We care about the survival of complex fragile humane values and the sort of intelligent life they value, which category is broader than humanity but farnarrower than ‘all intelligent minds’.
The “complex fragile humane values” post seems to be muddled to me. I don’t agree with it. Robin Hanson doesn’t agree with it (see the comments). It appears to be a controversial topic.
Figuring out what we want is the hardest problem.
Intelligence isn’t IMHO the most important thing.
I also want consciousness, empathy, love, artistic and aesthetic sense, fun, and a continuing ability to evolve.
OK… Yes… I see that those are important to the current intelligence dominating the planet.
And, I guess that they are not necessarily a part of any possible intelligence. It is not hard to find humans who lack in Empathy, for instance.
However, all of those things are currently defined by our anthropomorphic point of view. It may be that another intelligence might not need them, or that they exist in different forms that we might not recognize (for instance, some of my family are stunned that I find puzzles such as Sudoku to be fun. Or, that I find doing Propositional Logic fun)… But, that is really just seeking to equivocate semantics about those concepts.
On the one hand, you keep speaking of “intelligent life” as being the only thing of importance, from which I infer that you believe intelligence is the only quality you value. On the other hand, you criticize my adding things to the list besides intelligence as being not inclusive enough. You seem to be arguing simultaneously for two viewpoints bracketing mine.
I’m probably misinterpreting you; but why do you keep saying “intelligent life” instead of “life”?
I am speaking of intelligent Life as being the only thing of importance. I mentioned that the list of things you mention are important to US (Humanity), and I said that these qualities may not be important for all forms of intelligent life. It may be that humanity will have run its course and will need to make room for another form of intelligence. I find that to be a little bit disturbing, but I would rather see intelligence continue in some form than not at all.
And, I said that even among humans the qualities you mention are not universal, nor homogeneous. So, I am not sure what you are asking… It may be the case that I am arguing for two different points of view.
Oops, I edited my comment before noticing you’d replied to it.
The fact that you keep saying “intelligent life” indicates to me that you think intelligence is the one important thing, and my list is too long. But you also say the list is anthropomorphic, implying it is incomplete.
I think now that you’re still saying intelligence is the One Big Thing that you care about. We (in the futurist community) do this all the time. We routinely say, for instance, that pigs are more intelligent than cows, and therefore it’s ethically worse to eat pork than to eat beef. It seems to me like a very tall person assuming that tallness is the most important virtue.
As for why I don’t say Life instead of Intelligence Life, that is because I think that Life itself will continue in one fashion or another regardless of what we do.
I do think that Intelligence is important now that we have it, and that may be similar to a tall man assuming that tallness is the most important virtue in some eyes (although I find it to be a stretch of an analogy—Tallness is obviously a disadvantage at many times, and I could probably find a good reason to favor shortness… But, that aside...).
I don’t know why Intelligence would not be (or, to use a word that I hate: Why it should be) the characteristic that should be most valued. Is there a reason that Intelligence should not be the most important factor or characteristic of life?
I am going to say something here that is probably not going to be popular, but why are we so worried about humanity surviving?
Isn’t the continuation of intelligent life (regardless its form), more important than the type of intelligent life?
(real questions, BTW)
We care about the survival of complex fragile humane values and the sort of intelligent life they value, which category is broader than humanity but far narrower than ‘all intelligent minds’.
The “complex fragile humane values” post seems to be muddled to me. I don’t agree with it. Robin Hanson doesn’t agree with it (see the comments). It appears to be a controversial topic.
Figuring out what we want is the hardest problem. Intelligence isn’t IMHO the most important thing. I also want consciousness, empathy, love, artistic and aesthetic sense, fun, and a continuing ability to evolve.
OK… Yes… I see that those are important to the current intelligence dominating the planet.
And, I guess that they are not necessarily a part of any possible intelligence. It is not hard to find humans who lack in Empathy, for instance.
However, all of those things are currently defined by our anthropomorphic point of view. It may be that another intelligence might not need them, or that they exist in different forms that we might not recognize (for instance, some of my family are stunned that I find puzzles such as Sudoku to be fun. Or, that I find doing Propositional Logic fun)… But, that is really just seeking to equivocate semantics about those concepts.
On the one hand, you keep speaking of “intelligent life” as being the only thing of importance, from which I infer that you believe intelligence is the only quality you value. On the other hand, you criticize my adding things to the list besides intelligence as being not inclusive enough. You seem to be arguing simultaneously for two viewpoints bracketing mine.
I’m probably misinterpreting you; but why do you keep saying “intelligent life” instead of “life”?
I am a little unsure how to answer this response.
I am speaking of intelligent Life as being the only thing of importance. I mentioned that the list of things you mention are important to US (Humanity), and I said that these qualities may not be important for all forms of intelligent life. It may be that humanity will have run its course and will need to make room for another form of intelligence. I find that to be a little bit disturbing, but I would rather see intelligence continue in some form than not at all.
And, I said that even among humans the qualities you mention are not universal, nor homogeneous. So, I am not sure what you are asking… It may be the case that I am arguing for two different points of view.
Oops, I edited my comment before noticing you’d replied to it.
The fact that you keep saying “intelligent life” indicates to me that you think intelligence is the one important thing, and my list is too long. But you also say the list is anthropomorphic, implying it is incomplete.
I think now that you’re still saying intelligence is the One Big Thing that you care about. We (in the futurist community) do this all the time. We routinely say, for instance, that pigs are more intelligent than cows, and therefore it’s ethically worse to eat pork than to eat beef. It seems to me like a very tall person assuming that tallness is the most important virtue.
As for why I don’t say Life instead of Intelligence Life, that is because I think that Life itself will continue in one fashion or another regardless of what we do.
I do think that Intelligence is important now that we have it, and that may be similar to a tall man assuming that tallness is the most important virtue in some eyes (although I find it to be a stretch of an analogy—Tallness is obviously a disadvantage at many times, and I could probably find a good reason to favor shortness… But, that aside...).
I don’t know why Intelligence would not be (or, to use a word that I hate: Why it should be) the characteristic that should be most valued. Is there a reason that Intelligence should not be the most important factor or characteristic of life?