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

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

prof wrote: 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?
Living a simple life doesn't need a new value system, that is observed in all the world's religions, as well as moderation in many ancient philosophers.

Richness comes from meaning, meaning from balance, all of which requires an integration in the environment. Integration is an elimination of degrees.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Logik wrote: 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.
AI cannot reinvent the wheel.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Post by Logik »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:11 pm
Logik wrote: 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.
AI cannot reinvent the wheel.
Does it have to?
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

tructure

Post by prof »

In the STRUCTURE book I claimed that a super-computer programmed with a "rule engine" could take a suvey and discard incompatible results to arrive at a common denominator of agreement. The size of the consensus pool would matter relative to the size of the over-all sample.

Also, in another part of the book, I made the point that currently, AI is only able to expeditiously reach a goal set by us humans; it is incapable of setting a goal because it doesn't have a mind. It only does what it's told.

I feel the same way Elon Musk does about Super-Intelligent Learning Machines. We must monitor the research carefully to see that humans are not disvalued in any way.

My task, for this thread, was not to define "Ethics." An entire chapter does that, including the justification for the definition. Why in heaven's name should I reproduce that argument here! Since when don't philosophers like to read any more. If they can read it on a post, they can read it in a (well-structured) paper.

.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

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

Post by prof »

Here is glimpse of the book. It is The Table of Contents.
Preface 3

Introduction 4

Chapter One: What is Structure? 5

Chapter Two: What is Ethics? 9

Chapter Three: What is Morality? 23

Chapter Four: Law, policy, and Ethical Decisions 41

Chapter Five: What is an Ethical Business? 70
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6212
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: tructure

Post by FlashDangerpants »

prof wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:26 am In the STRUCTURE book I claimed that a super-computer programmed with a "rule engine" could take a suvey and discard incompatible results to arrive at a common denominator of agreement. The size of the consensus pool would matter relative to the size of the over-all sample.

Also, in another part of the book, I made the point that currently, AI is only able to expeditiously reach a goal set by us humans; it is incapable of setting a goal because it doesn't have a mind. It only does what it's told.

I feel the same way Elon Musk does about Super-Intelligent Learning Machines. We must monitor the research carefully to see that humans are not disvalued in any way.
Yeah, well you have form for making up magical ambitions for AI don't you? It was in 2016 that you wrote this...
prof wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2016 2:44 am In 7 years from now, or less, GAI will be a practical reality. Domestic robots will be programmed with it. People will get accustomed to having them around - like they might have a Roomba now. Commercially robotics will be used to do every single kind of work that people do nowadays, even including nursing and home health care.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=18345
Your time is almost halfway up and AI progress has been nothing like your assumptions thus far.
prof wrote: Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:26 am My task, for this thread, was not to define "Ethics." An entire chapter does that, including the justification for the definition. Why in heaven's name should I reproduce that argument here! Since when don't philosophers like to read any more. If they can read it on a post, they can read it in a (well-structured) paper.
You don't learn from experience do you? Practically nobody reads your books. When I did, I found that raising the questions they prompt didn't really work with you anyway rendering the whole thing a complete waste of time as they aren't very good books anyway.

If your study of ethics and your 55 years of heroic labour on this particular project had granted you some humility, you might at least try to link your AEI thing to ethics some way here in order to tempt others besides myself to try. But you can climb up on your passive-aggressive high horse instead if you think that's going to work for you. Not everybody has to be an empiricist.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Post by Logik »

Even if the technical challenges of GAI are solved and it becomes a practical possibility tomorrow the ethical ones remain.

Should we build it?

We do not know how to retain control over an entity that is vastly more intelligent than us.

This is the self-defeating argument of ethics.

If GAI drives us to extinction is it ethical to build it?

Prof makes the same mistake as all damn philosophers. The devil is in the details.

Prof has hidden all his skeletons (question he doesn’t want to be asked, or doesn’t know how to answer) behind the door of GAI. Potential costly existential mistake!

Bostrom covered the argument in an entire book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superinte ... Strategies
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

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

Post by prof »

I never discussed GAI in my book, a book which was devoted to spelling out the structure of Ethics.

As I said in a recent post, I did discuss AI to the extent that I offered a quotation on the topic.

[GAI is Generalized Artificial Intelligence. No one yet knows how to build a GAI machine.]


Whether to build it was an ethical problem to which I gave some thought. Then I applied to it the Unified Theory of Ethics in order to derive a conclusion: if it disvalues humans in any way, do not proceed to work on it. Don't build it. An individual who knows his/her Ethics would not want to inflict harm on people in any way. Ifs/he worked on a computer capable of learning s/he would build into it something like Asimov's principles for robots.

Those who are able to torture another person very likely suffer from some brain damage, and the science of Brain Neurology will in the future wil be able to show that this is so. 8)

A male person can call me names all he wants to. That makes him unethical, by the standards of Ethics. Such a one may be just ignorant: ill-informed of what Ethics is all about. His brain may be intact.

The topic of this thread, as the reader can see above, is how and why the logical, existential Hierarchy of Value, the HOV, is sound. Thus the issue which Logik brings up in his recent post is irrelevant to our topic. I showed that the HOV is sound.
Enough said.
Last edited by prof on Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Post by Logik »

prof wrote: Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:21 am I never discussed GAI in my book, a book which was devoted to spelling out the structure of Ethics.

As I said in a recent post, I did discuss AI.

The difference between AI and GAI is agency and self-adaptive goal-driven behaviour.

If you are discussing AI then you should have absolutely no problem elaborating the exact algorithms/formulas by which the answers to your questions will be produced. After all somebody will have to program the AI, no? Who is that somebody? How will your book help them?

prof wrote: Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:21 am
[GAI is Generalized Artificial Intelligence. No one yet knows how to build a GAI machine.]

Whether to build it is a problem for computer scientists.
Is that so? I would've thought the ethical problem is humanity's problem, not somebody else's (in this case - computer scientists') problem.

prof wrote: Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:21 am As for me, by applying the Unified Theory of Ethics, I already derived a conclusion: if it disvalues humans in any way, do not proceed to work on it. Don't build it. An individual who knows his Ethics would not want to inflict harm on people in any way.
Humans have ALWAYS traded utility for risk. Cars are the prime example. Car accidents harm people.Yet we build them...

So where is the line on 'AI might result in some harm, but it's OK'.
prof wrote: Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:21 am I showed that the HOV is sound.
You have done no such thing. You make it somebody else's problem.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

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

Post by prof »

I agree with Logik that putting in restraints in learning computers so as to insure that they do the least possible harm to human beings is a problem for humanity. It is urgent that programmers acquire a sense of Ethics, and continue to develop and practice their moral sense.

Once in a while some people will jump to a conclusion that the Hierarchy of Value formula (abbreviated the HOV) is designed to solve every problem of ethics. That is a false assumption because it was not designed for that purpose.

It is, however, useful for setting priorities. I > E > S, the HOV, informs us that systems - as wonderful as they are at times - are not as valuable to most people, most of the time, as are things, property, having money, clothes, shelter, etc. ...the material values.

These in turn are nowhere near as valuable to most people as are the Intrinsic values, the I-values, such as a loving family and/or a Quality Life.

Note that, as our analysis has demonstrated, that I-value is more of a value than are the other two basic dimensions of value, just as 3360 > 40 > 7. This is true both by definition and by observation.

Examples of I-value are: life, love, liberty, freedom, integrity, beauty, morality, sincerity, affection, joy, involvement, 'going with the flow,' community, transparency, mindfulness, happiness, empathy, and compassion

I-value is also very important when it comes to defining "Ethics." Ethics is a perspective. It arises when an individual is II-valued or a group of individuals are I-valued.

That is the definition of Ethics in the structural analysis of the moral/ethical field, as explained clearly in the Unified Theory of Ethics.

Your views are welcomed.......
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Post by Logik »

The sense of ethics exists. It is proving incredibly difficult to express it in any programming language/logic.

Complexity gets in the way.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6212
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Post by FlashDangerpants »

prof wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:51 pm Examples of I-value are: life, love, liberty, freedom, integrity, beauty, morality, sincerity, affection, joy, involvement, 'going with the flow,' community, transparency, mindfulness, happiness, empathy, and compassion

I-value is also very important when it comes to defining "Ethics." Ethics is a perspective. It arises when an individual is II-valued or a group of individuals are I-valued.

That is the definition of Ethics in the structural analysis of the moral/ethical field, as explained clearly in the Unified Theory of Ethics.

Your views are welcomed.......
Other examples of I-value being: hate, scorn, envy, 'chewing gum and kicking ass', exclusion, obfuscation, dismissal, fear, disdain and derision?
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

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

Post by prof »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:39 am
prof wrote: Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:51 pm Examples of I-value are: life, love, liberty ... empathy, and compassion.

I-value is also very important when it comes to defining "Ethics." Ethics is a perspective. It arises when an individual is II-valued or a group of individuals are I-valued.

That is the definition of Ethics in the structural analysis of the moral/ethical field, as explained clearly in the Unified Theory of Ethics.

Your views are welcomed.......
Other examples of I-value being: hate, scorn, envy, 'chewing gum and kicking ass', exclusion, obfuscation, dismissal, fear, disdain and derision?
:roll:
The answer to your question is, No. Those are not examples of I-value, although some of them, such as scorn, have an I-value component in their analysis, in the calculus. What is quoted in the paragraph immediately-above this one shows a complete misunderstanding.

Yes, I-valuation is the realm of emotion, emphasis, personalization, but disdain and derision are unethical and immoral; and fear and obfuscation are the specialty of trolls, and those, along with disdain and derision, are the opposite of being ethical.

As most of you know, Ethics pertains to kindness and consideration, to making things better, to helpfulness, assuming responsibility, and to cooperation.

There is no point in extending this thread further. I shall be leaving here now. The spirit of cooperation I was hopeful about has completely evaporated, if it ever existed.

What a shame :!:
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

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

Post by Logik »

prof wrote: Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:14 am Yes, I-valuation is the realm of emotion, emphasis, personalization, but disdain and derision are unethical and immoral;
The very point of your theory is to help us discern the moral from the immoral, is it not?

So perhaps you can demonstrate to us how (using your theory) I can come to the same conclusion as you.

That is: love and cooperation are moral but disdain and derision are iimmoral.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

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

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Logik wrote: Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:59 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:11 pm
Logik wrote: Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:31 am
: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.
AI cannot reinvent the wheel.
Does it have to?
If it does not have to, then we really don't need it do we?
Post Reply