Unusual, but Interesting to think of wisdom as the "hardware" ...
I am sympathetic to the idea that wisdom is more bio-physical than
"intellectual" knowledge. What I can't accept though is that innate
capabilities and potentials are "wired" - in any hard-wired sense.
Sure wisdom and knowledge can be both be developed post-conception ?
The thing we seem not be be expressing is our fear that developing
knowledge can often retard or degenerate wisdom. I wouldn't like that
fear to suggest a new born babe is the best we can do, when it comes
to wisdom.
Regards
Ian
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Mohamed Yunus
Yasin<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Also Agreed :)
>
> Here is one way of looking at this issue. I am not discounting knowledge.
> Knowledge is also good since it determined how Wisdom is manifested.
>
> So since we are talking abt robots. i use this analogy, that of a computer.
> If Wisdom is the hardware, knowledge is the software. We have been 'wired'
> to understand and practise wisdom. However, how we express the wisdom is
> determined by the knowledge, like what software does in a cmpouting
> system.... does this make sense? So perhaps this is 'how' a child would be
> moving to the top right hand corner.... in which case we need to define the
> axis accordingly....
>
> yunus
>
>
>
>> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 10:21:06 +0200
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: artiificial moral agents (AMA)
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Also agreed Alan,
>>
>> I guess I'm just taking the "how do we get there from here ?" stance.
>> Engaging with the question as framed - before - moving the goalposts ;-)
>> But Tom, can speak for himself.
>>
>> Regards
>> Ian
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Alan Rayner
>> (BU)<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > Dear Ian,
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> > But I think what I, Cheri and Yunus were trying to do here is take the
>> > opportunity to develop this conversation more deeply (as per the
>> > attached
>> > set of poems). Actually, what I would have most difficulty with in the
>> > depiction is the notion of 'autonomy', which is in its turn an artefact
>> > of
>> > 'starting with a definition'.
>> >
>> > Warmest
>> >
>> > Alan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Glendinning"
>> > <[log in to unmask]>
>> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 8:49 AM
>> > Subject: Re: artiificial moral agents (AMA)
>> >
>> >
>> >> Hi Folks, I think we are being a little unfair on Tom's question.
>> >>
>> >> Notwithstanding the simplistic reduction - of the power to act and the
>> >> wisdom to do the right thing - to a two-dimensional graph.
>> >> Notwithstanding the fact that I share a view that wisdom is more
>> >> "child-like" than received (westen, objective) intellectual wisdom.
>> >> Tom's starting point is "defintional" - placing a new-born child
>> >> "bottom-left" is just defining his axes - the autonomy and wisdom "of
>> >> a new born child".
>> >>
>> >> I think a child has high "potential" to the top-right, and is clearly
>> >> well above a dead physical object, having innate evolved capabilities
>> >> to act and evaluate. A "bot" starts well of the bottom-left scale.
>> >> The point is a development & learning one, surely ?
>> >> And a question of what qualities and processes define moving (up and)
>> >> to the right (and which ones don't) ?
>> >>
>> >> The usual qustion - What defines wisdom, how is it learned, developed ?
>> >> When could one "bot" be said to be more "wise" than another; in what
>> >> way is a developing human wiser than a bot ?
>> >>
>> >> I think Tom's questiion is valid, because as he points out "bots"
>> >> already have autonomy with moral consequences, even for those who
>> >> believe a bot could never have the moral wisom to be trusted with such
>> >> decisions and actions.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Ian
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
> ________________________________
> Buddy is 10! Create a comic strip of your ultimate party and win $1,000!
> Click here
|