10th FIS Discussion Session:
ON INFORMATION ETHICS
Answer from the Viewpoint of Rational Machines
The questions to open the discussion were:
Q1. What is the philosophic and ethical challenge of the physical, chemical,
biological... sciences today with regard to human freedom and the 'laws' (?)
that should regulate our actions? What is the meaning of 'natural law' today
and can we take it as an analogy (?) in the field of morality? are there
other alternatives?
Q2. What is the philosophic and ethical challenge of modern information
technology with regard to human freedom? How far do we conceive the
'cyberspace' or, more generally speaking, the potential digitization of all
phenomena (human and non human) as a (the?) condition for understanding
them, and what does this mean with regard to human behavior? More
specifically: do we conceive ourselves eventually as information processing
devices?, and if yes, what follows with regard to artificial digital devices
that we are creating now and in the future?
Q3. What does it mean for human beings to be able to behave in a global
digital world in which time and space seem to disappear? What are the
consequences of our doing for the whole planet? How can we create rules of
action that are accepted by all human beings in order to achieve a global
sustainable (physical and cultural and economic...) development without
deleting all differences that makes human life worth living?
In case we would be able to construct an Artificial Person, we would have to
address these points, too. So, as we are - conceptually - able to simulate
life as a mathematical process, we are confronted with the consequences of
the extent of ethical attitudes within the consciousness of this living
organism. An ethical rule is in an autoregulated system a rule of behaviour.
(It does this because it {usually, normally, always, .} believes this to be
the right thing to do.) We deduct an ethical system from the actions of an
agent. Therefore, if we lay down rules of behaviour for an artificial
intelligence, we lay down its ethics. Asimov has looked quite deeply into
this philosophical question (in his theory of robots, as expressed in many
of his works.)
If the living organism is an abstract cell, we could think its ethic to be
directed towards survival, growth and reproduction. "Recreate and multiply"
is a quite strong, basic, ethical rule. In a more complex environment,
optimality of reproductive success can be achieved by further rules, which
can be subservient or concurrent (in different hierarchical relations).
(e.g. in order to avoid retaliatory extermination, do not kill unless in
self-defence)
This discussion gives us room to design the ethics of an artificial
intelligence.
Q1. What is the philosophic and ethical challenge of the physical, chemical,
biological... sciences today with regard to human freedom and the 'laws' (?)
that should regulate our actions? What is the meaning of 'natural law' today
and can we take it as an analogy (?) in the field of morality? are there
other alternatives?
A1: In this, or in one of the very next, generations we shall be able to
fuse the "rational" concepts with the "emotional" concepts (mechanics and
biology). We shall find a gearbox which translates rational relations into
congruence with relations discovered on biologic observations. Then, the two
sets of connotations will have to compromise. Either, mechanics will also be
more divine-transcendent, consciousness-aware, or biology and psychology
will be more rational-economic, statistical-optimising, predictable.
If an agreement is reached that biologic organisms (including humans) act
and react along rational rules, this has the consequence that the shamanic
class of services suffers a crisis of legitimacy. If any thinking person can
deduct the rules of good behaviour, there is no need for specially anointed
transmitters of the divine (irrational, non-understandable, transcendent)
Will.
Q2. What is the philosophic and ethical challenge of modern information
technology with regard to human freedom? How far do we conceive the
'cyberspace' or, more generally speaking, the potential digitization of all
phenomena (human and non human) as a (the?) condition for understanding
them, and what does this mean with regard to human behavior? More
specifically: do we conceive ourselves eventually as information processing
devices?, and if yes, what follows with regard to artificial digital devices
that we are creating now and in the future?
A2: The CNS (central nervous system) is an information processing device.
The question is, whether one thinks himself outside his CNS. Current
thinking equates "consciousness" with electrical processes (of the
alpha-kind, mostly) that take place on the brain while the subject is awake.
The veterinary part of the human mind is currently conceptualised as the
collection of the biochemical processes that interact with the electrical
processes. By and large, one can simplify "emotions" and "thoughts" into
biochemical vs. electrical processes. These co-regulate the brain.
Freedom is, statistically, unpredictability. The extent of predictability is
given by Nature (as long as we believe the natural numbers to be a gift of
Nature) through some numeric interweave-patterns that explain the
co-regulation of a quasi-fluid matter emitting electrical bursts.
The case of a human making a decision based on his free will is a special
case of the predictability of the properties of the next state out of the
properties of the present state. How fixed is the future, generally? The
answer to this lies in the structure of our basic concepts. (If one grows up
in a very strict environment, his opinion of the world will be that it is a
non-chaotic system.) We learn our basic concepts - on the rational level -
as we go to elementary school. If the (system of rational concepts about
the) world has been presented to us as a place where nothing happens by
itself, we shall have a static idea about the world. (see: Newton and the
non-existence of a perpetuum mobile, e.g. We ourselves experience ourselves
as non-static and own-triggered and a perpetuum mobile - maybe only outside
school.)
Trying to find a compromise between the Newtonian idea of a natural,
predictable state (idle, etc.) and biology, which is anything but idle, and
in some fashions less, in some fashions more predictable than the non-living
nature, one finds that predictability is the interplay between what is now
and what will be. Counting now, how many diverse kinds of "now" there are
and how many diverse kinds of "will be" there are, one finds that the
interdependences are more-dimensional and quite complex. The main challenge
for information theory is to create an artificial organism that has moods
(urges, needs) that can be satisfied by more than one possible action. The
good news is that the problem can be solved.
Q3. What does it mean for human beings to be able to behave in a global
digital world in which time and space seem to disappear? What are the
consequences of our doing for the whole planet? How can we create rules of
action that are accepted by all human beings in order to achieve a global
sustainable (physical and cultural and economic...) development without
deleting all differences that makes human life worth living?
A3: Human behaviour is deeply irrational, instinct driven and
opportunistic-maximising. The irrationality refers to stated aims and stated
expectations. It is highly rational with respect to the production of
hormones within the person. The instincts that govern human behaviour are,
as expected, just as ethology describes (rivalry, territoriality, nurturing,
etc.). The matter (hormone) human systems maximise is "congruence" (maybe,
neuropharmacologists call it endorphins.) The congruence between "expected"
and "experienced" values within the CNS is what drives the human animal. (In
German, the terms Sollwert and Istwert render the idea very tellingly.)
As the lasting maximal congruence between Sollwert and Istwert cannot be
achieved (due to some number theoretical voodoos), there can be no winning
strategy (specifically no single winning strategy). If there would exist a
good (or slightly better) strategy how to live (procreate and multiply), we
would see it everywhere, winning. So, it is useless to look for The General
Solution. It is puzzling whether this or the next generation can build an
elite among those who can communicate (via the internet) and whether this
elite will achieve a critical mass to try to impose (sell, educate) its
ideas on the whole of the population. One should not overemphasise the
internet. Now we have recreated the situation in Athen where the
well-educated and open-minded burghers spent time chewing philosophical
questions like we do. They were within hearing distance to each other and
could interact on the spot. This is the state we have regained. We sit again
on the agora and hear each other and can reply immediately.
Let us hope we are as well-motivated and investigative-minded as they were.
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Mar 7 14:13:58 2006
