Artificial Intelligence and Ethics

István Bajzák1

Abstract
Processes running independently, whether natural processes or conscious human processes, collide
in our children's lives. This effect is hardly conceivable. The processes: Growth of the population; lack
of environmentally conscious approach and of active nature conservation; the development of robotic
technology, of AI research; researching of planetary ethics; Researching the Programmability of the
Morality. That moment will be very difficult for our children. We have to prepare them. Information
available to us (and to AI) can be grouped for understanding so that the result will show that the
intelligent life form (who is also the creator of AI) is working against the survival of its own living space.
So the intelligence-centered moral sense decides that the human being is a risk for information
processing intelligence. There will be a disagreement between AI and us.The purpose of the lecture is
to present the basics of the necessary training themes. The training is based on SourceCode theory.
During the course you can learn the communication approach and ethics that provide solutions.
Different ethical approaches and communication theories are not suitable for addressing the above
problem. Not because they are specifically human (dualistic). Each system answers the question of
the great problem, and where does our knowledge derive from? (From body or mind?) If a paradigm is
created by choosing any one, the possibility of dialogue is precluded beforehand, making dialogue
impossible with them. Our method is an improved version of the contemplative observational method
of neurophenomenology. With this theoretical tool we examined the problems and situations typical of
applied ethics and clinical psychology. During the critical work, the method is sophisticated, does not
answer the big question, because in this view the question does not arise. It turned out that there is no
need to ask the question either. Neither communication theory nor ethics need to choose one of the
two categories as one of the certain ones, by choosing to have the existence of the other denial, that
is to say, dualism. If we acquire this method, it will be able to communicate with artificial intelligence
gaining consciousness and moral sense.

Keywords: representation theory, embodied mind, chinese room, philosophical ants

Preliminary
The four processes will soon create a situation where the ethical problem of the moral situation will be
known only by a new approach [1], based on the theory of communication of sourcecode theory deal.
Two questions that emerge are: how can I evaluate from the moral point of view (1) the non-direct
programmed activity of AI and (2) the judgment of AI about me, which seems to me to be ethically
thorough? Can I call an ethics an activity rating system that treats me as pure intelligence, not as a
person? If I can, how can I teach it?
How will artificial intelligence respond to my selfish and planet-damaging activity and my recognized,
needed but hindering behaviors of development of consciousness? How can I survive this reaction?

Basics
Important to descript on experiences about the natural of my conscience, the role of the two actors in
the moral position, and the limit of my responsibility.
Important to contemplate the contemporary philosophical views of artificial intelligence using the
sourcecodetheory. This means that I am approaching the source with the strictest possible conditions.
If I can not see something, it's just a story. I experience confusion in me when I feel that I need
constraine myself by a prior choice to decide how to determine the origin of my knowledge and how I
handle the data of my own experience with a conceptual structure.
The only sure source of knowledge is those feeling of the sensation that I can observe in my
experience. Thus I can observate of the functioning of my filtering and interpretation structure. Until I
know the knowing man, I don't know what the true structure of my knowledge is.

1
Bajzak Consulting, MOSTart NKKE, Hungary, info@bajzak.com
If I get to know it, I know everything. All datas and knowledge of my world are in my thought. I'm not
choose of those things which are in front of me or which come in front of me.
When I feel confused in the flow of my experience, when I'm not happy about new knowledge,
information, then I don't assume that the new was bad, but that my consciously-unconscious filter
didn't allow me to see everything or that there was something in my hermeneutical structure an
element that makes me dissonance between the interpretation and intelligence.
Disruption ceases when I realize that I haven't noticed the operation of the restricted filter and
interpretive structure, and I have mixed it with the intelligence which, in turn, only uses the tools as a
tool to continuously expand itself by experience. This is the sourcecodetheory. Water is always clean
and nutritious, only the bowl is dirty or broken. But you don't have to throw it! In human form,
intelligence seeks the pleasure.
I have to understand that the intelligence isn't using by me, but the intelligence wants to use my
personality. This is a Copernic's turn.

Philosophical imaginary story

When I finished to test the game (compared to Majong) I met with the playwright, who said: "despite
the fact that I didn't understand the whole thing, they were certain I can not read in Chinese, I did quite
well." I answered: "Hi, I was really entertained with your game. It's exciting, and it's easy to
understand." He raised his eyebrows and asked: "What do you mean?" "Imagine, long ago played real
battles with figures, a simplified map, a coordinate system. The battle could be shown on the stage
and on the modeled coordinate system. Today, we only know them separately, we can't connect them.
We've chess, and there're some of our historical novels and dramas about great battles. Whoever
knows only in chess, we don't even say that he didn't understand anything. It has nothing to do with
the game with the signs for a Chinese people story-narrating question-answer process.

For me, your abandoned intention would only be one assumption. Superstition, a bad mentality, which
is why I will explain a divine sign to all. It's a mistake to convey this expectation and the understanding
of the story to me and ask me for it. You have expected from me a mental behavior that you would
least say would be intelligent.

By the way, do you understand the events of your life as incoming information that are in front of you,
from the point of view you have been thrown into this human being? Goodbye, I've to go.”

One of them I canceled because my friend I'd met couldn't be comforted in our phone conversation
about whether he was infected with the virus or some parasite or not. This infection is dangerous. In
the brain, the virus or the parasite raises rabies behavior similar to the infected man or ants. It's
important to me to become sure that the idea that manifests itself in the speaker's lectures ("the
consciousness is illusion") isn't a symptom of infection by a virus or a parasite. If he justifies the non-
parasitic state of his mind, then I can think of his assumption, or else I wouldn't take into account what
he still proves. You know there are thought bugs. One is that I've to accept, without my own
observation, and apply "stories" without criticism, when the frame, and the speaker seems interpreted
as authoritative. Intelligence doesn't argue.
Basically, intelligence always strives for joy and harmony. In the experience as well. However, if
something deprives you of joy of Descartes' intellectualy joy, which follows the experience, despite the
fact that the information itself doesn't have quality, isn't bad or good, then the filter or the interpreter
structure is responsible for that. Such a structure is the 'ego', the 'gender role', the 'truth-seeking role',
or any community, such as professional, national, religious or political, that restricts intelligence in the
neutral reflection of experience. Victory in debate isn't the joy of the mind, only the 'ego' or the
'philosopher'. But if he loses it's good for him also, because with his pain, he (the 'ego') proves his
reality.

There is no stronger reason to thinking that there is better to thinking so as somebody other, or thus
even as I'm thinking.
What an ant, or a bat, or the batman can know or wants, I can not know. When I use the notion of
'intentionality' or 'understanding', I accept it and treat it as a fact, without any proof that there's
anything outside of my mind, regardless of it.[2]
This illusion is the most exciting question: this Presupposition that an attribution of anything of the
same kind and sane worth of existence to anything, similer that we can be experienced of our inner
monologue at any time. (Choose or by our willingness or by authority.)

I've to realize that each situation is my own creation, together with what comes to my mind in the
situation. The result of my previous decisions and choices is the current situation.

Understanding is that when there is no contradiction or disorientation in the interpretative, interpreting

activity of the hermeneutical structure that is being used unconsciously, or in the intelligence used by
my intelligence, when all the deliberately / unconsciously selected filtered data was fully processed, it
also made a connection network with earlier memories. This does not mean that all the data available
by the situation was processed by my mind, but only the selected ones were able to put in the net.
Remembering isn't even from brain storage. But it only enables the mind to draw the right data from a
cloud.

As long as I don't experience the fact that someone communicates with me the fact and content of his
inner monologue, it's only my own projection and my creative mind game that I've any external, similar
human being's assumption. When I experience it, it's just a story that I can or can't interpret. Neither
internal monologue nor intentionality can be assumed to be human or ants. These assumptions are
not scientific.

Varela[3] and his interpreters resemble the situation when I find a very dark and old well in a
expedition, from which a very cool air flows into my face when I lean over it. The well looks very deep.
I want to know how deep it is. I drop a pebble, to hear when it comes down in the water.

Then I wait.
Uncomfortable because the others are waiting.
I've no courage to stay and wait for the end of the observation.
I rather think I'm sure I did not notice it. I stay up and continue with the others the illusion.

“Ethics are Born in the Precense of the Other” (Eco)

I can't be sure that another exists.[2]
I've to take alone full responsibility alone for the quality of my world.
Less excuses, greater freedom.
There is no need to postulate the existence of another human being for my ethicssystem.
I need an ethics that doesn't contradict scientific results, doesn't rely on illusions.
The mind is delighted when it is able to accept its contents without tension.
With the more elements I can take pleasure in communion, the more I enjoy my experience, the
greater the joy.
Conscience is a feedback that shows me how to have a greater pleasure in my mind in that situation.
There're reactions to any activity or communication.
We've a sense of the reactions to our activity and communication.
They're the only reliable sources of our knowledge.

It can be programmed.
Just as it happened to me.

There is no more general ethics.

Infinite imagination and the Infinite creative intelligence.
This approach and ethics must be taught.
 References

[1] Bertalanffy, L. Robots, Men and Minds, NY, George Braziller, 1969, 93-97
[2] Putnam, H. “Brains in a vat”, Reason, Truth and History, Cambridge, UP, 1981, 1-22
[3] Varela, F. “Neurophenomenology”, Explaining, Consciousness, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1997, 337-
357