From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky Mon May 25 14:05:13 EDT 1992
Article 5633 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky
>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: AI failures
Message-ID: <1992May13.234419.17060@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: 13 May 92 23:44:19 GMT
References: <1992May12.081742.22060@norton.com> <upsnbINNk2c@early-bird.think.com> <1992May13.173251.17396@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Lines: 85
Cc: minsky

In article <1992May13.173251.17396@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> bill@NSMA.AriZonA.EdU (Bill Skaggs) writes:
>In article <upsnbINNk2c@early-bird.think.com> 
>moravec@Think.COM (Hans Moravec) writes:
>>
>>|> If anything, the fact that morality is a matter of life or 
>>|> death means that we ought to use our best tools to address the questions at 
>>|> hand (ie. reason rather than unidentified emotions or traditions).
>>
>>Sure.  But reasonable people make mistakes, and the bottom line is still
>>trying things out and seeing how they work.  
>
>  The problem with all this theorizing about morality is that it's
>inescapably circular.  This is immediately obvious once you
>realize that the fundamental question is:  "What is the right
>system of morality?"
>
>	-- Bill

Bravo.  Below is a page from "The Society of Mind" about that.


Section 5.2 UNANSWERABLE QUESTIONS

   ... and while it shall please thee to continue me in this world,
where there is much to be done and little to be known, teach me, by
thy Holy Spirit, to withdraw my mind from unprofitable and dangerous
enquiries, from difficulties vainly curious, and doubts impossible to
be solved."--- Samuel Johnson


When we reflect on anything for long enough, we're likely to end up
with what we sometimes call "basic" questions - ones which we can see
no way at all to answer.  For we have no perfect way to answer even
this question: "How can one tell when a question has been properly
answered?"
 
  What caused the universe, and why?  
  What is the purpose of life?
  How can you tell which beliefs are true?  
  How can you tell what is good?

These questions seem different on the surface, but all of them share
one quality which makes them impossible to answer: all of them are
circular!  You never can find a final cause, since you always must ask
one question more: "What caused that cause." You never can find any
ultimate goal, since you're always obliged to ask, "Then, what purpose
does *that* serve?"  Whenever you find out why something is good - or
is true - you still have to ask what makes *that* reason good and
true.  No matter what you discover, at every step, these kinds of
questions will always remain, because you have to challenge every
answer with, "Why should I accept *that* answer?"  Such circularities
can only waste our time by forcing us only to repeat, over and over
and over again, "What good is Good?"  and "What god made God?"

When children keep on asking, "Why?" we adults learn to deal with
this, by simply saying, "just because!" This may seem simply
obstinate, but it's also a form of self-control.  What stops adults
from dwelling on such questions endlessly?  The answer is that every
culture finds special ways to deal with these questions.  One way is
to brand them with shame and taboo; another way is to cloak them with
awe or mystery; both methods makes those questions undiscussable.
Consensus is the simplest way - as with those social styles and trends
- wherein we each accept as true whatever all the others do.  I think
I once heard W. H. Auden say, "We are all here on earth to help
others.  What I can't figure out is what the others are here for."

All human cultures evolve institutions of law, religion, and
philosophy, and these institutions both adopt specific answers to
circular questions, and establish authority-schemes to indoctrinate
people with those beliefs.  One might complain that such
establishments substitute dogma for reason and truth.  But in
exchange, they spare whole populations from wasting time in fruitless
reason-loops.  Minds can lead more productive lives when working on
problems which can be solved.

But when thinking keeps returning to its source, it doesn't always
mean that something's wrong.  For circular thinking can lead to growth
when it results, at each return, in deeper and more powerful ideas.
Then, because we can communicate, such systems of ideas may even find
the means to cross the boundaries of selfish selves - and thus take
root in other minds.  This way, a language, science, or philosophy can
transcend the limitation of each single mind's mortality.  Now, we
cannot know that any individual is destined for some paradise.  Yet
certain religions are oddly right; they manage to achieve their goals,
of offering an afterlife - if only to their own strange souls.


