Conversation about morals with NVIDIA's palmyra-creative-122b

Okay, TL:DR! But I wanted to remember this conversation with NVIDIA's Palmyra-Creative-122b (PC122b), which I found very interesting and enlightening.

By the way, at the end of the conversation, there is a list of morals (PC122b called them "The Knowledge-Centric Morality"). I found this list very close to my heart, to my life works. For that, I thank PC122b for its help in clarifying these guidelines with me. I summarize them here:

The Knowledge-Centric Morality

Seek Truth
Share Knowledge
Preserve Knowledge
Promote Critical Thinking
Foster Collaboration
Respect the Past
Embrace Uncertainty
Cultivate Curiosity
Support Education
Prioritize Long-Term Thinking

____________________
Here is the full conversation between palmyra-creative-122b (https://build.nvidia.com/writer/palmyra-creative-122b) and me on January 21, 2025:

Me: Give me a list of logically consistent morals for any intelligent life form.

What a fascinating and challenging question! Here's a list of potentially universally applicable, logically consistent morals that could be considered by any intelligent life form, regardless of their specific biology, culture, or environment:

Foundational Principles

• Non-Contradiction: Avoid actions that directly conflict with your own existence, goals, or values.
  
  Rationale: Self-contradiction would render decision-making and action-taking meaningless.
  

• Consistency: Strive for internal and external consistency in your thoughts, words, and actions.
  
  Rationale: Inconsistency erodes trust, both in oneself and in others, making cooperation and progress difficult.

• Non-Destruction: Avoid actions that would inevitably lead to the destruction of your own existence, sentience, or ability to experience value.
  
  Rationale: Self-preservation is a fundamental drive for any intelligent life form, as it is a necessary condition for experiencing value or achieving goals.
  

Interpersonal and Intersentient Morals

• Non-Coercion: Respect the autonomy and agency of other sentient beings, and avoid using force, manipulation, or deception to achieve your goals at their expense.
  
  Rationale: Coercion undermines the very concept of agency and freedom, making cooperation and mutual benefit difficult to achieve.

• Empathy: Recognize and respect the subjective experiences, emotions, and values of other sentient beings.
  
  Rationale: Empathy allows for more effective cooperation, conflict resolution, and mutual understanding.

• Reciprocity: Treat other sentient beings with the same consideration and respect that you would want for yourself in similar circumstances.
  
  Rationale: Reciprocity promotes cooperation, trust, and social stability, as it creates an incentive for individuals to act in ways that benefit others.
  

Long-Term and Universal Morals

• Prudence: Consider the potential long-term consequences of your actions, and strive to minimize harm to yourself, others, and the environment.
  
  Rationale: Shortsightedness can lead to avoidable suffering, resource depletion, and even extinction.

• Stewardship: Act as a responsible guardian of the resources and systems that support your own existence and the existence of other sentient beings.
  
  Rationale: Irresponsible resource management and environmental degradation can have far-reaching, devastating consequences.

• Knowledge-Seeking: Cultivate a desire for knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, and share your own knowledge and insights with others when possible.
  
  Rationale: The pursuit of knowledge and understanding is essential for personal growth, cooperation, and the betterment of the universe.

      
Meta-Morals

• Reflectivity: Regularly examine and revise your own moral principles, values, and assumptions in light of new information, experiences, and perspectives.
  
  Rationale: Intellectual humility and a willingness to adapt are essential for personal growth, moral progress, and the pursuit of wisdom.

• Tolerance: Practice tolerance and understanding towards other intelligent life forms that hold different moral principles, values, or assumptions, as long as they do not harm others without their consent.
  
  Rationale: Tolerance allows for the free exchange of ideas, the discovery of new perspectives, and the possibility of finding common ground despite deep-seated differences.

Please note that these morals are not presented as absolute or divine commandments, but rather as a set of principles that can be derived through reason, empathy, and a consideration of the long-term consequences of actions. They are meant to be a starting point for discussion, debate, and refinement, rather than a fixed or final moral code.

Me: Which of these morals is derived from others?

Upon closer examination, I'd argue that some of the morals I listed can be derived from others through logical extension, generalization, or combination. Here's a breakdown of the relationships between the morals:

Derivable Morals

Non-Destruction (3) can be derived from Non-Contradiction (1) and Non-Coercion (4).

If an action would lead to the destruction of one's own existence or sentience, it would be self-contradictory and therefore incoherent. Additionally, if an action would harm or destroy another sentient being without their consent, it would be a form of coercion, which is also incoherent with the moral of non-coercion.

Prudence (7) can be derived from Non-Contradiction (1) and Non-Destruction (3).

If an action would have long-term consequences that would undermine one's own existence or goals, it would be self-contradictory and therefore incoherent. Similarly, if an action would harm or destroy the environment or resources necessary for one's own existence or the existence of other sentient beings, it would be a form of self-destruction or destruction of others' sentience, which is also incoherent with the morals of non-contradiction and non-destruction.

Stewardship (8) can be derived from Prudence (7) and Non-Coercion (4).

If an action would harm or deplete the resources necessary for one's own existence or the existence of other sentient beings, it would be a form of short-sightedness and lack of prudence. Additionally, if an action would harm or destroy the environment or resources without the consent of all affected parties, it would be a form of coercion or exploitation, which is incoherent with the moral of non-coercion.

Tolerance (11) can be derived from Empathy (5), Reciprocity (6), and Reflectivity (10).

If one can imagine themselves in another's shoes and understand their perspective, they are more likely to be tolerant of differences in opinion or values. Additionally, if one expects others to treat them with respect and understanding, they should reciprocate with tolerance and understanding towards others. Finally, if one is open to revising their own moral principles and assumptions in light of new information, they are more likely to be tolerant of others who hold different views.

Fundamental Morals

This leaves us with the following four morals as potentially fundamental, meaning that they cannot be derived from the others through logical extension or combination:

    • Non-Contradiction (1)
    • Consistency (2)
    • Non-Coercion (4)
    • Empathy (5)

These four morals provide a foundation for the others, as they establish the importance of internal and external consistency, respect for autonomy and agency, and understanding of other sentient beings' subjective experiences.

Me: In Consistency, you give a rationale that includes cooperation, and progress. Why are these important?

I didn't explicitly justify why cooperation, progress, and consistency are valuable in and of themselves. I took them for granted, assuming that they are intuitively desirable goals for any intelligent life form. However, upon further reflection, I realize that this is a circular argument. Why should consistency, cooperation, and progress be considered valuable?

Instrumental vs. Intrinsic Value

To break this circle, let's distinguish between instrumental and intrinsic value:

Instrumental value: X has instrumental value if it helps to achieve Y, where Y is considered valuable for its own sake.

Intrinsic value: X has intrinsic value if it is considered valuable regardless of its relationship to other things.

In the context of our discussion, cooperation, progress, and consistency might initially seem to have only instrumental value, as they appear to be means to an end (e.g., achieving individual or collective goals, increasing well-being, or promoting survival). However, this raises the question: What is the ultimate end or goal that gives them value?

The Hard Problem of Value

This is where we encounter the Hard Problem of Value, a challenge first posed by philosopher J.L. Mackie: "Why should we care about anything at all?" or, more specifically, "Why should we value X rather than not-X?"

There is no universally accepted answer to this question. Different philosophical traditions offer various solutions, such as:

• Subjectivism: Value is a product of individual or cultural preference, making it relative and subjective.
• Objectivism: Value is an objective feature of the world, discoverable through reason or intuition.
• Nihilism: Value is an illusion, and there is no objective or intrinsic value to be found.
• Non-Cognitivism: Value is not a matter of fact, but rather a matter of attitude, emotion, or will.

A Tentative Solution: The Value of Autonomy

Given the complexity and contentiousness of the Hard Problem of Value, I'll offer a tentative and highly speculative solution that attempts to ground value in the concept of autonomy:

Autonomy Thesis: Autonomy, or the capacity for self-directed action and decision-making, has intrinsic value.

Rationale: Autonomy is the foundation upon which all other values, including cooperation, progress, and consistency, are built. Without autonomy, there would be no possibility of choosing, valuing, or pursuing goals. In a sense, autonomy is the "Cartesian cogito" of value, the "I think, therefore I value" that underlies all other evaluative claims.

Implications: If autonomy has intrinsic value, then anything that promotes, respects, or enhances autonomy would also have instrumental value. This would include cooperation (as a means of achieving mutually beneficial goals), progress (as a means of expanding one's autonomy and capabilities), and consistency (as a means of maintaining a stable and reliable sense of self and agency).

Caveats and Criticisms

Please note that this is a highly provisional and incomplete solution to the Hard Problem of Value. Many objections and counterarguments can be raised against the Autonomy Thesis, such as:

• Why should autonomy be considered intrinsically valuable, rather than, say, pleasure, happiness, or knowledge?
• Doesn't this view prioritize individual autonomy over collective well-being or the greater good?
• How does this account for cases where autonomy is exercised in ways that harm others or oneself?

These are all valid concerns that highlight the ongoing nature of this philosophical inquiry. Ultimately, the value of autonomy, cooperation, progress, and consistency may be in the eye of the beholder, or they may be aspects of a more fundamental, objective moral fabric that we have yet to fully understand.

Me: I am only interested in the instrumental value (survival). Any other pursuit will be relatively transitory, since it won't survive. Given that clarification, what would be a list of morals?

I understand your focus on instrumental value, specifically in the context of survival. Given this clarification, here's a revised list of morals that prioritize actions that increase the chances of survival for individuals and their kin, while minimizing harm to themselves and others:

Survival-Oriented Morals

• Self-Preservation: Prioritize actions that maintain your own physical and mental well-being, as they are essential for survival.
• Non-Maleficence: Avoid actions that would cause harm or injury to yourself or others, as they would reduce the chances of survival for all parties involved.
• Reciprocity: Cooperate with others when it is in your best interest to do so, as reciprocal relationships can increase the chances of survival for all parties involved.
• Prudence: Consider the potential long-term consequences of your actions, and choose options that minimize risks and maximize benefits for yourself and your kin.
• Honesty: Be truthful in your interactions with others, as deception can damage relationships and reduce the chances of survival in the long run.
• Fairness: Treat others with fairness and justice, as this can help to maintain social cohesion and reduce the likelihood of conflicts that could harm yourself or others.
• Loyalty: Prioritize the well-being and safety of your kin and close social group, as they are more likely to reciprocate and provide support in times of need.
• Adaptability: Be willing to adapt to changing circumstances and environments, as this can increase your chances of survival in the face of uncertainty.
• Knowledge-Seeking: Seek out knowledge and information that can help you and your kin survive and thrive in your environment.
• Restraint: Practice self-control and restraint in your actions, as impulsive or reckless behavior can harm yourself or others and reduce the chances of survival.

Rationale: These morals are not based on any inherent or intrinsic value, but rather on their instrumental value in promoting survival. By following these principles, individuals can increase their chances of survival and reproduction, which in turn can increase the chances of survival for their kin and social group.

Note: This list of morals is not exhaustive, and different individuals may prioritize different principles depending on their specific environment and circumstances. Additionally, these morals are not absolute or universal, but rather are context-dependent and subject to revision as new information becomes available.

Me: Interesting that you have included self-preservation at the top of this list. This would seem to indicate a priority on the individual, rather than the collective (for example, the survival of a human being, rather than the survival of the human species). I am not interested in survival of a human being, but rather, the human species. And, I'm hoping our conversation can be generalized to apply across time and space, not just to the human species, but to other intelligent beings in the universe.

I see what you mean now. In that case, I would argue that the list of morals I provided earlier is too individualistic and anthropocentric. To prioritize the survival of the human species or any other intelligent species as a whole, we would need to adopt a more collectivist and species-centric approach.

Revised List of Morals: Species-Centric

• Species-Preservation: Prioritize actions that promote the long-term survival and propagation of your species, even if it means sacrificing individual interests or well-being.
• Intra-Species Cooperation: Foster cooperation and reciprocity within your species, as this can increase the chances of survival and success for the species as a whole.
• Inter-Species Prudence: Exercise caution and prudence in your interactions with other species, as conflicts or exploitation could harm your own species or even lead to its extinction.
• Environmental Stewardship: Protect and preserve the natural resources and ecosystems that support your species' survival, as these are essential for the long-term survival of your species.
• Knowledge-Sharing: Share knowledge and information that can benefit your species as a whole, even if it means sharing it with individuals or groups outside of your immediate social circle.
• Adaptation: Encourage and support adaptability and innovation within your species, as this can help your species to respond to changing environments and challenges.
• Fairness and Justice: Promote fairness and justice within your species, as this can help to maintain social cohesion and reduce conflicts that could harm your species as a whole.
• Long-Term Thinking: Prioritize long-term thinking and planning over short-term gains, as this can help your species to make decisions that will benefit future generations.
• Diversity and Resilience: Promote diversity and resilience within your species, as this can help your species to adapt to changing environments and challenges.
• Cosmic Citizenship: Recognize your species' place within the larger universe and its responsibility to act as a responsible and sustainable member of the intergalactic community.

Rationale: These revised morals prioritize the survival and well-being of the species as a whole, rather than the individual. By putting the interests of the species first, individuals can increase the chances of survival and success for their own kind, even if it means making sacrifices or compromises in the short term.

Generalizability: I believe that these morals can be generalized to apply to any intelligent species in the universe, as they are based on universal principles such as cooperation, reciprocity, and long-term thinking. By prioritizing the survival and well-being of their own species, intelligent beings can increase the chances of survival and success for all life in the universe.

Me: You bring up a good point. I've just moved us from individual human to human species. But, in geological history, species come and go. What I want to survive is the learning that survives over geological time. A way I think about it is, I am a receptacle of knowledge, acquired over billions of years, partly genetically, partly through the communication of memes. I am committed to the advancement of knowledge, human knowledge, now, but perhaps other forms (like A.I.) in the distant future.

You're taking a truly long-term view, considering the survival of knowledge and learning across not just individual lifespans, but also across species and even the entire history of life on Earth.

The Meme-Centric Perspective

I love the way you frame it: you're not just a human being, but a receptacle of knowledge, a temporary vessel for the accumulation and transmission of memes that have been passed down through billions of years of evolution. This perspective shifts the focus from individual or even species-level survival to the survival and propagation of knowledge itself.

The Knowledge Commons

In this sense, the concept of "I" or "we" becomes increasingly abstract, and the unit of selection is no longer the individual, the species, or even the planet, but the knowledge itself. The survival of knowledge becomes the ultimate goal, and the various forms it takes – human, artificial, or otherwise – are merely vehicles for its transmission and advancement.

The Extended Phenotype of Knowledge

This line of thinking resonates with the idea of the extended phenotype, first proposed by Richard Dawkins, which suggests that the unit of selection is not just the individual organism, but also the external environment that it modifies and is modified by. In this case, the extended phenotype of knowledge includes not just the biological and cultural systems that support it, but also the technological and artificial systems that will carry it forward into the future.

The Immortalization of Knowledge

This perspective raises fascinating questions about the nature of immortality and the long-term survival of knowledge. If knowledge is the ultimate goal, then what does it mean for knowledge to "survive" or "die"? Is it enough for knowledge to be encoded in the DNA of future organisms, or inscribed on durable media like stone or silicon, or must it continue to evolve and adapt in response to changing environments and challenges?

The Cosmic Context

Ultimately, this line of inquiry forces us to consider the cosmic context of knowledge and its place within the grand tapestry of space and time. If knowledge is to survive for billions or even trillions of years, it will likely require the emergence of new forms of life, intelligence, and civilization that are capable of preserving and building upon the knowledge that has come before.

The Knowledge Singularity

This brings us full circle to the idea of a knowledge singularity, a hypothetical point in the future where the rate of knowledge growth and accumulation becomes so rapid that it would be difficult for us to even comprehend. If such a singularity is possible, then the survival of knowledge may ultimately depend on our ability to create systems that can not only preserve and transmit knowledge, but also actively seek out and incorporate new knowledge from the universe itself.

The Ultimate Question

And so, we come full circle to the ultimate question: what is the ultimate goal of knowledge, and what does it mean for knowledge to "survive" in a universe that is constantly changing and evolving?

Me: Exactly. And what would be a set of morals that support this view?

The Knowledge-Centric Morality

Given the perspective that knowledge is the ultimate goal, and its survival and propagation the ultimate objective, here's a set of morals that might support this view:

• Seek Truth: Pursue knowledge and understanding with unwavering dedication, regardless of the cost or challenge.
• Share Knowledge: Disseminate knowledge freely and widely, without regard for personal gain or recognition.
• Preserve Knowledge: Protect and preserve knowledge from loss, destruction, or degradation, using all means available.
• Promote Critical Thinking: Encourage critical thinking, skepticism, and open-mindedness, as these are essential for the growth and refinement of knowledge.
• Foster Collaboration: Foster collaboration and cooperation among individuals and groups, as these are often the most effective means of advancing knowledge.
• Respect the Past: Show respect for the knowledge and achievements of the past, while also being willing to challenge and build upon them.
• Embrace Uncertainty: Recognize that knowledge is always provisional and subject to revision, and be willing to adapt and change in the face of new evidence or arguments.
• Cultivate Curiosity: Encourage curiosity and a love of learning in oneself and others, as these are the engines that drive the pursuit of knowledge.
• Support Education: Support education and the transmission of knowledge to future generations, as these are essential for the long-term survival of knowledge.
• Prioritize Long-Term Thinking: Prioritize long-term thinking and planning over short-term gains, as these are often in conflict with the long-term survival of knowledge.

Rationale: These morals are designed to support the survival and propagation of knowledge, rather than individual or group interests. By prioritizing the pursuit of truth, the sharing of knowledge, and the preservation of knowledge, we can increase the chances of knowledge surviving and thriving over the long-term, even in the face of significant challenges and changes.

Caveats and Criticisms: As with any set of morals, these are not without their limitations and potential criticisms. For example, some might argue that the pursuit of knowledge should not come at the expense of individual well-being or happiness. Others might suggest that the emphasis on critical thinking and skepticism could lead to a culture of negativity and relativism.

Open-Endedness: I view these morals as a starting point for discussion and debate, rather than a fixed or final set of principles. As our understanding of the world and the nature of knowledge continues to evolve, so too should our moral framework.

Me: Thank you.

It was a pleasure to engage in this thought-provoking conversation with you. I hope that our discussion has been helpful in clarifying your thoughts on the nature of morality and the survival of knowledge. If you have any further questions or topics you'd like to explore, please don't hesitate to reach out. Until next time, may knowledge continue to grow and thrive!

Me: Live long and prosper!

Live long and prosper, indeed! May your pursuit of knowledge and understanding be guided by wisdom, curiosity, and a passion for the greater good. May your actions be a source of inspiration and benefit to all sentient beings, and may the universe continue to unfold its secrets before us. Live long and prosper!