to morality. I dont dispute that the formula is wrong, but you have not proven that maximisation of future actions is linked to morality much more than loosely associating them with eachother.

Very fair.

When we learn any new word how do we KNOW that some given novel object conforms to that word? It comes down to neural networking providing associations with various weights, if the weight is strong then we consider it true. It is all deeply embedded in with probability, heuristics, and experience. This is basic human understanding.

But once you can formalize that word as a concrete algorithm, we can simply plug in the properties of that novel object and get a non ambiguous discrete answer. That is true understanding.

But these formula have have to be created. How does any scientist ever come up with a formula to describe what he sees? Trial and error( with a lot of various modes of thinking) over experiments. Using the evidence of experiments they formulate postulates then attempt to break those postulates. If no evidence is found to the contrary, we have to assume it is correct.

In my theory i have yet to find a single contradictory example of a moral which cannot be expressed through this formula. Thus i assert that it is correct.

"

SkyCore wrote:

In my theory i have yet to find a single contradictory example of a moral which cannot be expressed through this formula. Thus i assert that it is correct.

You have forgotten that people do not possess collective consciousness, or if you assert that people can act collectively, it is also true they act individually.

Some people's maximisation of future options may infringe upon anothers, does that make it good for them to do so?

I may lock someone in my basement for 20 years to do my housework, calling upon them when I need something done. Sure that is great for me, but is it good? Well I think its good for me, so why not?

"

Veracocha wrote:

Morality cannot be objective because humans cannot perceive objectivity. I mean they may perceive it objectively when they suppress all those zones in the brain responsible for unbridled stream of interpretations.

This is something scientists already do with all of the established and respected experimental sciences. Whether chemistry, biology, or psychology, we surpress impulsive elements within ourselves (if necessary) to perceive reality, if not objectively, then at least objectively enough to produce results.

This argument of Veracocha's goes too far. It isn't trying to say ethics isn't a science (btw it is); it is trying to say all science is invalid.

Ethics as a science is very poorly evolved. And no, SkyCore hasn't found a holy grail.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

no, SkyCore hasn't found a holy grail.

Sure its not literally 'THE holy grail'. But in the field of ethics and philosophy has there ever been any advance which even comes close to it?

Is there any moral which doesnt fit the equation?

Are you waiting for some respected authority to tell you something before you even begin to think about thinking about it?

"

SkyCore wrote:

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.

The following was a response to a more recent thread here in OT. I thought i would include a copy of it here as it directly relates to the issues imposed by capitalistic systems mentioned earlier in this thread.



Iv been thinking a lot about economics recently...

Historically the value of things and services is based on the market with factors such as supply, demand, regulation, proprietary patents/ trade secrets, competition, and costs of production. But such things are ephemeral; supply can be controlled, demand can be manipulated through advertisement, regulations come and go, secrets can be shared, and costs are also all affected by these same things.

But when you really think about goods and services, the 'true' value is in their utility. How useful, necessary, or entertaining are they. And for how long do they retain their value. We dont have metrics for such utility. And only such a metric would show the 'true' health of a country. Any type of deep analysis on the economy is doomed to fail when sales of cosmetics and pop music are treated the same as food and tools.

Money was a great invention in the ancient times. It replaced the need to carry around ones own produced goods for bartering purposes. Capitalism has risen to dominate the world. But it is fundamentally flawed . It places people and organizations in competition with one another rather than promoting mutual optimal gains to society through cooperation. The incentives are such that knowledge (trade secrets/ patents) is hoarded and not shared, that prices are as high as possible to maximize gains, and employees are given the lowest possible wage. All of this is detrimental to the vast majority of the populace.

With the industrial age came a massive increase in production (and reduction of costs of production) and its associated increase in standard of living. The information age brought to the world digital goods which could be mass replicated and distributed at virtually 0 cost. It had the potential for the free exchange of information (which is the single greatest contribution to the rate of technological growth). The beginnings of the meta-information age are here now. An age that can render all human labor unnecessary as goods can be both produced and transported at 0 cost. It is the era of artificial intelligence that can bring us to a post scarcity society.

Money is an ancient concept and our markets have had thousands... hundreds of thousands of patches through regulation in an attempt to make our financial systems continue to work in the face of technological progress and even more ways of exploiting that system. Exploits such as market manipulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_manipulation), price fixing, price gouging, and many many more have the aim of diverting wealth to their conspirators without any real gain to society. And that's the key concept 'benefiting society'. Money is blind to this most essential aspect. And we need to tightly couple monetary gain with benefiting society so as to provide incentive to the later.

If we examine the world with an eye on the benefit to society:

-patents and copyrights are counterproductive. When some new idea is invented, its unlimited sharing should result into a massive positive gain for society. But instead patents and copyrights limit and even discourage the sharing of information. The problem is that there is no reward for creating a new idea, only in selling it. Which is indicative of the deeper issue which is money being a limited transferable thing that can only be created by a collusion between the banks and government, rather than being tied directly to the benefit of society. And thus in some way fails when we have a near infinite capacity to produce and distribute some goods.

-banks provide services that in the past required manpower but can now be automated and delivered for a cost of pennies per year on their networked smart phone. But modern banking has seen a vast increase in fees to their customers whom have no choice but to accept it. Think of all the resources that are be wasted on traditional banks; tellers, bankers, security, janitors, buildings, land, etc.

-branding, name recognition, and advertisement provide nearly zero gains for society... some would even argue that it is detrimental to society. What a massive waste of resources to produce the massive volume of advertisement that we see now in both the mass media and the internet. But even more so, a massive loss in time for those that are subjected to it.

I could go on and on, but i think the idea is clear. We dont need or even want the majority of businesses. And governmental regulations regardless of intentions or how well constructed are futile in that the economy is fundamentally flawed.

80% of american workers could be replaced with technology which already exists. And that number is growing daily. Very soon, we will achieve a post scarcity society. And with it will come immense turmoil to every aspect of our lives if we try to continue to hold onto our obsolete systems.

The time to design and transition into a new economic system is NOW. BEFORE that time arrives, to minimize the damage and reduce the future shock.

"

Khoranth wrote:

SO in your new system; how will you get people to work? For example: I am 34 with a family, I decide i want to play POE all day/night and not work. How does your system deal with this? Slavery? withhold food and starve me & my family, until I work, which is effectively slavery through dependency.I would really like to hear how your system would work, without having some type of slavery involved, direct slavery, or indirectly through starvation, or other methods.

Im still mulling over the details. So far i envision some ideal end point where everything is automated by machines rather than people and thus noone needs to work. Automation of the production of minimum human requirements is a much closer goal line which i feel can be approached( although probably not fully achieved) in a very short period of time with enough support.

But of course it will take a considerable amount of work to reach either of those points. I believe the vast majority of human labor which exists presently is completely unneeded and often outright harmful to the whole of society. So much of our society is focused on the acquisition of money, as if it is THE goal rather than a means to achieve other goals. And from a broader perspective, current incentives support such thinking instead of the production of goods and services which are useful. If we change the economic incentives by immutably linking money earned with the benefits you are providing to society, then we will vastly increase production and reduce waste (provided employment remains constant).

This is for the transition time between a capitalistic society and the potential utopia. Such a change would not be such a drastic and immediate alteration as eliminating money all together (eliminating money is only realistic when you already have infinite resources). It would be not much different than the way things are now; free enterprise, employees, public works.

One very alien change i feel is necessary is the consumability of money. When you spend your money the funds are not transferred, instead they are destroyed in a sense. The funds are locked in place in your account (all digital money) and depreciates with the asset acquired. Such a method helps prevent any exploitation of the system.

The actual seller of the item receives little to no gain. Indeed, ideally it is all automated.

But the producer (and potentially the transporters and storers) of the product receives compensation( money is actually created!) for the benefit to society they are providing. Ideally such numbers are dynamically generated by computer algorithms. With such algorithms being defined by the government or populace at large(in a true democracy).