Epistemic Status: Still in a brainstorming phase - very open to constructive criticism. I'll start by clarifying my definition of moral realism. To begin with an example, here is what a moral realist and anti-realist might say on the topic of suffering: > Moral Realist: The suffering of sentient beings...
A funny thing that happens when I ask people: "What do you ultimately want in life, and why?" Almost everyone gets mildly annoyed. Some people give up. Most end up saying they have multiple goals. At which point I will ask them to choose one. If I manage to get...
[Update: This post is unfortunately no longer relevant as I have stopped developing the website. It is still kinda cool, but it can be difficult to have people collaborate on a mind map. Also there is less of an issue of finding relevant papers with recent advancements in search] AI...
Epistemic Status: Still in a brainstorming phase - very open to constructive criticism.
I'll start by clarifying my definition of moral realism. To begin with an example, here is what a moral realist and anti-realist might say on the topic of suffering:
Moral Realist: The suffering of sentient beings is objectively wrong therefore I want to minimize it
Moral Anti-Realist: I want to minimize the suffering of sentient beings
Moral realists have justifiable terminal goals. They reject the notion that is and ought statements can't mix. A moral realist says that some ought statements fall into the is category, and those that don't are invalid.
A moral realist looks outward to their environment to discover what they... (read 777 more words →)
Wow, thank you so much. This is a lens I totally hadn't considered.
You can see in the post how I was confused how evolution played a part in "imbuing" material terminal goals into humans. I was like, "but kinetic sculptures were not in the ancestral environment?"
It sounds like rather than imbuing humans with material goals, it has imbued a process by which humans create their own.
I would still define material goals as simply terminal goals which are not defined by some qualia, but it is fascinating that this is what material goals look like in humans.
This also, as you say, makes it harder to distinguish between emotional and material goals in humans,... (read more)
There is no such thing as "inherent value"
Does this also mean there is no such thing as "inherent good"? If so, then one cannot say, "X is good", they would have to say "I think that X is good", for "good" would be a fact of their mind, not the environment.
This is what I thought the whole field of morality is about. Defining what is "good" in an objective fundamental sense.
And if "inherent good" can exist but not "inherent value", how would "good" be defined for it wouldn't be allowed to use "value" in its definition.
"Values" happen to be a thing possessed by thinking entities
What happens then when a non-thinking thing feels happy? Is that happiness valued? To whom? Or do you think this is impossible?
I can imagine it possible for a fetus in the womb without any thoughts, sense of self, or an ability to move, to still be capable of feeling happiness. Now try to imagine a hypothetical person with a severe mental disability preventing them having any cohesive thoughts, sense of self, or an ability to move. Could they still feel happiness? What happens when the dopamine receptors get triggered?
It is my hypothesis that the mechanism by which emotions are felt does not require... (read 548 more words →)
A funny thing that happens when I ask people: "What do you ultimately want in life, and why?"
Almost everyone gets mildly annoyed. Some people give up. Most end up saying they have multiple goals. At which point I will ask them to choose one. If I manage to get them to articulate a terminal goal they are content with, the following conversation often ensues.
... (read 2367 more words →)Person: "Ok fine, I want [material goal (e.g. money, social status, to make stuff)]"
Me: "Why do you want that?"
Person: "I don't know, I guess because it will make me feel [positive (or lack of a negative) emotion (e.g. happy, accomplished, curiosity)]"
Me: "So you just want to feel [emotion]?"
Person: "No,
Sorry about that. I just tested it and it should be working fine. I deleted your account, so you can try signing up again. (also check spam)
[Update: This post is unfortunately no longer relevant as I have stopped developing the website. It is still kinda cool, but it can be difficult to have people collaborate on a mind map. Also there is less of an issue of finding relevant papers with recent advancements in search]
AI Safety Sphere is a collaborative mind-map dedicated to mitigating AI existential risks. The platform welcomes researchers, enthusiasts, and experts to contribute their insights, bridging gaps in understanding and ultimately fostering an open space to explore ideas.
One of the primary challenges in AI safety is understanding how individual research efforts fit into the broader landscape. As a newcomer in particular, it can be... (read 573 more words →)
Its worth mentioning that the majority of people are in camp #2. For example, in Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness, Frankish notes:
Further, in the 2020 PhillPapers Survey, 998 English-speaking philosophers were asked "Hard problem of consciousness (is there one?): no or yes?" and 62% said yes while only 29% said no.
One other (more anecdotal) observation I have is that this distinction seems to often be at the crux of disagreement between moral realists and anti-realists. If you are in camp #2... (read more)