= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
"Morals" and "goals" are very different things. I might make it a goal to (say) steal an apple from a shop; this would be an example of an immoral goal. Or I might make a goal to (say) give some money to charity; this would be a moral goal. Or I might make a goal to buy a book; this would (usually) be a goal with little if any moral weight one way or another.
Morality cannot be the same as terminal goals, because a terminal goal can also be immoral, and someone can pursue a terminal goal while knowing it's immoral.
AI morals are not a category error; if an AI deliberately kills someone, then that carries the same moral weight as if a person deliberately kills someone.
Oh I see: for that specific instance of the task.
I'd like to see someone make this AI, I want to know how it could be done.
Observe the contents of RAM as it's changing?
I'm not 100% sure of the mechanism of said observations, but I'm assuming a real AI would be able to do things on a computer that we can't - much as we can easily recognise an object in an image.
the problem with this is the state space is so large that it cannot explore every transition, so it can't follow transitions backwards in a straight forward manner as you've proposed. It needs some kind of intuition to minimize the search space, to generalize it.
Unfortunately I'm not sure what that would look like. :(
(Wow, this was from a while back)
I wasn't suggesting that the AI might try to calculate the reverse sequence of moves. I was suggesting that, if the cube-shuffling program is running on the same computer, then the AI might learn to cheat by, in effect, looking over the shoulder of the cube-shuffler and simply writing down all the moves in a list; then it can 'solve' the cube by simply running the list backwards.
That text is actually quite misleading. It never says that it's the snake that should be thought of as figuratively, maybe it's the Tree or eating a certain fruit that is figurative.
But, let us suppose that it is the snake they refer to - it doesn't disappear entirely. Because, a little further up in the catechism they mention this event again:
391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes >them fall into death out of envy.
The devil is a being of "pure spirit" and the catholics believe that he was an angel that disobeyed god. Now, this fallen angel somehow tempts the first parents, who are in a garden (378). It could presumably only be done in one or two ways: Satan talks directly to Adam and Eve, or he talks through some medium. This medium doesn't have to be a snake, it could have been a salad.
So, they have an overall story of the Fall which they say they believe is literal, but they believe certain aspects of it (possibly the snake part) isn't necessarily true. Now, Maher's joke would still make sense in either of these two cases. It would just have to change a little bit:
"...but when all is said and done, they're adults who believe in a talking salad."
"...but when all is said and done, they're adults who believe in spirits that try to make you do bad stuff."
So, even if they say that they don't believe in every aspect of the story, it smacks of disingenuousness. It's like saying that I don't believe the story of Cinderella getting a dress from a witch, but that there were some sort of other-wordly character that made her those nice shining shoes.
But, they don't even say that the snake isn't real.
I don't see what your second quote shows about my argument that if they don't believe in the snake, what keeps them from saying that anything else is also figuratively (such as the existence of God).
It's only fair to compare like with like. I'm sure that I can find some people, who profess both a belief that >evolution is correct and that monkeys gave birth to humans; and yes, I am aware that this mean they have a >badly flawed idea of what evolution is.
So, in fairness, if you're going to be considering only leading evolutionists in defense of evolution, it makes >sense to consider only leading theologians in the question of whether Genesis is literal or figurative.
I agree there is probably someone who says that evolution is true and that people evolved from monkeys. But, to compare likes with likes here, you would have to find a leading evolutionists that said this, to compare with these leading christians that believe the snake was real:
But the serpent was “clever” when it spoke. It made sense to the Woman.1 Since Satan was the one who >influenced the serpent (Revelation 12:9, 20:2), then it makes sense why the serpent could deliver a cogent >message capable of deceiving her.
Shouldn’t the Woman (Eve) Have Been Shocked that a Serpent Spoke? | Answers in Genesis
… the serpent is neither a figurative description of Satan, nor is it Satan in the form of a serpent. The real >serpent was the agent in Satan’s hand. This is evident from the description of the reptile in Genesis 3:1 and >the curse pronounced upon it in 3:14 [… upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy >Life ].
Who was the Serpent? | creation.com
Maybe it is wrong to label these writers as leading christians (the latter quoted is a theologian, though). So, let's say they are at least popularizer, if that seems fair to you? If so, can you find any popularizer of evolutionary theory that says that man evolved from monkeys?
(Apologies - accidentally double posted)
Here's an example which doesn't bear on Conservation of Expected Evidence as math, but does bear on the statement,
"There is no possible plan you can devise, no clever strategy, no cunning device, by which you can legitimately expect your confidence in a fixed proposition to be higher (on average) than before."
taken at face value.
It's called the Cable Guy Paradox; it was created by Alan Hรกjek, a philosopher the Australian National University. (I personally think the term Paradox is a little strong for this scenario.)
Here it is: the cable guy is coming tomorrow, but cannot say exactly when. He may arrive any time between 8 am and 4 pm. You and a friend agree that the probability density for his arrival should be uniform over that interval. Your friend challenges you to a bet: even money for the event that the cable guy arrives before noon. You get to pick which side of the bet you want to take -- by expected utility, you should be indifferent. Here's the curious thing: if you pick the morning bet, then almost surely there will be times in the morning when you would prefer to switch to the afternoon bet.
This would seem to be a situation in which "you can legitimately expect your confidence in a fixed proposition to be higher (on average) than before," even though the equation P(H) = P(H|E)*P(E) + P(H|~E)*P(~E) is not violated. I'm not sure, but I think it's due to multiple possible interpretations of the word "before".
At 10am tomorrow, I can legitimately express my confidence in the proposition "the cable guy will arrive after noon" is different to what it was today.
There are two cases to consider:
- The cable guy arrived before 10am (occurs with 25% probability). In this case, I expect that he has a close on zero probability of arriving after noon.
- The cable guy is known not to have arrived before 10am (occurs with 75% probability). At this point, I calculate that the odds of the cable guy turning up after noon are two in three.
But none of this takes anything away from the original statement:
"There is no possible plan you can devise, no clever strategy, no cunning device, by which you can legitimately expect your confidence in a fixed proposition to be higher (on average) than before."
This is because I am changing my probability estimate on the basis of new information received - it's not a fixed proposition.
That text is actually quite misleading. It never says that it's the snake that should be thought of as figuratively, maybe it's the Tree or eating a certain fruit that is figurative.
But, let us suppose that it is the snake they refer to - it doesn't disappear entirely. Because, a little further up in the catechism they mention this event again:
391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes >them fall into death out of envy.
The devil is a being of "pure spirit" and the catholics believe that he was an angel that disobeyed god. Now, this fallen angel somehow tempts the first parents, who are in a garden (378). It could presumably only be done in one or two ways: Satan talks directly to Adam and Eve, or he talks through some medium. This medium doesn't have to be a snake, it could have been a salad.
So, they have an overall story of the Fall which they say they believe is literal, but they believe certain aspects of it (possibly the snake part) isn't necessarily true. Now, Maher's joke would still make sense in either of these two cases. It would just have to change a little bit:
"...but when all is said and done, they're adults who believe in a talking salad."
"...but when all is said and done, they're adults who believe in spirits that try to make you do bad stuff."
So, even if they say that they don't believe in every aspect of the story, it smacks of disingenuousness. It's like saying that I don't believe the story of Cinderella getting a dress from a witch, but that there were some sort of other-wordly character that made her those nice shining shoes.
But, they don't even say that the snake isn't real.
I don't see what your second quote shows about my argument that if they don't believe in the snake, what keeps them from saying that anything else is also figuratively (such as the existence of God).
It's only fair to compare like with like. I'm sure that I can find some people, who profess both a belief that >evolution is correct and that monkeys gave birth to humans; and yes, I am aware that this mean they have a >badly flawed idea of what evolution is.
So, in fairness, if you're going to be considering only leading evolutionists in defense of evolution, it makes >sense to consider only leading theologians in the question of whether Genesis is literal or figurative.
I agree there is probably someone who says that evolution is true and that people evolved from monkeys. But, to compare likes with likes here, you would have to find a leading evolutionists that said this, to compare with these leading christians that believe the snake was real:
But the serpent was “clever” when it spoke. It made sense to the Woman.1 Since Satan was the one who >influenced the serpent (Revelation 12:9, 20:2), then it makes sense why the serpent could deliver a cogent >message capable of deceiving her.
Shouldn’t the Woman (Eve) Have Been Shocked that a Serpent Spoke? | Answers in Genesis
… the serpent is neither a figurative description of Satan, nor is it Satan in the form of a serpent. The real >serpent was the agent in Satan’s hand. This is evident from the description of the reptile in Genesis 3:1 and >the curse pronounced upon it in 3:14 [… upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy >Life ].
Who was the Serpent? | creation.com
Maybe it is wrong to label these writers as leading christians (the latter quoted is a theologian, though). So, let's say they are at least popularizer, if that seems fair to you? If so, can you find any popularizer of evolutionary theory that says that man evolved from monkeys?
That text is actually quite misleading. It never says that it's the snake that should be thought of as figuratively, maybe it's the Tree or eating a certain fruit that is figurative.
True - any part of the described incident (more likely, all of it) could be figurative.
The devil is a being of "pure spirit" and the catholics believe that he was an angel that disobeyed god. Now, this fallen angel somehow tempts the first parents, who are in a garden (378). It could presumably only be done in one or two ways: Satan talks directly to Adam and Eve, or he talks through some medium. This medium doesn't have to be a snake, it could have been a salad.
Not necessarily. Communication does not need to be verbal. The temptation could have appeared in terms of, say, the manipulation of coincidence. Or, as you put it, a spirit that tries to make people do bad stuff.
But yes, there is definitely a Tempter there; some sort of malign intelligence that tries to persuade people to do Bad Stuff. That is a fairly well-known part of Catholic theology, commonly known as the devil.
But, they don't even say that the snake isn't real.
The Vatican tends to be very, very, very, very cautious about definite statements of any sort. As in, they prefer not to make them if there is any possibility at all that they might be wrong.
And hey, small though the probability appears, maybe there was a talking snake...
I agree there is probably someone who says that evolution is true and that people evolved from monkeys. But, to compare likes with likes here, you would have to find a leading evolutionists that said this, to compare with these leading christians that believe the snake was real:
Would I need to find leading evolutionists, or merely someone who claims to be a leading evolutionist? The second is probably a lot easier than the first.
If so, can you find any popularizer of evolutionary theory that says that man evolved from monkeys?
My googling is defeated by creationists using the claim as a strawman.
...to be fair, I didn't really look all that hard.
I like both Volairina and your takes on the non-rational world. I was having a lot of trouble working something out.
That said, while Voltairina's world is a bit more horrifyingly extreme than yours, it seems to me more probably that cause and effect simply did not exist. I can envision a structure of elementary physics that simply change--functionally randomly--far more easily than that causality does exist, but operates in the inverse. I have more trouble envisioning the elementary physics that bring that into existence without a observational intellect directly upsetting motivated plans.
All that is to say, might not your case be the more extreme one?
...it's possible. There are many differences between our proposed worlds, and it really depends on what you mean by "more extreme". Volairina's world is "more extreme" in the sense that there are no rules, no patterns to take advantage of. My world is "more extreme" in that the rules actively punish rationality.
My world requires that elementary physics somehow takes account of intent, and then actively subverts it. This means that it reacts in some way to something as nebulous as intent. This implies some level of understanding of the concept of intent. This, in turn, implies (as you state) an observational intellect - and worse, a directly malevolent one. Volairina's can exist without a directly malevolent intelligence directing things.
So it really comes down to what you mean by "extreme", I guess. Both proposed worlds are extreme cases, in their own way.
True enough. I meant that there's no external tempter in the garden of Gethsemane. I'd already remarked that the temptation of Jesus (as found in Matthew 4) "seems very different in kind from that of Eve" and was proposing a better parallel.
Fair enough. The way I see it, there are some themes that are paralleled in Gethsemene, and some themes that are paralleled in the forty days and nights in the desert. They're both parallels, but in different ways.
fundamentalists tend to be much less Uniformitarian
That's a fair point. But it seems to me that it amounts to saying that nothing in the stories in your scriptures could count as much evidence against their accuracy. (Suppose it said "And Adam, when he heard the sentence that the LORD God had passed upon him, knelt down upon the red grass and laughed for sorrow and shame" -- well, it's only uniformitarianism that entitles us to expect the grass to have been green or laughter to have been an unlikely response to sorrow and shame. Etc.)
In which case, you're also awfully limited in what conclusions you can draw from anything in those stories. "Genesis 3 indicates that God greatly values obedience to his commands." No, it indicates that he did; for all we know, he might want something very different from us now. "The story of the Great Flood indicates that God has authority over the weather on earth." No, it indicates that he did; for all we know, he might have somehow given up that authority since then. Do these stories actually have much value, if everything they describe might have changed utterly?
(You might say that God's character and values are known to be stable, unlike the laws of physics or anything in biology. But the sources that tell you that are 2000 years old! That's, like, 25% of the entire age of the universe! If God's character and values were changing on that sort of timescale, it's perfectly possible that these ancient texts might declare them to be stable even though they aren't.)
a small to medium snake wrapped around a tree branch
I don't think I was consciously or unconsciously assuming that. But I was assuming something that's recognizably the same sort of animal as today's snakes -- God says "upon your belly shall you go", etc., not "I shall replace you with something 1/4 the size which shall go upon its belly". I think I agree, though, that the Chinese-dragon interpretation is at least kinda tenable.
Christological interpretations
OK, that's a good point. (In terms of what it says about where Christian interpretations of Genesis 3 come from; I don't think the Christian tradition of finding prophecies and parallels everywhere in the OT is actually intellectually healthy, but it's certainly a real thing.)
But ... how good is that parallel, actually? I mean, Judas is not (so far as I can tell) in any way usefully parallel to either Adam or Eve, and the temptation of Jesus seems very different in kind from that of Eve, and most of the actual opposition Jesus is reported to have had comes from very human sources.
I think if you're looking for a parallel to the temptation-and-disobedience of Adam and Eve, through which sin and death enter the world, the place you need to look is for some temptation-and-obedience of Jesus through which sin and death are conquered. And there is indeed an obvious such thing, which takes place in the (aha!) garden of Gethsemane, where he is clearly at least considering the possibility of saying "no" to what he has to do but goes ahead with it ("not my will, but yours, be done"). But this temptation is, so far as the stories say, entirely endogenous; we're shown no tempter, whether human or animal or evil spirit. So I'm not really seeing how any parallel between the Adam&Eve story and the Jesus story is made closer by having the snake in Eden be possessed by, controlled by, or an incarnation of, the devil.
That doesn't mean that the tradition that says the snake "was" the devil doesn't arise from a desire to find such parallels, of course. But it doesn't seem to me so obviously well explained in those terms as to make me abandon my more cynical theory :-).
we're shown no tempter, whether human or animal or evil spirit.
There's one in Matthew 4 verse 1 to 11, in which Jesus spends forty days in the desert, fasting, and then is visited (and tempted) by the Devil.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Were the Babyeaters immoral before meeting humans?
If not, what would you like to call the thing we actually care about?
What they did was clearly wrong... but, at the same time, they did not know it, and that has relevance.
Consider; you are given a device with a single button. You push the button and a hamburger appears. This is repeatable; every time you push the button, a hamburger appears. To the best of your knowledge, this is the only effect of pushing the button. Pushing the button therefore does not make you an immoral person; pushing the button several times to produce enough hamburgers to feed the hungry would, in fact, be the action of a moral person.
The above paragraph holds even if the device also causes lightning to strike a different person in China every time you press the button. (Although, in this case, creating the device was presumably an immoral act).
So, back to the babyeaters; some of their actions were immoral, but they themselves were not immoral, due to their ignorance.