 |
 |
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 > >> > >> > > _________________________________________________________________ See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and family http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx