How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

prof
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by prof » Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:24 am

In a spirit of cooperation with Flash Dangerpants, I am taking a suggestion he offered to initiate a new thread.

This thread also is in keeping with Kant's book, Logik, written earlier, but translated into English in 1800, a book in which he introduces three basic kinds of concepts: the construct, the abstraction (or classification or categorization), and the unicept (or singularity.)

He also explains three kinds of method: the Synthetic - the method of science, where one begins with primary properties and then adds secondary refinements later;
the Analytic method, which is the procedure in philosophy [of clarifying and analyzing vague concepts in an effort to make them more clear and sharp. It proceeds by comparing and contrasting, by categorizing, rarely defining terms, 'having words chasing words,,' etc.;
and then Kant tells us about (what today we would speak of as) the axiomatic method where the "synthetic a priori" is central. That latter - the axiom - takes a fertile assumption, spins out its implications employing both deduction and induction.
=== Let's get started.

HOW & WHY THE HIERARCHY- OF-VALUE FORMULA IS SOUND

Robert S. Hartman (1910 – 1973) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman created the ‘Axiom of Value.’ With the Axiom of Value – which is the formal definition of the term “value” (which we will soon elucidate) - and with standard set theory, we will below demonstrate that once the axiom is applied to the concept value itself, it comes up with three basic dimensions: S, E, and I. This, as you will note, is a logical procedure.

{It yields potentially hundreds of definitions of other terms that are related to one another, bother both as to degree of “betterness”, and as to how they correlate with other terms having the same dimension of value.} Here is a link to a chart containing some of these new terms; there will, of course, be some primitive terms that are undefined, as in any system. See the table in End Note 4 (see pp. 64-66) here: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ETHICS.pdf

, we will explain later that when the axiom is applied to the concept “value” we derive three dimensions of value, as follows:

[There are three kinds of number which mathematicians acknowledge: finite; denumerable; and nondenumerable. Or, to say it another way, finite, countable, and uncountable.

[To illustrate, think of “7” (or the letter n in algebra which refers to) numbers which are finite. Then think of the integers: these numbers are countable but nonfinite since they go on indefinitely. And then think of the number of points in a continuous line segment: which is an uncountable number.]

So a value which - by definition - has only a finite amount of the properties required to fulfill its description (i.e., its concept’s intension) will be named S-value – where S stands for Systemic. (For all practical purposes, the intensions of these concepts are finite but elastic.)

A value which is defined as having only a denumerable (a countable) amount of properties will be spoken of as an E-value, where the E stands for Extrinsic.

And a value which – by definition - has a nondenumerable (an uncountable) amount of the property-names (attributes) which are needed to describe something (or someone) having uncountably-many properties {such as your mother, your wife, your dear friend, your priceless treasure, a museum-quality artifact, etc.) ...that value dimension we shall dub I-value, wherein I stands for Intrinsic.
...continued in next post.....
Last edited by prof on Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Logik
Posts: 1602
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Logik » Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:13 pm

Set theory is problematic. It's riddled with Russel's paradox.

I am not sure why you need a new way to re-define values when utility theory does a fine job at it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility

prof
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by prof » Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:46 pm

Don't see where it's so helpful to substitute the concept "preference" and/or the concept "level of satisfaction" for the concept "value."
The economist seems to be offering two choices to a "consumer" and asking: "Which of these two do you prefer the most?" Life is not like that. For instance, how do you feel about your favorite hobby as compared with a chance to have sex, or as compared with the chance to make enough money so that you can eat? Which do you prefer more - so that I can set up a Utility Function for you?


To continue with the argument for the validity, the coherence, the correspondence with daily life, and the inspired creativity of The existential, logical Hierarchy of Value formula........here is the next installment:

Intrinsic values are seen as gestalts, for if asked to list all the features of one’s girlfriend or mother, a person wouldn’t know where to begin to enumerate them – there are just so many. Enumeration is inappropriate and is not necessary.

I think we all agree that the formula 90 > 20 > 4 is true with regard to arithmetic. It is the same with the three basic dimensions of value - with regard to valuation: A higher infinity is greater (in size) than a lesser infinity .{For example, The number of posssible curves in hyperspace is larger than the number of integers.}

And that lesser infinity is in turn greater than a finite amount. An infinity of what? In this case, an infinity of meaning. And, as we are about to explain, value depends upon meaning.

The Systemic values arise by the fulfillment of mental constructs. They are constructed by the mind. They are defined into being: the result of postulation. Definitions are of finite length. {For example, "a circle is a cross-section of a sphere." or "force equals mass times acceleration." Both definitions are finite in size.}

The Extrinsic values arise by the fulfillment of worldly matters, socio-economic concerns, daily business, functionality, pragmatic matters.

And the Intrinsic values are the result of the fulfillment of situations to which we have given ourselves, our involvements, our deep interests, our loves, our highest appreciations, our realities.

Common applications of the dimensions are: I-values are people values and spiritual values; E-values are the value of things and stuff from everyday life, the daily material values; and the S-values are the Intellectual values. To fulfill in this context means for the actual (properties) to match the ideal picture of something or someone you have in your head. When the qualities of the actual correspond one-to-one {bijectively} with the conceptual attributes there is fulfillment. And thus, value.

....To be continued in the next post........
Last edited by prof on Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Logik
Posts: 1602
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Logik » Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:55 pm

That is precisely how life works.

Intrinsic values/gestalts are unscientific.
They are superpositions. Lip Service.

If I spend equal amounts of time on my hobby and on having sex - you could say that I prefer them equally. And if I keep ditching my tennis partner every time my girlfriend calls me - you can definitely say I prefer sex more than tennis!

When forced to trade them off against one another - you discover what people want most.

My utility function is that which I spend most of my time doing. A Pareto 80/20 will do fine.

As any shop owner quickly learns - what people tell you that they like and what people actually buy. Very different things.

Academics often make this error. People do not have privileged access/understanding of their own behaviours. This is why self-reporting is frowned upon as a scientific methodology.

I value art. Haven’t seen my ass in an art gallery in 4 years.

Preferences can be measured as actual choices between options. Values can’t.

This is why my girlfriend can understand and manage my behaviour much better than I can do it myself. The 1st person perspective of “self” is very skewed.

prof
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by prof » Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:20 pm

I value that shop-owner, as well as I value you, higher than I value a piece of cloth. Yet I value that piece of cloth higher than all the unsubstantiated opinions in this world, more than all the dogma that tells me "It's a black-or-white choice; it's got to be this or that!" when I see the colors in life, and the shades of gray.
Yes, when I go shopping I like to get bargains. I consider that a value. And in life in general I want to maximize the value.

The 'Central Question of Life' (proposed by Peter Demerest) for an individual to be mindful of is:
What choice can I make and action can I take, in this moment, to create the greatest net value?
That Question, that awareness, enhances the Ethical life. It is consonant with the theory that I propose in THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS. http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf

prof
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by prof » Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:36 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:55 pm
That is precisely how life works.
quote]

Thanks for the compliment.

prof
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by prof » Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:48 pm

When one makes change at the register of the market, or decides how much the bill comes to, one is employing Set Theory, namely, Associative Linear Algebra. To reject sets, and/or the mapping of them into one another, is to reject a goodly portion of Mathematics, and financial calculations too.


To continue the argument for the soundness of the HOV formula ....

"The name sets the norm” Hartman liked to say. By this he meant that the meaning of the concept that goes with the label you put on whatever you are valuing – the name – sets the norm: when you name (or designate, or associate a word to) an object, there is a meaning of that word that is associated with it. That meaning is the measure: it provides a norm for the object (of your attention) to fulfill.

If it does match, if it does fulfill its concept, then you will likely tend to consider the object to be a value, or to 'have value.'

The logical Hierarchy of Values (HOV) is shown concisely in the formula I > E > S.

Among the formula’s interpretations are: Life takes priority over materials; Health is more important than Wealth.

Material (and wealth) it tells us are more valuable than theories, systems, ideologies and schools of thought.

Also it tells us – as the old saying goes – “Life is larger than logic.” It is ‘existential’’ because it affirms life – the life of individuals. That is one of the main thrusts of existential philosophy. [Cf. S. Kierkegaard, EITHER-OR].

One result we can derive from these definitions is that I-value is richer in properties than is E-value, and that E-value is richer in properties than S-value. These relationships, as you may recall, can be depicted in a formula, the HOV. When we apply the definition of value to the very concept “value” itself what results are these three basic dimensions of value; and we arrive at the necessary conclusion that I-value is more of a value (more valuable) than E-value, and that E-value, in turn, is more of a value than S-value.

Value is a function of meaning: the more meaningful something is, the more valuable it is. This provides us with a hierarchy of values HOV).

Let us review some of the fine points: Meaning serves as the measure (of a concept’s value.) For purposes of logic, ‘meaning’ is the intension of the concept; it consists of a definition, and the exposition – or description – of the features that make up that individual (item or person.) These features, or qualities, are property-names or they are properties. {Every concept has a name (a designator or label), a meaning (a set of property-names or attributes) and an application. A member of the class of application is a referent (a case or an example.) A referent possesses properties. [For more details, and extensive applications of this derivation, see BASIC ETHICS: A systematic approach http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz ]


Questions? Comments?

Logik
Posts: 1602
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Logik » Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:18 am

prof wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:48 pm
When one makes change at the register of the market, or decides how much the bill comes to, one is employing Set Theory, namely, Associative Linear Algebra.
That's unsubstantiated.

One can use whatever functionally equivalent mathematics they desire.

Categoty theory.
Type theory.
Homotopy.

prof wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:48 pm
To reject sets, and/or the mapping of them into one another, is to reject a goodly portion of Mathematics, and financial calculations too.
And reject Set Theory we shall. Only to substitute it with something more useful.

Since you've been appealing to super-computers and AI, why not unify your work and replace set theory with a Mathematical framework for universal computation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus

And adopt type theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory )
In mathematics, logic, and computer science, a type theory is any of a class of formal systems, some of which can serve as alternatives to set theory as a foundation for all mathematics. In type theory, every "term" has a "type" and operations are restricted to terms of a certain type.
There is absolutely no foundation for I > E > S in constructive mathematics a.k.a computation.

prof
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26137

Post by prof » Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:16 am

Logik wrote:
prof wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:48 pm
When one makes change at the register of the market, or decides how much the bill comes to, one is employing Set Theory, namely, Associative Linear Algebra.
One can use Type theory.
Homotopy.

prof wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:48 pm
To reject sets, and/or the mapping of them into one another, is to reject a goodly portion of Mathematics, and financial calculations too.
And reject Set Theory we shall.

And adopt type theory ... a type theory is any of a class of formal systems,.. In type theory, every "term" has a "type" and operations are restricted to terms of a certain type.
Bertrand Russell invented (or discovered) Type Theory and included it in the classic he wrote with Alfred N. Whitehead, Principia Mathematica. Lately, Alonzo Church endorses it. Robert S. Hartman used Type Theory all the time.

How else can one account for such value situations as:
"We have that item in stock. It is just not on the shelf {for you to buy at this time.}"

"That nurse is on duty; her head is lying on that desk because she happens to be asleep."

A theory of types can handle these scenes, whereas conventional Logic may regard them as paradoxical and/or containing contradictions.

You write: "There is absolutely no foundation for [the value-science formula comprised of those axiological dimensions] in constructive mathematics a.k.a computation." (emphasis added)

Yes, I agree that - so far - in Computation Theory there is no foundation for conclusions reached within Formal Axiology. So what? In Peano/ Zermelo's account of basic arithmetic there is on accounting for The Continuum Hypothesis. Does that make either theory wrong?! No. ...just incomplete.
And since Goedel made his major contribution, those who work in a theory would rather have it be incomplete rather than incoherent.

In the explanation I gave for how the HOV formula is valid, coherent, and sound no fault was noted in my reasoning. I gave good reasons, and thus offered a rational explanation. This is what I set out to do.

Thanks for critiquing it from your perspective.

What do the rest of you philosophers think, on this topic?
:)
(Unfortunately we all have limited perspectives ...unless we know {and/or are} The Meaning of the Universe.)

Logik
Posts: 1602
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Logik » Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:45 am

What can I say.

This thread demonstrates why practitioners think academics have contributed absolutely nothing to ethics.

Ever.

You misunderstand and misapply logic beyond its intended use.

Soundness, completeness and validity are all indecidable criterions in a Lambda-calculus framework.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)

So if you claim your formula is “sound” you should be able to prove it mathematically.

Logic/mathematics is a tool for computing consequences. To use it for anything else is an error. It is a modeling tool.

Model Incompleteness is a fatal flaw in any theory where you deal with asymmetry and long statistical tails. Small risks with huge consequences hide in this human blind spot. This is Russel’s own inductivist turkey problem.

So yes - incompleteness is a problem! When you are dealing with Ethics the last thing you want is your tools to produce a fatal error. This is why you need a framework that is probably-complete! So you don’t trip over your tools.

Lambda calculus (type theory) is Turing-complete. Provably!

Since you have already spent 55 years banging your head against this, you might as well commit to the sunk cost fallacy.

It is precisely because our knowledge is limited and our models are (always!) incomplete is why we absolutely require counter-factual reasoning in the equation.

I am calling it quits at this point. You don’t even know what the word “rational” means so you have fallen for a circularity...

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:13 pm

prof wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:24 am
In a spirit of cooperation with Flash Dangerpants, I am taking a suggestion he offered to initiate a new thread.

This thread also is in keeping with Kant's book, Logik, written earlier, but translated into English in 1800, a book in which he introduces three basic kinds of concepts: the construct, the abstraction (or classification or categorization), and the unicept (or singularity.)

He also explains three kinds of method: the Synthetic - the method of science, where one begins with primary properties and then adds secondary refinements later;
the Analytic method, which is the procedure in philosophy [of clarifying and analyzing vague concepts in an effort to make them more clear and sharp. It proceeds by comparing and contrasting, by categorizing, rarely defining terms, 'having words chasing words,,' etc.;
and then Kant tells us about (what today we would speak of as) the axiomatic method where the "synthetic a priori" is central. That latter - the axiom - takes a fertile assumption, spins out its implications employing both deduction and induction.
=== Let's get started.

HOW & WHY THE HIERARCHY- OF-VALUE FORMULA IS SOUND

Robert S. Hartman (1910 – 1973) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Hartman created the ‘Axiom of Value.’ With the Axiom of Value – which is the formal definition of the term “value” (which we will soon elucidate) - and with standard set theory, we will below demonstrate that once the axiom is applied to the concept value itself, it comes up with three basic dimensions: S, E, and I. This, as you will note, is a logical procedure.

{It yields potentially hundreds of definitions of other terms that are related to one another, bother both as to degree of “betterness”, and as to how they correlate with other terms having the same dimension of value.} Here is a link to a chart containing some of these new terms; there will, of course, be some primitive terms that are undefined, as in any system. See the table in End Note 4 (see pp. 64-66) here: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ETHICS.pdf

, we will explain later that when the axiom is applied to the concept “value” we derive three dimensions of value, as follows:

[There are three kinds of number which mathematicians acknowledge: finite; denumerable; and nondenumerable. Or, to say it another way, finite, countable, and uncountable.

[To illustrate, think of “7” (or the letter n in algebra which refers to) numbers which are finite. Then think of the integers: these numbers are countable but nonfinite since they go on indefinitely. And then think of the number of points in a continuous line segment: which is an uncountable number.]

So a value which - by definition - has only a finite amount of the properties required to fulfill its description (i.e., its concept’s intension) will be named S-value – where S stands for Systemic. (For all practical purposes, the intensions of these concepts are finite but elastic.)

A value which is defined as having only a denumerable (a countable) amount of properties will be spoken of as an E-value, where the E stands for Extrinsic.

And a value which – by definition - has a nondenumerable (an uncountable) amount of the property-names (attributes) which are needed to describe something (or someone) having uncountably-many properties {such as your mother, your wife, your dear friend, your priceless treasure, a museum-quality artifact, etc.) ...that value dimension we shall dub I-value, wherein I stands for Intrinsic.
...continued in next post.....
Hierarchial values created a dichotomy where the raising of one thing results in the lower of another. The creation of Good results in Evil, and vice versa and as such set morality as grounded in an inherent relativism that reflects within the divergence of values by the continual act of "comparison". Morality grounded in a progression necessitates a problem in not just observing "equality" but the very fact equality itself necessates a form of seperation in and of itself as "equality" already necessitates a form of seperation resulting in the inherent absence of "unity" necessary for any structure to occur.

The nature of hierarchy is not only relativistic, but necessitates all value systems as existing through a process of directed movement and the foundations of being are "again" reduced to spatial axioms and we are left with a common grounding in traditional values we inevitably progressed away from.

Hierarchial values should be replaced with cyclical ones reflective of the golden rule, where self and self/self and group/group and group values exist as an intertwine system of "reflection" where morality fundamentally is an act of creating the self/other's/self through the manifestation of certain limits within the human condition as the human condition. In simpler terms morality is a process of turning chaos into order by a process of giving definition to irrational elements.

Practically this can be observed in the practice of moderation as a universal habit by observing the center between two extremes as the embracement of both; thus necessitating morality as conducive to a process of "joining" or a rationalized version of agape, philios and eros as center points to the other.

Vice must be accepted and redirected, as vice is an inherent disintegration of the human condition and as such is subject to an inherent law of entropy. The golden rule necessitates a process of inversion where nothingness is fundamentally eliminated under a process of self-reflection in which common grounds are observed in seemingly seperate aspects of the self and self/ self and group/ group and group. To eliminate vice effectively causes it to expand.

In these respects, at the practical level, morality takes on the form of a dialogue necessitating all practical endeavors as reflecting on "truth".

Furthermore morality takes on a foundation in equilibrium; and the elimination of evil can only occur through the creation of good. The question of what is "good" however always necessitates a form of "unity" as order exists in accords with an inherent nature of unity. What is "evil" effectively is an act of seperation in a manner where unity is not maintained.

Creating technology to solve practical problems at the expense of the alienation of quality causes an absence of unity.
Avoiding technology dually results in the same problem.

Hence a middle path with equilibrium determined intuitively determined by a sense of quality and unity it brings, quantititively where resource formation and use are in equilibrium. Etc.

The moral grounding of the Golden Rule necessitates equilibrium by not just observing a middle path of temperance at the individual and group level, but also observing a change in a values system at the rational (not just intuitive) level where all phenomenon, and hence the human condition, are center points for further phenomenon; as such they are meaningful in and of themselves.

The question of a value system is grounded in the question of measurement.


This sets a strong problem for using "kant" as a foundation, as this nature of "space" as being primarily subjective results in a subject value system that effectually causes an inherent absence of objectivity in values causing the same moral dilemma he seeks to avoid.

Kant is dead, he is a ghost story for a time where philosophy is stuck in a blinding night. Western nihilism is grounded in the inherent entropy of reason previous philosopher's failed to take into account when setting a system of metaphysics as a cornerstone of the cultures they defined. If entropy is viewed as a law, and not as a problem, the nature of the problem will not be projected as a sort of "existential paranoia" that is the grounding for the lack of equilibrium in the values systems we currently "observe".

prof
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by prof » Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:11 am

I did NOT use Kant as a foundation of the Hartman/Katz Ethical Theory which is explicated in The Structure of Ethics book, q.v. http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/TH ... ETHICS.pdf

You write:
set morality as grounded in an inherent relativism that reflects within the divergence of values by the continual act of "comparison". Morality grounded in a progression necessitates a problem...
However, I did NOT set "morality" as a 'progression,' nor ground it in relativism or comparison. I believe you have no idea how I defined "morality." You didn't read the book, obviously. You are expressing a fantasy in this respect. Or maybe it would be more ethical to phrase it this way: a total misunderstanding of what I mean by "morality."

The Existential Hierarchy of Value merely shows that some values are richer in value properties, richer in meaning, than are others. It helps set priorities.

It places individual persons (having individuality) above things and materialism. And it sets things and stuff above systems, opinions, dogma, creeds, ideologies. {Hartman, along with Anatol Rapoport of The University of Michigan - who I visited and and with whom had conversations - were founders of the Society for General Systems. Hartman certainly saw a place for systems. And in Basic Ethics I relate how they are useful. They indeed have some value!}

The book when it brings up the HOV makes a point of saying it would be ideal for one to be a high-scorer in all three basic dimensions, S, E, and I. That would mean the person had strong empathy and compassion; had diplomatic savoir faire as well as practical handyman skills, and a competence at getting things done on schedule. Also one would be a brainy intellectual creative at system-building, and dot-connecting, and having admirable self-discipline. All this is rather an ideal state.

Of the many thousands tested with the HVP [the Hartman Value Profile] it turned out that the rare individual who scored highest in all three areas was by profession a pig-farmer.

Comments? Questions?

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by FlashDangerpants » Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:28 pm

prof wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:24 am
In a spirit of cooperation with Flash Dangerpants, I am taking a suggestion he offered to initiate a new thread.
I'd like to point out that while I may have suggested explaining and defending your underlying system, I did mention something that would help make it a worthwhile endeavor.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:48 pm
So you should start a new thread, explain and defend that valid and sound formula without forcing people to go and read a selection of wikipedia pages and your other books. You use this as a cheap way out of problematic conversations and have become much too reliant on that tactic.
And let's face it, if Logik does actually read your book about creating a science out of ethics, you are just going to end up arguing about pseudoscience anyway. So why not just make your position clear in new words?

prof
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by prof » Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:37 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:28 pm
prof wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:24 am
In a spirit of cooperation with Flash Dangerpants, I am taking a suggestion he offered to initiate a new thread.
why not just make your position clear in new words?
That is what I just did.

[The books talks about what Ethics is, and how the new paradigm for Ethics defines what Morality is; and also What an Ethical business is. No summary here, nor Abstract, would do it justice. The book speaks for itself.]

What I did in this thread is justify the formula:
I > E > S. I demonstrated how this is true by the very definitions of those value dimensions; and by the use of either Set Theory or the Theory of Types to establish the relationship between the value dimensions. Q.E.D.

Logik
Posts: 1602
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound

Post by Logik » Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:31 am

prof wrote:
Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:37 am
What I did in this thread is justify the formula:
I > E > S. I demonstrated how this is true by the very definitions of those value dimensions; and by the use of either Set Theory or the Theory of Types to establish the relationship between the value dimensions. Q.E.D.
:roll:

The devil is in the details. You have failed to define what Ethics is because we still have a bunch of open problems in AI. And you appeal to AI to give us the answer to the questions you can't answer.

Whether to rely on AI (or even build it) is itself an ethical dilemma. Something which you overlook in your theory. If AI can enslave humanity then building AI is immoral. So ... this is why the Friendly AI research is currently underway.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Friendl ... telligence

And there are the open problems in the field:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a5JAiTd ... -utilities
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/gnxDNEt ... ai-opfai-2
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Naturalized_induction

When you solve the above PRACTICAL problems, then you get the cookie. Till then - you are just another confused academic.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests