consciousness is bad because it involves suffering;
it would have been better if consciousness had never come into existence;
it would be good if human beings were to be superseded by unconscious artificial intelligences that would build elaborate structures and spread through the universe without ever becoming conscious.
How would this be good exactly?
It suggests some interesting sf villains, trying to end all consciousness including their own. And it sounds like Poul Anderson's Genesis but with the all-important difference that Anderson's post-organic intelligences are conscious.
Consciousness is a by-product of natural selection. It exists because pleasure and pain, both of which require consciousness, have survival value. The most significant event ever was that being became conscious. Every other event has either, unconsciously and unintentionally of course, led towards this one event or has been an elaboration of it.
Anderson's post-organic intelligences would be successors of mankind whereas my friend's unconscious AIs would not.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I'm FLUMMOXED by your friends suggestion about unconscious AIs! It's also contradictory, can there be true AIs without them also being conscious, self aware???
And it was "The High Ones" I thought of, not GENESIS. The Zolotoyans of that story lost their self awareness.
I hope your friend will leave some comments here!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The phrase, "artificial intelligence," is now being applied to mere algorithms that can do all sorts of "learning" and goal-seeking without being conscious.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I realize that, but that is not how I would understand "Artificial Intelligence" to mean. To me, it should mean only actual self awareness and deliberately acting intelligence.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
OK but the experts are using AI" in the other sense. It does cause confusion.
A computer behaves "intelligently" if it learns, reprograms itself, finds means to achieve goals, solves problems etc. I would say that it is simulating, not duplicating, the behavior of an intelligent conscious being.
Paul.
This argument shows the ultimate fatuity of Benthamite utilitarianism, and it’s pleasure/pain calculus. It’s a form of infantile narcissism, a philosophy based on the world-view of toddlers.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: I agree, "simulation," not "duplication," is what so called AI computer programs do. To use "AI" so carelessly and loosely, as is being done these days, invites only confusion.
Mr. Stirling: I've seen criticisms of Benthamite Utilitarianism, but not that it was merely a form of infantilism or narcissism.
Ad astra! Sean
I share my friend's basically Buddhist concern about the amount of suffering that seems to be inherent in sentience but what is our best response to it? Not nihilism.
Kaor, Paul!
Never nihilism!
Sean
Sean: I actually -am- a moral nihilist, -sensu strictu-, but people generally misunderstand what that means.
It doesn't mean you don't have moral opinions, for example, and consider things good and bad.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
But I never got nihilistic vibes from you and your works. Most certainly not the kind of nihilists who murdered Alexander II of Russia in 1881.*
Ad astra! Sean
*I have the last Tsars of Russia on my mind lately because of Solzhenitsyn's book.
Well, "nihilist" was a term of abuse in the 19th century, which some radicals took up as a trendy way to shock the respectable.
Even Nietzsche vigorously denied being a nihilist, though in fact he was very close to it.
What moral nihilism does is deny that judgments of value are anything but subjective, or that there's any -exterior- reason to prefer one to another that doesn't involve some sort of circular argument.
As I've mentioned, you can argue logically -from- a moral postulate, but you can't argue -to- one.
I agree that my moral judgments are subjective; that doesn't make them any less valid -for me- and I'm perfectly and cheerfully willing to impose them on others if I have the power.
For example, I'm of the opinion that murder should be punished. Others think heretics should be burned alive, and I disagree.
The difference? My opinion is more powerful, that's all.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Well, the crazed nihilists who HUNTED Alexander II practically like hunters chasing deer plainly wanted to bring down EVERYTHING in Russia all at once, no natter WHAT the consequences. That sure seems nihilistic to me!
I agree you can argue from a moral postulate but not towards it. But I also believe some things were divinely revealed. Which means I don't revealed doctrines merely subjective. So, while I would not want to execute Arians who denied the divinity of Christ, I emphatically disagree with them. And so on.
Yes, I agree capital punishment is right for some crimes. I would also argue any tolerable judicial system has to provide for possible miscarriages of justice. Hence, a right of appeal.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul, Sean, and Mr. Stirling!
I seem to recall asking my father, many years ago, what nihilism meant, and hearing him answer that there were several kinds, or meanings of the word (I could be wrong). My late father, Dr. Stanley Rosen, was a professor of philosophy who wrote a number of books, including one titled NIHILISM. As to Benthamite utilitarianism being based on the world-view of toddlers, that seems questionable (and I am not a utilitarian). A stereotypical toddler would be concerned only with his own pleasure or pain; a philosophical utilitarian would consider everyone’s. Could one assert that a deontologist or virtue ethicist position is based on the world-view of toddlers, because a toddler might say, “It’s just somepin you’re s’posed to do”?
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Nicholas!
Not being a philosopher, unlike your late father and Paul, I am not sure how to respond. I tend to somewhat vaguely think of "nihilists" being anarchists, and of how they can either be peaceful and law abiding (which seems philosophically inconsistent) or fanatically ruthless and violent (like the murderers of Alexander II).
But I thought a "philosophical utilitarian" might consider pain and suffering, even for many, tolerable if that would bring about results beneficial to most?
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment