The Interplay of Good, Bad, Consciousness, Ethics, and Value (economic, education, money)

[Phil75230]

This is a spinoff of the thread Machine Superintelligence is One of the Greatest Threats Facing Humans Today, by Wittgenstein’s Ghost.

I only posted it here in "Great Debates" because this is the subform of WG's original thread. If mods think it's more appropriate for another subforum, I have no objections to moving it to that subforum.

The following quote is my original comment (for the direct issue at hand) plus Wittgenstein’s Ghost’s (WG’s) response (i.e. Round 1 contents).

Phil “Round 1”: //www.city-data.com/forum/52464418-post23.html
WG “Round 1”: //www.city-data.com/forum/52465275-post25.html

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

How do you know that? I can think of at least a couple possibilities for how such a machine might have desires or might feel:

1. If the foundations of ethics are axiomatic, then it is possible for a very intelligent machine to care about ethics. A decent number of philosophers are consequentialists about ethics and believe something to the effect of "We should minimize suffering and maximize happiness" is a logical byproduct of the notions of suffering and happiness. If they are right, then it is conceivable that a very intelligent machine might believe the same way, and it would then hold the proposition "We should seek to minimize suffering and maximize happiness" as true. Whether that should be called "desire" or not might be debatable, but it would at least serve as a strong reason for action.

2. I don't know why we think a machine wouldn't feel. I think the best explanations for consciousness mostly posit consciousness as a byproduct of intelligent brains. Complex brains results in consciousness, basically. Whether this brain needs to be biological is an open question, but it seems there is a real possibility than a complex, highly intelligent machine might be conscious.

Other rounds:

Phil “Round 2”: //www.city-data.com/forum/52494280-post41.html
WG “Round 2”: //www.city-data.com/forum/52539548-post42.html

Phil “Round 3”: //www.city-data.com/forum/52547985-post43.html
WG “Round 3”: //www.city-data.com/forum/52548938-post44.html

Phil “Round 4”: //www.city-data.com/forum/52581887-post46.html
(This is only my response to WG’s last question, as I was pressed for time and had to prioritize what I though was the most important question of the group. This being the case, I reserve the right to answer his other questions in a separate post which for these purposes may be called Phil “Round 4b”).

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Thanks for the new thread. I understand you to be saying that high levels of happiness aren't necessarily better than low levels of happiness, assuming suffering is minimal in both cases. I think this concept certainly applies to material possessions, and it's illustrated in the economic notion of diminishing marginal utility. If I'm thirsty, the first drink brings me more utility than the fifth drink. As I keep drinking, I get less and less utility from each subsequent drink. The same applies with wealth as it relates to happiness as well. There is good evidence that making more money will make you happier if you currently struggle to pay your bills and are drowning in debt. This effect levels off, however, and some of the data indicate that most increases in happiness above a relatively low threshold (~$60k/year) probably have more to do with life accomplishments than the money itself. Finally, most humans tend to return to their baseline levels of happiness even after significant life changes like winning the lottery. Becoming a significantly happier person is tough to do, so long as you aren't currently miserable due to some specific situation (like being tortured). This concept is known as the "hedonic treadmill."

However, happiness isn't subject to the same phenomenon because happiness is essentially utility. If person A is twice as happy as person B, person A is actually enjoying his life twice as much as person B. There is no diminishing marginal utility or hedonic treadmill in play here. Person A is actually happier, and it is hard to imagine why he wouldn't much rather be in his spot than in person B's spot.

Happiness is the most valuable thing there is. We go to great lengths to improve our happiness levels. Getting an education, undergoing job training, putting up with bosses we don't like, exercising, finding a mate, raising kids....all of these things are undertaken in a search for happiness. We sacrifice today in exchange for happiness tomorrow. That's why it is so confusing to me why you think that going from a state of marginal happiness to being the happiest person on earth is of no real value.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein’sGhost

Thanks for the new thread. I understand you to be saying that high levels of happiness aren't necessarily better than low levels of happiness, assuming suffering is minimal in both cases. I think this concept certainly applies to material possessions, and it's illustrated in the economic notion of diminishing marginal utility. If I'm thirsty, the first drink brings me more utility than the fifth drink. As I keep drinking, I get less and less utility from each subsequent drink. The same applies with wealth as it relates to happiness as well. There is good evidence that making more money will make you happier if you currently struggle to pay your bills and are drowning in debt. This effect levels off, however, and some of the data indicate that most increases in happiness above a relatively low threshold (~$60k/year) probably have more to do with life accomplishments than the money itself. Finally, most humans tend to return to their baseline levels of happiness even after significant life changes like winning the lottery. Becoming a significantly happier person is tough to do, so long as you aren't currently miserable due to some specific situation (like being tortured). This concept is known as the "hedonic treadmill."

You’re welcome, WG. Sorry for the late response.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein’sGhost

However, happiness isn't subject to the same phenomenon because happiness is essentially utility. If person A is twice as happy as person B, person A is actually enjoying his life twice as much as person B. There is no diminishing marginal utility or hedonic treadmill in play here. Person A is actually happier, and it is hard to imagine why he wouldn't much rather be in his spot than in person B's spot.

Person B may be getting more utility, but in a badless (or very nearly so) universe, a lower utility can’t be bad – only less-good, so to speak. The lack of bad in this realm makes the goodness level of questionable relevancy within that scheme. In a badless or nearly so realm, it’s hard to see the urgency to pursue or have greater good (especially mere pleasure). This is still true even if Person A is aware of the uneven distribution of good. After all, in a badless (or nearly so) realm, then the uneven distribution can’t be bad (or significantly so) even if he or she is aware of the uneven distribution of utility. In fact, in a badless (or trivially so) universe, even uneven distributions of utility can’t be bad (or a significant ne). Certainly, in a completely badless realm a lesser good or uneven distribution of good cannot be a bad.

This being the case, I can’t see how in this circumstance, more or less pleasure has any urgency. The same goes for the distribution of lesser and greater pleasures. IMO, it’s only humans (most of them) great appetite for greater and greater goods that render having a lesser good in a badless realm problematic. If Person A has no appetite for a greater good, then it matters not if he or she happens to get a lesser good instead.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein’sGhost

Happiness is the most valuable thing there is. We go to great lengths to improve our happiness levels. Getting an education, undergoing job training, putting up with bosses we don't like, exercising, finding a mate, raising kids....all of these things are undertaken in a search for happiness. We sacrifice today in exchange for happiness tomorrow. That's why it is so confusing to me why you think that going from a state of marginal happiness to being the happiest person on earth is of no real value.

What you said can (in fact, likely) apply to our real-world universe. Getting happiness as a psychological buffer against bad things/events, to the extent that the type of happiness can indeed buffer our mental states. However, it’s hard to see how increasing our happiness applies to a badless (or only trivially so) realm – for reasons I discussed above. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to have greater happiness in badless (only trivially bad) realm, just that I can’t see how it can be a high priority.