Darwin – Evolution – Ethical Choice

[RWStanding]

Darwin – Evolution – Ethical Choice
There is no essential difference between the choice Nature has in evolution, and choice in ethics by humanity. In both cases the most pragmatic choice of three, is Altruism at whatever level is practicable.
If there is an excess of power exerted. as for instance by a swarm of locusts, then the species thrives for the moment. Until there is nothing left to exploit and then there is a crash, which may only affect the locust, but could have wider implications. Locusts are a large body of individuals up to the point at which the grasshopper becomes a locust, and then it assumes a swarm identity.
A large body of individuals, acting purely for individual benefit, is essentially short-sighted and with no long-term conscience. If they are aggressive to every other species but their own, then a top-predator species could decimate prey species. Some level of territory and social instinct is needed would enable a species such a lions or tigers to survive. Life may be nasty brutish and short but that is the limits of simple nature.
Where is a social instinct or habit is evolved, a balance is achieved both with others of the kind, and with the habitat being exploited. This is about the limit of ‘Altruism’ that is possible for species without advanced minds and langauage. Human being have more than sentience, they have sapience, and can choose to relate to all species on the basis of altruist ethics. But in any case, pragmatism suggests that they should operate from the grass-roots upwards, with first loyalty to the locality and most understandable territory.
Altruism is a balance involving a social conscience and freedom from bigoted authority.
The animal kingdom does not make ethical choices, but evolution favours the ‘right’ choice.
There is probably only one fundamental question that needs to be answered, and that is how animals do not simply relate together like robots, but possess basic feelings and hence self-knowledge.

[commonsense]

[=RWStanding post_id=375070 time=1537523298 user_id=13021]

There is probably only one fundamental question that needs to be answered, and that is how animals do not simply relate together like robots, but possess basic feelings and hence self-knowledge.
[/quote]

How do you know that robots have no emotions?

Why do you say that the possession of basic feelings is necessary and sufficient for being self-aware?

[TimeSeeker]

If you accept Kahneman's model of the mind (System 1 and System 2) then feelings are just heuristics of the mind. Instincts etc.

If you spend enough time doing empirical studies of self (self-awareness) then you will discover that they are TERRIBLY useful. And quite often - far, far smarter than "you". Colloquially we say "listen to your guts". You can "retrain" your gut/instincts through practice/repetition of a skill.

We do this in computer science too. We use GPUs (fast and efficient, but very expensive processors) to find an optimal solution to a very hard problem (System II thinking) and then we convert it to a heuristic that can run on the cheaper CPU (System I thinking). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space%E2% ... e_tradeoff

Survival doesn't require "altruism" - it actually requires extreme selfishness and extreme rationality. So you can do the mathematics to figure out that you stand better chance to survive through co-operation.Division of labor. Economies of scale. Safety in numbers. Specialization etc... Morality emerges.

[-1-]

There is probably only one fundamental question that needs to be answered, and that is how animals do not simply relate together like robots, but possess basic feelings and hence self-knowledge.

How do you know that robots have no emotions?

Why do you say that the possession of basic feelings is necessary and sufficient for being self-aware?

We have no knowledge of anyone else but ourselves having emotions. We can only use empathy via observing similar behaviour to ours in response to similar stimuli.

As such, we don't observe similar response to similar stimuli in robots. Hence, while we possess no knowledge of robot's lack or presence of emotions, we have a guideline (our own empathetic ability) that denies robots' having emotions.

You, Commonsense, assume that RWStanding claims knowledge. Whereas he claims a possibility, a judgment call if you wish, but he claims no knowledge.

That ought to answer your first question.

There was no claim that basic feelings are necessary and sufficient for being self-aware. Self-knowledge is not the same thing as being self-aware.

(Commonsense, I am trying to dig out some more interesting topics from below the layers of trokanmariel's untiring laying of new topics.)

[TimeSeeker]

If altruism leads to your extinction then, Evolutionary, it is a bad strategy.

A large body of individuals, acting purely for individual benefit, is essentially short-sighted and with no long-term conscience. If they are

What if individuals within that group were long-term thinkers? And that rational, selfish co-operation and reciprocation was a viable long-term strategy. Monte Carlo simulations of game theory tell us that is the case...

[commonsense]

There is probably only one fundamental question that needs to be answered, and that is how animals do not simply relate together like robots, but possess basic feelings and hence self-knowledge.

How do you know that robots have no emotions?

Why do you say that the possession of basic feelings is necessary and sufficient for being self-aware?

We have no knowledge of anyone else but ourselves having emotions. We can only use empathy via observing similar behaviour to ours in response to similar stimuli.

As such, we don't observe similar response to similar stimuli in robots. Hence, while we possess no knowledge of robot's lack or presence of emotions, we have a guideline (our own empathetic ability) that denies robots' having emotions.

You, Commonsense, assume that RWStanding claims knowledge. Whereas he claims a possibility, a judgment call if you wish, but he claims no knowledge.

That ought to answer your first question.

There was no claim that basic feelings are necessary and sufficient for being self-aware. Self-knowledge is not the same thing as being self-aware.

(Commonsense, I am trying to dig out some more interesting topics from below the layers of trokanmariel's untiring laying of new topics.)

Thanks, -1-, for answering my questions.

I had not thought enough about the first one to arrive at the argument you proffered. I had only worked it out in my mind to the point of being forced to accept emotional behavior as (poor) proof for the presence of emotions. I had then gone on to assume that robots could behave as if they have emotions. Now I see that in comparison to ourselves, we would see that robots are lacking this behavior.

As for the second question, I have been simply ignorant of a difference between self-knowledge and self-awareness. Thank you again.

[-1-]

Thanks, -1-, for answering my questions.

I had not thought enough about the first one to arrive at the argument you proffered. I had only worked it out in my mind to the point of being forced to accept emotional behavior as (poor) proof for the presence of emotions. I had then gone on to assume that robots could behave as if they have emotions. Now I see that in comparison to ourselves, we would see that robots are lacking this behavior.

As for the second question, I have been simply ignorant of a difference between self-knowledge and self-awareness. Thank you again.

It was my pleasure.

I thank you for not getting upset and taking the answers as they were meant: philosophically, void of individual ego gratification by the philosophers involved.