|
|
|
|
|
|
by Udo
4133 days ago
|
|
|
> I can't think of any actual reason why it would indeed be "wrong" to drug someone/something into happiness You switched out the original premise on me there ;) > You can't make any stronger claim than that without involving some form of (arbitrary) value/belief system. You can end any discussion by invoking this principle. This is the essence of the incompleteness theorem applied to every day reasoning. Somewhere at the bottom of every perspective, there are some arbitrary axioms. It's a way of saying "that's just your opinion, man" and you'd be right of course. > Why would some all-knowing entity prefer one culture over another? Why would a human? I suspect the word culture might have different connotations for either of us. |
|
|
Because evolution graced (cursed?) us with a reward system and parents that utilize (abuse?) it.
Having something capable of high-level reasoning, while free from the desires, fears, moods and other emotions humans suffer is part of the reason why we're looking into AI right?
> that's just your opinion, man
Maybe? I have 5 fingers on my hand - is that an opinion? Maybe it is, because what's an opionion anyways? But who would dispute it?
> Somewhere at the bottom of every perspective, there are some arbitrary axioms
Well not quite. "Arbitrary" perhaps in a formal sense, since logic doesn't care about specific universes but truths that hold in all of them. Yes, you still end up having to settle for implicit definitions somewhere along the line (what a finger is, what method you use to count them, etc.). But there nevertheless is some difference between merely assuming something exists, and assuming what should exist.
Something that is all-knowing would be able to figure out the difference between premises that indeed need to be true for our universe to exist (like me needng having 5 fingers right now), and those that humanity merely believes or wants to be true (like it being good that I not use those fingers to poke out someones eyes).