Hi Ian
You are right. I am in a quest mode regarding trust and/or faith and as a general rule, I find little basis for "trust" in the academic community as a whole, though as individuals there are some whom I "trust" in bounded conditions. As such, I have absolutely no faith or trust in the "university" as the foundation for trust in issues outside of the narrow academic niches in which they have specialized. And there, one needs a healthy dose of questioning. Other than a desire to take such a position, I see little justification for such trust/faith.
If we want to start, let us think how that can be accepted other than by negative induction (i.e. eliminate all others and leave the university standing).
I do believe that there are great "teachers", many of whom have not sought the university as a bully pulpit.
------------------------------
In the end, its your life and while you can draw from life's experiences (past looking), in the end you press the button. So I need to first trust myself implicitly.
I have faith in science qua science, but science doesn't inform me about many of life's decisions even down to whether I take this year's flu vaccine
Some one once said that logical arguments are used to rationalize decisions made rather than the inverse. We use science to sell ourselves on solutions. I know an engineering professor who designs pumping systems for animal wastes. He says that they do all the calculations and then double the horsepower and pipe size.
AMA's are an interesting place to start the analysis. Often we have faith in the AI because the time costs and risks outweigh not making such a judgment.
tom
> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:11:13 +0200
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: artiificial moral agents (AMA)
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> You sound at a loss ? ie you can't see (or you are not stating) any
> worthwhile basis for trusting someone's wisdom.
>
> (I would say the artist example is spurious when it comes to wisdom ?
> I suggest that artist is trusting something quite different to make
> their point.)
>
> You swap trust for "faith" at one point, but you are right about the
> implied risk, we can come back to that.
>
> This is an intersting paragraph.
> "The great and saving grace for the sciences is the willingness to tumble
> > towers of dogma in the face of facts. The problems with scientific theory
> > occur when one steps out of the laboratory and into the world of
> > application. The controversy over the environment and climate is an
> > excellent example. The past problems are crisper because of hind sight,
> > history and time."
>
> This is the problem - the reason for this forum and Nick's agenda -
> recognizing the limits and limitations of existing of existing models
> of science when it comes to the real world as a whole - outside the
> lab as you put it..
>
> ie the problem is that science is often much more dogmatic than it
> would claim to be ... ie "what's wrong with science?"
> As many have pointed out before, hindsight is a major source of facts,
> but however "crisp" even they are subject to dogmatic interpretation.
>
> So let's get back to this trust / faith point.
> You keep telling us who you wouldn't trust - that's relatively easy -
> to point out "the problem".
> Answer me this -
> What "qualities" would you put your trust (or faith) in - for
> life-affecting decisions ?
> (Whether or not you could envisage these qualities developing in an AI
> / AMA application.)
>
> Feel free to ask me (or any one of us) the same question.
> Regards
> Ian
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:01 PM, tom abeles<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Hi Ian
> >
> > You are right, some of my questions are rhetorical but could be recast as
> > statements as you have done. I, indeed, do not, could not and would not
> > trust a child to push or not push the button. An artist has tried this by
> > placing himself in a circle of bare wire carrying a lot of power and then
> > placing a bucket of water outside and waiting to see if some visitor would
> > dump the water into the circle completing the circuit and frying the artist.
> > That is real trust unless one does have a death wish of sorts.
> > Is he "wise"? Do folks place trust in his words?
> >
> > I am not sure that there is anyone in this discussion circle in whom I would
> > put such trust, least of all the child surrogate, with my life. Other than
> > in institutions of religion or faith-based learning does one find such
> > possibilities. Think Indian Jones willing to step out onto an invisible
> > bridge to get to the Chalice. One has to take a risk with one's beliefs and
> > that is an act of faith.
> >
> > Wisdom and insights are "a ha" transformational experiences, like the
> > scarecrow, lion and tin woodsman in the Wizard of Oz. This is what has
> > separated institutions as to purpose and why one chooses to join a
> > particular community of scholars. In the Academy it is why there are
> > ideological schools in philosophy, sociology, psychology etc and it is why
> > such acrimony does not prevail in the sciences (though they are not without
> > their disagreements).
> >
> > The great and saving grace for the sciences is the willingness to tumble
> > towers of dogma in the face of facts. The problems with scientific theory
> > occur when one steps out of the laboratory and into the world of
> > application. The controversy over the environment and climate is an
> > excellent example. The past problems are crisper because of hind sight,
> > history and time.
> >
> > Harvey has some excellent examples such as eugenics which impact on the
> > world depending on who interprets the ramifications and how actions are
> > taken accordingly.
> >
> > One must remember the history of Oxbridge and other universities. Most were
> > started by folk from particular religious orders. As science developed, the
> > origins became less important and the various bodies reshuffled themselves.
> > But during all of this, there has always been a bright line between the
> > secular and the sacred. wisdom, where is your home in the "academy". And
> > many would respond that it belongs and is well managed on the sacred side of
> > the institution.
> >
> > What is nice about science and tech is that they do admit to mistakes. There
> > are very few in the domain of religion who willingly recant, except, maybe
> > an apostate or two.
> >
> > AMA's, the original start of this thread, points out the difficulties at
> > hand.
> >
> > thoughts?
> >
> > tom
> >
> > tom abeles
> >
> >
> >
> >> Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 12:02:34 +0200
> >> From: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: artiificial moral agents (AMA)
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >> Tom, not sure how to help this along, I tried to agree with and build
> >> on some of your points earlier.
> >>
> >> Clearly if we are talking about a better or worse path to "wisdom",
> >> better or worse is full of moral (values / religious / philosophical)
> >> questions as well as scientifically factual issues. And yeah, mixing
> >> those things up in some kind of post-modern pseudo-science can get us
> >> into a "new-agey" mess. But I think we can do better than throw our
> >> hands up in horror at the mess. Take these (hopefully rhetorical)
> >> questions of yours ...
> >> >
> >> > We know a lot about children from conception to maturity and back to the
> >> > child (a la 2001). Can I elicit the same behaviour of that child from a
> >> > dog?
> >> > Would I trust that child with the choice of which button to push giving
> >> > me
> >> > life or death.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Child development from conception to maturity ?
> >> Yes, we can know a lot about that scientifically, but our views of the
> >> "quality" of that development - its wisdom - doesn't seem to be
> >> entirely scientific / hence this forum - what's wrong with science,
> >> etc.
> >>
> >> And back to the child (a la 2001) ?
> >> Now we are talking science-fiction allegory, not science. BUT we have
> >> this recurring (allegorical / metaphorical) theme that perhaps wisdom
> >> has some "child-like" qualities ? No one is saying that a new born
> >> child is the epitome of wisdom. Some of us are saying that some
> >> directions of development away from this child state are worse.
> >> Clearly not all, or we would have no debate about what was a wise
> >> direction.
> >>
> >> Can I elicit the same behaviour of that child from a dog?
> >> No. Some of the same / similar behaviours no doubt, but in general, in
> >> total, No.
> >>
> >> Would I trust that child with the choice of which button to push
> >> giving me life or death ?
> >> No. Not unless you considered yourself less wise than that child.
> >> But you wouldn't trust a dog, or just any-old robot, or even just any
> >> other human either.
> >> I doubt anyone here is remotely suggesting otherwise.
> >>
> >> You would need to have formed some view that they knew what they were
> >> doing, their motives and understandings of consequences of their
> >> actions, the value of (your) life, etc. Trust actually is a very good
> >> word for this debate, very interesting and fundamental, as you put it.
> >> How would you recognize someone as wise enough to be trusted ?
> >>
> >> And that is NOT a rhetorical question.
> >> Regards
> >> Ian
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. Find out
> > more.
Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook. Find out more.