IEET > Rights > Neuroethics > Vision > Virtuality > Fellows > Russell Blackford
Print •
Email •
permalink •
(2) Comments •
(2915) Hits •
 subscribe •
 •
 •
 •
 •
 •
Latest from JET
Posted: Feb 2, 2008
is a peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and edited by IEET Fellow Dr. Russell Blackford. The first two articles of Volume 17 have been published.
Alessandro Tomasi “The Role of Intimacy in the Evolution of Technology” Journal of Evolution and Technology (17:1) January 2008 - pgs 1-12
Abstract: In this article, Georges Bataille’s notion of intimacy will be re-interpreted to show that it has a role to play in the evolution of technology. The specifically human form of intimacy can be experienced through the successful adoption of technological devices that have the qualities necessary to fit in and work out in our life context. If they manage to become part of our life, then we experience them as projections of our psychophysical personality, and, as such, they escape our positing, objectifying consciousness. Intimacy can be seen as the organizing principle that shapes the evolution of technology towards an ideal end that promises at least an approximation to the absolute intimacy that is unique to the gods.
Bill Hibbard’s “The Technology of Mind and a New Social Contract” Journal of Evolution and Technology (17:1) January 2008 - pgs 13-22
Abstract: The progress of biology, neuroscience and computer science makes it clear that some time during the twenty- first century we will master the technologies of mind and life. We will build machines more intelligent than ourselves, and modify our own brains and bodies to increase our intelligence, live indefinitely and make other changes. We live together according to a social contract, consisting of laws, morals and conventions governing our interactions. This social contract is based on assumptions we rarely question: that all humans have roughly the same intelligence, that we have limited life spans and that we share a set of motives as part of our human nature. The technologies of mind and life will invalidate these assumptions and inevitably change our social contract in fundamental ways. We need to prepare for these new technologies so that they change the world in ways we want rather than just stumbling into a world that we don’t.
Guidelines for submitting to JET are here.
Contact Marcelo if you would like to be a JET article reviewer.
Print •
Email •
permalink •
(2) Comments •
(2916) Hits •
subscribe •
•
•
•
•
•
COMMENTS
I’ve been writting about the social contract theory and what it would take to make a valid ethical directive on the Abolitionist Society forums for some time. I think that the core premise that all humans have the same desires can be debated and tested scientifically - we don’t have to settle for promoting diversity and libertarianism to the detriment of universal progress.
It’s time we had a debate about what humans really want - can’t we find some universal common ground upon which to base a social contract?
By this statement;
“Changing Assumptions
The social contract grows out of our human nature and is based on rarely-questioned assumptions, including:
2. Humans are motivated by the roughly the same set of values, as part of our shared human nature. Tax codes and other laws make many assumptions about human motives.”
Hibbard dismisses any valid social contract. I’m waiting for him to debate this and have contacted him directly.
What makes a social contract valid?
If you propose that;
“However, the technology of mind will give us freedom to choose the motives of machine and enhanced human minds, and we can design them to not to want to circumvent measures to protect others. We can design them to value the well-being of other humans.”
why is this a valid directive?
It must be based upon universal traits and sentient desires.
Liberty isn’t part of a newborn’s vocabulary - this happens when social theories come into play. Newborn’s just try to avoid death and pain and seek pleasure.
If we are talking about a singularitarian attempt to improve lifelong individual happiness - this goes against the self-direction of the individual as individuals cannot predict their own happiness. SEE : ‘stumbling on happiness’. So Libertarianism and Singularitarianism are at fundamental odds.
What really makes us happiest in terms of lifelong individual happiness is not what we would choose due to irrationality and learned mental habits. (How many are seeking brain implants actively in order to reliably improve lifelong individual happiness?)
If a computer is making calculations and ensuring happiness (as singularitarians say will happen eventually) - the ‘liberty of the individual will have to be defined in terms of avoiding suffering rather than catering to the percieved will power.
However, there is no voluntary sufffering or volition. This requires free-will.
YOUR COMMENT
Next entry: Haldane, Bernal and Cascio
Previous entry: No Singing Allowed: Assumptions and Other Nonsense
| 
IEET Blog