moral relativism

[Belinda]

Have you read about panentheism, especially Spinoza's panentheism where God is another name for Nature?

He needs to consider both. Spinoza was Pantheism ("there is only one substance").

Spinoza is almost always labeled a pantheist (God = Nature), but when I look closely at the distinction between the ‘point of view of many events’ and the ‘point of view of eternity,’ it seems much closer to panentheism — everything is in God, yet God is more than just the sum of things.

[Belinda]

Have you read about panentheism, especially Spinoza's panentheism where God is another name for Nature?

He needs to consider both. Spinoza was Pantheism ("there is only one substance").

Spinoza is almost always labeled a pantheist (God = Nature), but when I look closely at the distinction between the ‘point of view of many events’ and the ‘point of view of eternity,’ it seems much closer to panentheism — everything is in God, yet God is more than just the sum of things.

[MikeNovack]

[

Spinoza is almost always labeled a pantheist (God = Nature), but when I look closely at the distinction between the ‘point of view of many events’ and the ‘point of view of eternity,’ it seems much closer to panentheism — everything is in God, yet God is more than just the sum of things.

Forget for the moment the popular definition of Pantheism God = Nature.

Instead notice Spinoza's insistence "there is only one substance" because implies "there is only God" --- That is NOT claiming God might not extend beyond Nature but that Nature does not extend beyond God (nothing does).

Panentheism is that God is IN everything (perhaps as well as outside everything). That is not quite the same as everything is God (it's saying at least ONE of the components of every thing is God --- not guaranteeing that ALL components of every thing are God. Note that rules about handling idols in Jewish tradition might indicate a possible variant of panentheism => God in every NATURAL thing (but not man made things).

PS -- Spinoza is tough sledding.

[iambiguous]

Ethics for the Age of AI
Mahmoud Khatami asks, can machines make good moral decisions?

As artificial intelligence becomes more integrated into our lives, one troubling issue that has emerged is algorithmic bias. This occurs when often unintentionally AI systems perpetuate or even amplify existing biases in the data on which they’re trained.

Uh, exactly?

Here, of course, the reality for many of us revolves around the fact that in regard to the actual science involved, we have to either accept or reject what the "experts" tell us about the actual capabilities and limitations of "machine intelligence". And that will often include our own rooted existentially in dasein moral and political prejudices.

So, I start with the assumption that what I believe "here and now" about human morality...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

...an AI entity might more or less concur with or more or less reject it.

Then the part where those of my ilk...those who embody a fractured and fragmented moral nihilism in a No God world...make a distinction between AI "minds" entirely programmed by human minds and AI minds that have become increasingly more independent of human input.

Click, of course?

While AI has the potential to make decisions more efficiently and objectively than humans, it’s not immune to the flaws of the society that creates it. In fact, without careful oversight, AI can reinforce discrimination and deepen inequalities.

With regard to this, I start with the assumption that mere mortals in a No God world will be squabbling over what constitutes a flaw regarding any particular behaviors in any given community long after most of us are dead and gone.

On the other hand, what still seems to preoccupy most of us is the part where that oversight revolves more around we flesh and blood folks exercising it over the machines or increasingly more sophisticated machines exercising it over us?

[popeye1945]

Moral relativism is the diversity of the species of moral systems, and arises through the same process as animal speciation due to environmental differences, differing geological locations, and isolation. We must, if we are to survive as a species, overcome faith and work towards a world functioning as a whole. A morality based upon commonality, the commonality of human biology, its survival, and its welfare. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and we must work together for a promising future, one biological morality.

[Belinda]

[

Spinoza is almost always labeled a pantheist (God = Nature), but when I look closely at the distinction between the ‘point of view of many events’ and the ‘point of view of eternity,’ it seems much closer to panentheism — everything is in God, yet God is more than just the sum of things.

Forget for the moment the popular definition of Pantheism God = Nature.

Instead notice Spinoza's insistence "there is only one substance" because implies "there is only God" --- That is NOT claiming God might not extend beyond Nature but that Nature does not extend beyond God (nothing does).

Panentheism is that God is IN everything (perhaps as well as outside everything). That is not quite the same as everything is God (it's saying at least ONE of the components of every thing is God --- not guaranteeing that ALL components of every thing are God. Note that rules about handling idols in Jewish tradition might indicate a possible variant of panentheism => God in every NATURAL thing (but not man made things).

PS -- Spinoza is tough sledding.

Yes Spinoza is difficult reading. For anyone who wants an enjoyable , not too specialised but lucid and comprehensive introduction I recommend Antonio Damasio 'Looking for Spinoza'.

[iambiguous]

Ethics for the Age of AI
Mahmoud Khatami asks, can machines make good moral decisions?

At the heart of the debate over artificial intelligence ethics lies a fundamental question: what does it mean for a decision to be ethical?

So much more to the point in today's "postmodern world" is the part where, in my view, even pertaining to ethics theoretically there are many conflicting assessments regarding where to begin and where it should all end up:

1] consequentialism

2] utilitarianism

3] deontology

4] virtue ethics

5] biological imperatives

6] moral objectivism

7] moral relativism

8] moral nihilism

9] hedonism

10] ethical egoism

11] sociopathology

12] divine commands

13] social contracts [contraturalism]

14] Epicureanism

15] all of the other ones

Or, sure, you can just carry a quarter around with you and "flip for it".

In any event, historically, all such "schools" revolve around one or another combination of might makes right, right makes might and moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Click, of course.

For humans, ethical decision-making involves weighing values, considering consequences, and often navigating complex dilemmas. It requires empathy, intuition, and an understanding of context – qualities that are deeply rooted in our experiences and emotions. But can a machine, no matter how advanced, replicate this process? And even if it can, should it?

Of course, nothing regarding human interactions seems more clearly in play than the sheer complexity of all the variables involved. Anthropological, ethnological, sociological, psychological, political. All experienced by individuals out in particular worlds understood in particular ways. And, so far, to the best of my current knowledge, machine intelligence to date is really just human intelligence programmed into...into what?

In other words, let me know if you ever come across an AI entity that actually does appear to be coming up with assessments, conclusions, judgments, etc., given its own acquired frame of mind. Then the part where this machine intelligence is embedded in an AI entity that at least comes close to experiencing the world as we flesh and blood folks do.

Then the part derived from the manner in which machines can ever perceive -- experience -- the world around us as we do. Again, though, assuming the way we experience it ourselves is not basically as one of Mother Nature's very own automatons.

[popeye1945]

Morality depends upon the self of one identifying with the selves of other creatures; only then does compassion arise, and compassion is the foundation of both morality and societies. The more difficult it is for an organism to identify with another form of organism, the less likely it is that this compassion will arise. AI is not an organism, and you do not have compassion for IT; it will ever remain an IT, and you will become an IT for AI. Then what might come into consideration is how useful IT is to me. The answer is a frightening one.

[MikeNovack]

Morality depends upon the self of one identifying with the selves of other creatures; only then does compassion arise, and compassion is the foundation of both morality and societies. The more difficult it is for an organism to identify with another form of organism, the less likely it is that this compassion will arise. AI is not an organism, and you do not have compassion for IT; it will ever remain an IT, and you will become an IT for AI. Then what might come into consideration is how useful IT is to me. The answer is a frightening one.

Yes BUT ... Popeye, let's go back a hundred years. And let's assume you were a Ham (amateur radio folks). Besides random DX contacts (intentionally at a distance) you meet friends, other Hams you communicate with more or less regularly. You get to know them, with some you even come to recognize their "fist" (subtle personal keying quirks. Exchange news and family gossip. Then one day you stop hearing X's call sign, and X isn't responding to CQs (request conversation). You hear from Y, X was n a car accident, in hospital. How do you feel?

The point I am making is that you never saw X, never touched X, just messages in code from X. HOW do you know X a person. Well 100 years ago computers weren't up to passing the "Turing test", so you wouldn't suspect a non-person. Today, especially when the interaction is just by text and neural nets trained "large language model" are close to passing the "Turing test", are you sure about all of us here?

[popeye1945]

Morality depends upon the self of one identifying with the selves of other creatures; only then does compassion arise, and compassion is the foundation of both morality and societies. The more difficult it is for an organism to identify with another form of organism, the less likely it is that this compassion will arise. AI is not an organism, and you do not have compassion for IT; it will ever remain an IT, and you will become an IT for AI. Then what might come into consideration is how useful IT is to me. The answer is a frightening one.

Yes BUT ... Popeye, let's go back a hundred years. And let's assume you were a Ham (amateur radio folks). Besides random DX contacts (intentionally at a distance) you meet friends, other Hams you communicate with more or less regularly. You get to know them, with some you even come to recognize their "fist" (subtle personal keying quirks. Exchange news and family gossip. Then one day you stop hearing X's call sign, and X isn't responding to CQs (request conversation). You hear from Y, X was n a car accident, in hospital. How do you feel?

The point I am making is that you never saw X, never touched X, just messages in code from X. HOW do you know X a person. Well 100 years ago computers weren't up to passing the "Turing test", so you wouldn't suspect a non-person. Today, especially when the interaction is just by text and neural nets trained "large language model" are close to passing the "Turing test", are you sure about all of us here?

Like I said, the answer is frightening. I may already be an IT.

[Belinda]

[

Spinoza is almost always labeled a pantheist (God = Nature), but when I look closely at the distinction between the ‘point of view of many events’ and the ‘point of view of eternity,’ it seems much closer to panentheism — everything is in God, yet God is more than just the sum of things.

Forget for the moment the popular definition of Pantheism God = Nature.

Instead notice Spinoza's insistence "there is only one substance" because implies "there is only God" --- That is NOT claiming God might not extend beyond Nature but that Nature does not extend beyond God (nothing does).

Panentheism is that God is IN everything (perhaps as well as outside everything). That is not quite the same as everything is God (it's saying at least ONE of the components of every thing is God --- not guaranteeing that ALL components of every thing are God. Note that rules about handling idols in Jewish tradition might indicate a possible variant of panentheism => God in every NATURAL thing (but not man made things).

PS -- Spinoza is tough sledding.

I prefer your image to the one I have been working with. Unfortunately I can.t think of a simple Euclidean construction that illustrates your "pervasion' image, whereas the circle with circumference is easy peasy. Please can you let me know of an image for pervasion ? What about that one about salt? It is Biblical I think.

[Belinda]

Ethics for the Age of AI
Mahmoud Khatami asks, can machines make good moral decisions?

At the heart of the debate over artificial intelligence ethics lies a fundamental question: what does it mean for a decision to be ethical?

So much more to the point in today's "postmodern world" is the part where, in my view, even pertaining to ethics theoretically there are many conflicting assessments regarding where to begin and where it should all end up:

1] consequentialism

2] utilitarianism

3] deontology

4] virtue ethics

5] biological imperatives

6] moral objectivism

7] moral relativism

8] moral nihilism

9] hedonism

10] ethical egoism

11] sociopathology

12] divine commands

13] social contracts [contraturalism]

14] Epicureanism

15] all of the other ones

Or, sure, you can just carry a quarter around with you and "flip for it".

In any event, historically, all such "schools" revolve around one or another combination of might makes right, right makes might and moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Click, of course.

For humans, ethical decision-making involves weighing values, considering consequences, and often navigating complex dilemmas. It requires empathy, intuition, and an understanding of context – qualities that are deeply rooted in our experiences and emotions. But can a machine, no matter how advanced, replicate this process? And even if it can, should it?

Of course, nothing regarding human interactions seems more clearly in play than the sheer complexity of all the variables involved. Anthropological, ethnological, sociological, psychological, political. All experienced by individuals out in particular worlds understood in particular ways. And, so far, to the best of my current knowledge, machine intelligence to date is really just human intelligence programmed into...into what?

In other words, let me know if you ever come across an AI entity that actually does appear to be coming up with assessments, conclusions, judgments, etc., given its own acquired frame of mind. Then the part where this machine intelligence is embedded in an AI entity that at least comes close to experiencing the world as we flesh and blood folks do.

Then the part derived from the manner in which machines can ever perceive -- experience -- the world around us as we do. Again, though, assuming the way we experience it ourselves is not basically as one of Mother Nature's very own automatons.

Happily, not all of those bullet points are mutually exclusive.

For instance utilitarianism is great for politicians but not for individuals.

For instance sociopathology and divine commands significantly overlap. The degree of significance is disputed.

[popeye1945]

Hi Belinda,

Can AI be created to identify with its human creators? This is the way compassion arises in the human psyche. I don't think there is another way, even for AI. If this cannot be realized, we are creating the ultimate psychopath.

[MikeNovack]

Can AI be created to identify with its human creators? This is the way compassion arises in the human psyche. I don't think there is another way, even for AI. If this cannot be realized, we are creating the ultimate psychopath.

Maybe it would help if you tried describing the human brain at the abstract level "neural net". Receiving signals in via nerves (ultimately triggered by something) and sending signals out (that can do things). The human baby learns compassion, yes? Now imagine an EXACT MODEL of this neural net except being emulated by a computer program. Given the SAME signals in, why would it not also learn compassion?

[popeye1945]

Can AI be created to identify with its human creators? This is the way compassion arises in the human psyche. I don't think there is another way, even for AI. If this cannot be realized, we are creating the ultimate psychopath.

Maybe it would help if you tried describing the human brain at the abstract level "neural net". Receiving signals in via nerves (ultimately triggered by something) and sending signals out (that can do things). The human baby learns compassion, yes? Now imagine an EXACT MODEL of this neural net except being emulated by a computer program. Given the SAME signals in, why would it not also learn compassion?

Compassion arises through identification with other selves, as one of kind; it is an expanded concept of the self, thus it is self-interest. I am not a scientist or computer technologist, and I am not intending to speak in absolutes. There are inherent dangers we must take seriously in developing AI.