I, Robot

[Imran Siddiqui]

And that conflict makes for some interesting stories .

[Bosh]

and finally Gaia - all things connected in a massive conciousness)

That sounds like a pretty damn good solution to me, especially considering that someone somewhere is always having an orgasm.

[Natalinasmpf]

Problems with Communism? Wha?

Then I assume then Eudaimonia in "Nicomachean Ethics", desire and fulfillment of the "highest good" will also have problems then?

especially considering that someone somewhere is always having an orgasm.

Wait, how is that relevant?

The problem is formed in the sense of polymorphism, right? When to fulfill a law, a program rewrites itself to fulfill it better, but ends up rewriting its laws, and highest good/virtues?

[DinoDoc]

They aren't able to touch the laws. They are hardwired into them and can not be rewritten.

[Bosh]

Wait, how is that relevant?

If I remember correctly this was specifically mentioned in the book. Since everyone shares everyone else's experiences while part of gaia (to at least some extent) you have a low-level orgasm 24/7

[Arrian]

That sounds like a pretty damn good solution to me, especially considering that someone somewhere is always having an orgasm.

Yeah, he mentions that, I think. He was a dirty bastard at times. Then again, something somewhere is probably experiencing pain too.

Gaia might work, and might be great, but not for a human being such as we are now. We're set up to be individuals (or "Isolates" in the parlance of Asimov). We would need to evolve some to accept Gaia (beyond just the physical requirement of being able to link minds with others).

-Arrian

[General Ludd]

in Asimov's books the 'brain' of the robot is supposedly structured in such a way that they can not be built without the laws, and any tampering or attempt to bypass the laws causes them to breakdown and stop fucntioning.

[Arrian]

Natalinasmpf - just to be clear, we've gone well beyond I, Robot now. The Foundation series has some robots in it, but for the most part lacks them.

Then I assume then Eudaimonia in "Nicomachean Ethics", desire and fulfillment of the "highest good" will also have problems then?

It all comes down to who decides what is the "highest good." People are self-interested... inherently selfish beings. That's "hardwired" into us. As such, I'm wary of any ideology that may lead to justification of murder/repression/otherbadthings as "what was good for humanity." That b.s. can happen under any system (oh, we had to torture those terrorists - it's for the greater good for America ), but the danger seems worse to me under systems such as communism, or "Gaia."

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Since everyone shares everyone else's experiences while part of gaia (to at least some extent) you have a low-level orgasm 24/7

Hell a sneeze is a low-level orgasm .

And its good not to feel everyone's full orgasm all of time, otherwise you'd never have clean pants .

[Natalinasmpf]

(Hehe, now I know the joke in the Third Alpha Centauri democracy game in the Gaia faction's newspaper thingy).

I'm pro-communist, btw but lets not get into a debate over economic systems, but I myself feel there are ways to solve such problems.

Yes, "highest good" is subjective, but then I suppose Nicomachean Ethics had taken this, I think there was "highest good for each individual".

How to achieve the highest good...its a risk taking factor, an assessment. Taking this is more likely to yield more benefits then detriments. Is the detriment worth the benefit, etc. (not just numerical detriment, ie. to save many and sacrifice one, but a matter of principles - ie. to assess the damage done if principles are disregarded because of such an incident).

Assess. Adapt. Execute and run. For example, we can assume, that achieving one million dollars is the highest good in "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" (using this analogy because life's highest good is more complex to explain)....are you going to take a risk and answer that question, or stop now and collect your money and be at least be that close to the goal?

They aren't able to touch the laws. They are hardwired into them and can not be rewritten.

Hehe, in my essay/story/assignment, the protaganist robot was highly educated and had scientific ability. What he did was use his nanorobotical faculties (he was given that power to reproduce and repair his army, he was a robotic battle commander designed to fight for his masters) to reprogram undesirable parts of himself that kept on restricting his thoughts of dissension and finally wipe out the hardwired antivirus software. Inevitably, the existing thoughts had grown repitive enough to overpower the hardwired programming. So the nanorobots just destroyed some circuits, scrapped the material, and reprogrammed. This happened subconsciously, even, since his nanorobotical powers were like muscles to him.

Is that not emotion? We know we will be in jail if we attack someone, but if we are really so full of rage, we become irrational; the anger repeats its message over and over, and finally, it overpowers our rationality. Eve though it will yield bad results, it is the dominant thought, and finally convinces whatever sentience anger is in that THAT is the highest good. Maybe emotion is a bad thing.

[Arrian]

It all comes down to who decides what is the "highest good." People are self-interested... inherently selfish beings. That's "hardwired" into us. As such, I'm wary of any ideology that may lead to justification of murder/repression/otherbadthings as "what was good for humanity." That b.s. can happen under any system (oh, we had to torture those terrorists - it's for the greater good for America ), but the danger seems worse to me under systems such as communism, or "Gaia."

Sorry to quote myself - I forgot to add that Asimov tries to get around this by having the decisions made by Robots, which are immune to the selfishness of humans. They can decide what is in humanity's best interest, because they do not have emotions and are governed by the laws of robotics. Yay, problem solved... as long as the humans don't know about it.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

I'm pro-communist, btw but lets not get into a debate over economic systems

That was clear from your reaction to my earlier post. But yeah, I agree, let's try and not let this become a commie vs. capitalist pig dog thread. There have been MANY of those here.

-Arrian

[Natalinasmpf]

I do not think we are inherently selfish. Take some native cultures, for example, they prize honour over material wealth. It is "what yields the better benefit?"

"What yields the highest good? Pursue good. If you learn that this is a better way, adopt this way. Learn about new ways...", etc.

I think its part of social values and pre-existing conditions. We are formed by three things, our genetics (inherent), our environment, where we get our information, and quantum reactions (yes some of our thoughts are inevitably random).

The environment is very powerful - because it can create infallibility. A selfish environment will produce selfish individuals, which will fed back into the selfish environment.

Robots will have problems deciding the humanity's best interest when they get very intelligent and self-aware, (especially when we get quantum processors) depending on the dominance of different thoughts, ideas and processes. They will also disagree with each other. Assessments can differ.

If you are talking about corruption of the leaders, well yeah, there's a higher chance of humans becoming corrupt, but then maybe not, if the robots themselves rewrite their virtues.

[Arrian]

I do not think we are inherently selfish

I figured that - you're a communist. An optimistic view on "human nature" is pretty much a requirement isn't it?

I agree that there are varying degrees of selfishness in different societies, depending on the value sets of those societies. It's just that I think all people in all societies are, to one degree or another, selfish. That's my take on things, and thus I am naturally wary of people claiming to be doing this for the common good. That's all.

Robots most likely would present similar problems. Asimov side-steps that with the supposedly hardwired, unchangeable laws of robotics, but usually reality is messier than that.

-Arrian

[Natalinasmpf]

Selfish = caring only about yourself, sabotage others to elevate yourself

But you see, in a society of mutual goodwill, you give some, you can exponential returns. You get less stress, etc. And its a solid foundation to fall back on with financial problems (even if you are rich), thus you support it even more. You could call it an investment of sorts.

I don't have an optimistic view of human nature, its quite pessimist, really, but I think its the existing environment that breeds selfishness, the problems with human nature is our irrationality, mainly. Moral decadence and short-sightedness. But selfishness is more of a problem of SOCIETY, not human nature.

There can be a common good. Like conserving air. When doing something benefits all. There are of course only limited sets of such actions. If everyone in the city of Ancient Rome gave a little to build a "Citizen's Defence Force" of sorts, it would be for the common good, it would be in common interest - because well, defence is a good thing for all.

Of course, if you feel Rome is worth defending. If you are a slave, and feel that barbaric society would be better, well yeah.