VECT

A long time ago only Caucasian males are considered a "man" under the law. Then people figured out that gender and skin color maybe isn't exactly rational traits to base moral discrimination on. Objectivism offers the rational view that moral discrimination should be based on the trait volition, a view I currently find agreeable. So unless you care to issue a challenge to this proposition, any complaints about the volitional AI in question isn't a "man" is as valid as complaining about blacks or women aren't "men". Doesn't it?

That's a good question. But it only becomes a problem if the rational life requirement of such an AI conflict with the rational life requirement of a human: For example if this new volitional AI's life somehow inherently can only be sustained by enslaving mankind, or violating some Individual Right of man, then we gotta problem. If this new volitional AI's life can be physically sustained by electricity (as human is by food) and mentally sustained by intellectual properties (same as human), then I don't see this question becoming a problem, and the moral concept Right to Life can be politically applied to both in a society without conflict. Pretty much linked to the answer above. If the volitional AI can independently support its own life by either been self-sufficient or able to trade with humans, then no matter what its own standard of life is, there's no problem. Now if it's inherently a parasite, volitional or not, then it's a problem, but the problem is the same as any human parasites problems.

Oh yeah, the anime of DN, now that you remind me I would say it's epic scenes and music would put it on a higher tier than the original manga. The live action movie now, most live action adaptation of anime/manga makes me barf.

You are making a serious epistemology mistake. Definition is created by choosing certain characteristic of a concept to act as a temporary identity tag for that concept so that it can distinguish itself from other concepts in a given context of knowledge. Definition is not the concept itself. Does the term "Artificial Intelligence" contain the those man-made intelligences that tries to imitate volitional conciousness of human? Yes Would this facet of "Artificial Intelligence" be a relatively good characteristic to be chosen as its present definition by a dictionary to distinguish this concept from all other concepts when at the current time all AI produced so far are imitations? Possibly Is your dictionary definition an absolute and limits what characteristic the term "Artificial Intelligence", a concept that is open-ended like all concepts, can possess? No. As an example, in the past, a dictionary definition of tables goes they are furniture with legs and a surface. So when new table design came out that have no legs, do you say: Hmmm, a new definition needs to be chosen for the concept table for better distinction! Or do you say: Hmmm, these new things without legs by definition can't possibly be table!

@Devil's Advocate: How does bringing up a dictionary definition of AI proves human can't reproduce volition? Please bridge that logic gap for me.

Anime: Rurouni Kenshin: Trust & Betrayal (Assassin finding his humanity, the whole thing is a piece of art, 8.6 on IMDB) Legend of the Galactic Heroes (Art of War, Sci-fi Romance of the Three Kingodoms, Democracy vs Dictatorship) Manga: Sanctuary (Closest thing to Atlas Shrugged for anime/manga, great plot) Berserk (Top quality dark fantasy) Death Note (Top quality detective thriller) Also for OP, if you like One Piece, you will enjoy TTGL if you haven't seen it yet.

All other organics that we know outside of human beings operates on instincts, which is pretty much your if/then statements. But that same organic compound arranged in variations did produce volition in us humans. Maybe it is a combination of "if/then" that produces volition. Maybe there are other fundamental facet of programming other than "if/then" that we are not aware of which produces volition. The fact remains it is possible to combine matters in such a way to produce volition. Nature programmed volition in us humans, there's no reason why humans can't understand the process and reproduce it in other mediums. You can make the argument that the present day PC hardware combination of CPU/harddrive/RAM..etc. is insufficient to reproduce volition. You can make the argument that silicon technology might have technical limitations that will somehow prevent their support of volition. You can even make the argument that it is possible volition is a unique characteristic only reproducible in carbon based organic compounds due to its nature. But instead of all that, you are making the argument that anything artificial, anything man made, is "not real", and that man can't possibly reproduce volitional intelligence, reproduce life, no matter the medium, BECAUSE it is man-made. What's your rationale behind this? Because short of appealing to the supernatural or emotional sentimentality, I really can't fathom a rational reason that could backup your argument.

@Devil's Advocate: Is there are some known fundamental technical limitation that suggest volition cannot be reproduced outside of organic compounds? Also you are equivocating computer program with AI; Such an AI in my example residing in cyberspace is made up of programs just as a human that reside in base reality is made up of flesh and bones. Humans have volition even though the flesh and bones that make up our begin by definition are not volitional. @Nicky This question actually inspired another interesting thought for me. A very attractive use for such an AI could be in video games, specifically the NPCs in RPG games, which would make these games infinitely more fun. But now the even more interesting question comes up, is there any moral concerns in killing such an AI in a video game that will cause the death of a rational/volitional consciousness similar to a human begin?

Thanks for the links; I lost faith in the forum search engine when none of the results on the first page even contained "artificial" or "intelligence" and didn't bother to check subsequent pages. I'll check these two links out. I can then ask you how do humans choose between focusing and un-focusing when the act of thinking only comes after the choice of focusing? This question of yours presupposes that thinking is or have to come before volition. That's a good question. Volition then doesn't just start-up the rational faculty but also determines the direction of a reasoning session. I'll think on it.

It's interesting to note how top mind such as Stephen Hawking predicates less of a Terminator scene but instead outright human extinction if mankind were to go toe to toe with a successfully constructed self-learning super AI. The other interesting thing to note is does volition really entails reason? In normal human begins, we have a volitional and a rational faculty, and our volitional faculty gives us a choice of either focus and activate the rational faculty, or be unfocused. But that doesn't have to be the case of any man-made AI. Such an AI could possess a volitional faculty and then a series of complex hard coded instinctual programs. And for the sake of argument lets suppose these hardcoded programs consists of self-learning and peaceful activities, but is not similar to the rational faculty of humans as we know it. The volitional choice of this AI is to either activate these programs or remain dormant. Would such an AI that have volition but not true reason be entitled to rights? Vice versa, if an AI is programmed with a rational faculty similar to human, but is not given a volitional faculty to have the choice of been focused or unfocused. This AI would be on full auto 24/7 of been rational. Would such an AI be entitled to rights?

This is somewhat of a classic subject in Sci-Fi, but I've been thinking, consider this scenario: As we all know, the processing power of hardwares is increasing by leaps and bounds. Let's suppose in the distant future, a genius successfully programmed a powerful self-learning volitional artificial intelligence and gifted it a server as home with connection to the net. This AI choose peaceful endeavours such as study of astronomy or playing the stockmarket as it's purpose and proceeds to do so without violating anyone else's rights. However, the sentiments of people is such that they recognize no right to this AI. Most seek to destroy it over fear, some to enslave it for their own end. The question here is then, by Objectivism standard under these circumstances, would this AI not be morally sanctioned to act in self-defence and pre-emptive strikes?

I meant "universal" in the sense that the characteristics chosen for the definition have to apply to all the existent of the concept. If the definition of a table is consists of "surface with legs" and new table emerges without legs, the leg characteristic is no longer universal to all the existent of this concept and therefore a new definition is needed for table.

I think I get where I was having trouble now. I was under the impression that definition produces the concept. Under that view therefore it was hard for me the imagine a concept coming directly from precept. After reading: http://www.proctors.com.au/mrhomepage.nsf/985f14ab922be306482577d5003a2040/4864f5fe3809763a4825789c000dc50a/$FILE/The%20Analytic%20Synthetic%20Dichotomy.pdf the idea seems to be that definition is just the unique universal characteristic chosen from all of the known characteristics of the concept to best distinguish it from other known concepts. If more new facts are observed that makes the said characteristic no longer universal to all the existent of the concept, or new concept created that makes the said characteristic no longer unique, then new characteristic would have to be chosen as the definition to better serve the identity tag job. If table is defined as a surface with legs, newly designed table without legs (characteristic no longer universal) or newly created items that have surface with legs but are not table (characteristic no longer unique), would necessitate a change to the table's current definition. So it's the concept that produces the definition, not the other way around. Now I can see how concepts such as table can come directly from percepts. And as for logical truth then, it isn't so much as whether or not the definition of a concept adheres to the dictionary, but whether or the definition does its job well as the identity tag for the concept in a given context of knowledge.

I've thought over examples like these, and here's the thing: All definitions seems able to be able to be simplified down to this format: Subject is a (pre-concept) that is (defining characteristic) So for examples such as table, it would be: Table is a (furniture) that is (used by people to place items upon so that they can be used at convenience) If you go on making a similar definition for furniture, it would then have it's own pre-concept..etc. But that spot is always filled with another concept. Each pre-concept will get broader and broader, until it stops at a "thing". I'll check out Rand's other writings that you posted. Also your apirori knowledge link seems to be a typo; it's just the url for this thread.

Wait a minute, then what's an example of a concept that is formed directly from percept? It seems all concepts are formed from other..concepts.. Edit: Hmm, it seems all sub-concepts that makes up new concepts gets larger and more abstract each level you go down. I suppose the most broad concept, and also a concept that comes directly from percept, is a "thing", something outside of the mind is detected/sensed instead of nothing.

I am always interested in learning about the reason of another's view as long as they are up for debate; it's an effective way of improving my own knowledge. And yes, my original view on this subject which you quoted is a postulate with assumptions. I am aware of that which is why I made this thread in the first place to solicit Objectivism (and possibly other view) on this matter so I can improve my knowledge. I would think this intention is apparent given my initial post when I am asking for criticism/addition. And that's why the intention of your original post can be so easily misunderstood: You ask me to defend my original belief when it was obvious that was a postulate posted for the sole purpose of letting people know what my beliefs were at the time on the matter so they can give better criticism. Your assertion came with no reason with which I can think on. And your assertion came with no clear context, leaving me wondering just exactly what were you trying to say. So now I see that your assertion have to do with your own personal experience. The reason/evidence is your own self introspection. The context is that you can safely exhibit stronger emotions now compared to your past irrational self, and that the context is not that you as a human begin, due to having a rational faculty, can safely exhibit stronger emotions as compared to an animal's instincts. I thank you for sharing. And I will withdraw my claim of hypocrisy now that it's apparent no ill intent was meant in your original post.

Do YOU have evidence to support YOUR assertion? Much more powerful, in what way? Compared to what, animal instinct? How would you know? Is your measurement objective? Can you prove it? I started this thread to fully understand Objectvism's model on this subject, which I accomplished a page back. My statement you quoted represent my original perspective before adjustments resulted from insightful post made by other members in this thread. While I don't have a problem with people interested in knowing my premise for my views, I find your hypocrisy funny that you would accuse me lacking evidence while your own assertion is just as barren.

I see now. Concepts are units of percepts sharing a common characteristic (definition). Bachelors by definition are men who are unmarried. Using the analogue of a PC, where folders are concepts and file percepts, the Bacheor Concept folder would contain numerous Men Concept folder that share the same characteristic/definition/property that they are unmarried. So the Logical Truth, at least the Logical Truth you are trying to say in your post, is whether or not the definition actually applies to the term in question according to the dictionary or some other language standard used. If it does, then a Logical Truth statement such as "Bachelors are unmarried" is true, if not then false.

So now my philosophy mid-term is coming up within days and I'm trying to warp my head around this whole supposedly false modern dichotomy of Priori vs Posteriori, Logic Truth vs Factual Truth..etc. I can gave good enough answers for the marks but I want to understand this dichotomy in relation to Objectivism. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/a_priori.html The Objectivism explanation here makes sense for me so far. The raw materials (experience gathered from sensory organs) is processed by logic to produce conclusions (concepts). The quality of the conclusions produced depends on: 1. The quality and quantity of sensory data gathered 2. The flawlessness of the logic used to process said data -Bad observations lead to flawed conclusions, no matter how flawless the logic (garbage in garbage out) -People working with quality observations are still prone to logic error and thus producing flawed conclusions if not careful -Since it's physically impossible to observe every facet of reality (assuming existence is infinite), no conclusion is eternally perfect, and must be improved or discarded when new relevant facts are observed So onto the dichotomy. Factual Truth/Posteriori seems simple enough to imagine, more or less what you observe without applying any logics to process the percepts (if that is actually possible, but the concept here is imaginable even if it turns out to be wrong) Logic Truth/Priori is where it really gets me. Now technically according to the Objectivism model if you apply logic on nothing you will get..nothing. So I was pretty interested to see what are the examples for Logic Truth/Priori. The textbook gives out statements such as "All bachelors are unmarried", "All squares have four sides"...etc. So now I'm having trouble understanding, exactly how do these statements fit into the Objectivism Epistemology model?

@Nicky: Now, my correction did not say "HE would recognize individual rights to a practical degree", I said his POLICIES do. He's picking, choosing, adjusting depending on what he perceives to be the effects of a particular policy. He's not going by principles. And I completely disagree the statement that the practical degree would have to be close to zero. Since you brought up China, that's an example right there, the practical degree that their political policies recognize Individual Rights is definitely not as strong as US, but a lot stronger compared to say Nazi Germany or Communist USSR. It's far from ideal, but far from zero either. As long as he maintains absolute control of the army and gives wise policies that allows people to live their life in peace, he's really running minimum risk of armed rebellion even with freedom of speech. When a government have policies that interfere with Individual Rights, the magnitude of that interference is what ultimately propels an armed rebellion, because these policies will have a practical negative impact on people's personal lives. Some of his citizens with democratic value will criticize him for his monopolization of political power. But when push comes to shove, unless he made unwise policies with said power to actually interfere Individual Rights to a critical degree that managed to devastated his citizen's personal lives, he's running minimum risk of people putting their live on the line for an armed rebellion. You don't know that for sure. It all depends on the execution of how the change come about. But more importantly for the sake of this thread, unlike my despot example, the Communist Party of China does not have a clean slate to begin with. During Mao's years of governance he had made plenty of policies that critically interfered with Individual Rights and devastated the livelihood of his citizens (Cultural Revolution, country wide famine..etc.). The unspoken understanding between the common Chinese people and CPC afterwards is that the citizens would put up with the Party's authority and past atrocities as long as they can keep on delivering stable economy growth and continuously improving living standard. So now the CPC is in a bind because they have to deliver on something that is actually outside of their direct control - excellent economy growth. It's outside their direct control since the productive power and decisions of the common people is what actually drives economic growth, the best a government can do is pave a healthy environment to allow unhindered expression of that power. So even with a free market, if the market enters a depression due to the cumulative effect of choices made by the common people (which is completely natural of free market) though no fault of the CPC, that gets blamed on them regardless as healthy economy is something they are supposed to deliver for their power and past transgressions. My despot example is not facing this bind. Also if China ever drops the ball in the future and face a civil armed uprising, I would argue it has less to do with their government been a one-party ruled despot, as opposed to what that party did with its power. The army executed a popular coup back in 2013 because the elected Islamist Morsi botched the transition from military dictatorship to democracy by causing serious unrest between secular and religious groups. These two groups can't find middle ground in a democratic system because like you said they are at odds with each other over something bigger than just sectarian differences. But I really don't see how Egypt help your point that a despot government inherently can only grant almost zero individual freedom to its citizens. If North Korea is the example of a despot regime with policies that recognize Individual Rights close to zero degree, then Egypt's military regime is far from that.

I understand what you are saying. But you are making two assumptions here, second one my fault though. Assumption #1: Majority of the citizen of the despot's nation either understands Objectivism and/or have the ingrained value of individual freedom in their culture, making them want the policies that support Individual Rights that the despot gave them Many people in the West here have a deep ingrained value of individual freedom that are more or less in line with the Individual Rights outline in Objectivism, but that's not and doesn't have to be true everywhere else in the world. Without the same cultural upbringing and/or conscious philosophic knowledge, a person might not even want policies that support Individual Rights let alone understand the reasoning for Individual Rights. The large part of the citizens in despot's nation could very well be of a socialist or theocratic persuasion, and the despot implementing policies that support Individual Rights goes against their wishes. Assumption #2: The despot that implemented these political policies which support Individual Rights is an Objectivist himself who recognizes Individual Rights and strives to create an ideal Objectivist society Actually this assumption is due to my mistake here in saying the established power itself recognizes Individual Rights. What I really wanted to say is that the despot's policies recognizes IRs to a practical degree. If the despot himself recognizes Individual Rights then I would agree a despot can't rationally be a despot any more as he would be obliged to abolish his own absolute authority and establish Rule of Law. While Objectivism strives to justify Individual Rights from a moral perspective, the fact of the matter is having Objectivist moral or not a state implementing policies such as free market will more or less do wonder for its economy. The despot can be a cunning ruler who recognizes this and implements these policies to facilitated better tax revenue, technological innovations, and if the majority of the citizens value individual freedom, a happier population...etc. His policies recognizes Individual Rights to a practical degree and he sees these policies as a means to an end. The despot himself however does not recognize Individual Rights and choose to be above the law. He would still retain absolute authority politically (especially over the army). He would hope to garner loyalty from his subjects due to his wise rule and policies. Failing that he would demand their obedience through strength of arms.

The despot reserves the political power to abolish those polices/institutions previously made by him/her that support individual rights and replace them instead with tyrannical laws, with no fear of public opinion. That fact makes a despot despot. I think you are mixing totalitarianism with despotism. Despotism does not automatically assume totalitarianism; but since the vast majority of cases in history has been despot turning their nation into a totalitarian state, seeking to control all aspects of public and private life whenever possible, most people come to think they are the same. A despot have the power to make any political policies he/she/they want. These policy can go against individual rights or they might not. The reason I first started to think about this subject is because of the prevalent belief here in the West that democracy = freedom and it is the measure of the quality of a society. My example of a despot deciding to implement policies that support Individual Rights is not to illustrate the possibility of a despot building an ideal Objectivist society; it's made to illustrate that by Objectivism standard, it is possible a despot society can be better than a democratic one.

I've been thinking about this subject. If the degree of recognition of Individual Rights is the metrics that judge a society, then whether or not a society politically operates on Despotism (King/Queen, One-Party Rule..etc.) or Democracy doesn't in itself automatically determine the quality of that society. Along this line of thought then, hypothetically within the time frame of one generation, a despot nation where the established power recognizes Individual Rights and implements appropriate governing policies would come out on top as compared to a democratic society where the majority of the population votes in policies that spurn Individual Rights. The major difference then between a despotic nation as compared to a democratic one is of malleability. A despotic nation could potentially change very fast from a state with individual freedom to one of totalitarianism, or vice versa, where as a democratic nation would be a lot less malleable. Thoughts?

Never mind my last question, rereading the lexicon illustrated that automatic value judgement is the element that determines what emotional response will the mind have towards concepts. If a person truly stops believing something is important due to emergence of new facts or a discovery of prior logic error, then he/she stops having an emotional response towards that thing. If a person wants to stop having a emotional response towards a thing but doesn't/unable to change their belief that the thing is important, then they will fail and keep on having emotional responses. Too many unaccounted contradictory value beliefs is then attributed to chaotic emotional states. A person can change their beliefs through volition, in that sense they have control over their emotion and emotion is not incompatible with reason. However, people cannot control how they react emotionally towards established beliefs. That seem to make sense so far.

At this moment I am trying to fully understand Objectivism's model concerning this subject rather than whether or not that model is valid...etc. In terms of animal instinct, I think so far what has been posted suggest my current understanding, that instincts are hardwired cause & effect circuits (automatic knowledge). How would this theory explain animals learning hunting techniques from their parents? I guess they would learn though pure experience and pattern recognition. Sensory Percepts ---> adjusted instinct circuits In terms of human emotion, my current understanding then is that the process is thus: Sensory Percepts ---> Volition fuelled Rational Faculty processing ---> produced Concepts <--- Emotional Response (do correct me if I'm wrong here) If the above process is correct, then what is the element that dictates which emotional response is attributed to which concept?