On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Hi Telmo, Hi Jason, > > > > On 01 Dec 2017, at 06:26, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you have some time/patience, let me know what you think of my >> arguments >> >> here: >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02009 >> >> >> > >> > >> > Telmo, >> > >> > Interesting read. >> >> Thanks for reading, and for the comments. >> >> > In general I have a lot of sympathy for this view. >> > >> > I think there may be an inverse relationship between intelligence and >> > confidence in actions. That is, the more intelligence the super >> > intelligence becomes, the less certain it may be about whether a given >> > course of action is correct, and this could lead to a paralysis of >> sorts. >> >> That is an interesting idea. My initial intuition is to argue that in >> a purely probabilistic system, the more intelligent actors might >> assume (correctly) that they are more likely to predict the future >> correctly than the less intelligent ones. A bit like an expert poker >> player: they know they can't win them all, but they also know that >> they will win in the long term. >> >> > I've also read a few science fiction stories where upon being uploaded, >> > people modify their brains to activate their pleasure centers and >> > effectively become zombies thereafter. I wonder though, and perhaps >> this >> > relates to the nature of possible conscious experiences, would a >> > super-intelligence prefer to exist and continually stimulate its utility >> > function, or would it be equally (or more?) happy to define its utility >> > function as being maximized by not existing and then kill itself? E.g. >> with >> > the choice between an eternal heroine trip/orgasm vs. suicide, what >> would a >> > rational agent choose? >> >> I agree, this is a deep question. I would say that it goes into they >> mystery of qualia. I would say that the arguments that I present in >> the paper are valid from the third-person, but we have to take a grain >> of salt because we don't understand qualia/consciousness. >> >> > Another question, what if a super intelligence agreed with the ideas >> > expressed in the one-self paper and it determined its self interest >> extends >> > to all conscious beings. Would it, acting under such a belief, seek to >> help >> > (and not modify) existing conscious life realize their utility >> functions, or >> > would it instead decide to modify the utility functions of those other >> > conscious life forms it has the power to change? Would it modify their >> > utility functions to seek to stop existing and then kill them? If it >> does >> > so instantaneously, it doesn't seem like it really ever modified their >> > utility functions in the first place and instead of assisting their >> > suicides, is murdering them. >> >> Ok, I see we have similar thoughts. I don't write about this because >> these are things that I see almost as my personal faith, not as >> something that I can address scientifically. Bruno might disagree, if >> assuming comp. >> >> My personal faith: we are all the same person, including animals and >> who knows what else. I cannot show that this to be true, and I further >> think that it is beyond the Gödelian veil. Even doing introspection >> (and enhanced introspection, let's leave it at that...), I fluctuate >> between "yes, we are all the same person" and "bullshit". >> > > > This puts you in good company. It is a view shared not only by many > mystics, but also by many scientists and thinkers: > > > *Giordano Bruno:* > >> It is manifest... that every soul <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Soul> and >> spirit hath a certain continuity with the spirit of the universe >> <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Universe>, so that it must be understood >> to exist and to be included not only there where it liveth and feeleth, but >> it is also by its essence and substance diffused throughout immensity... >> The power <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Power> of each soul is itself >> somehow present afar in the universe... Naught is mixed, yet is there some >> presence. >> > > > Anything we take in the universe, because it has in itself that which is All >> in All <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_All>, includes in its own way >> the entire soul <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Soul> of the world >> <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/World>, which is entirely in any part of >> it >> > > > The universal Intellect is the intimate, most real, peculiar and powerful >> part of the soul of the world. This is the single whole which filleth >> the whole, illumineth the universe and directeth nature to the production >> of natural things, as our intellect with the congruous production of >> natural kinds. >> > > > We find that everything that makes up difference and number >> <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Number> is pure accident, pure show, pure >> constitution. Every production, of whatever kind, is an alteration, but >> the substance remains always the same, because it is only one, one divine >> immortal being. > > > > *Erwin Schrödinger:* > >> But, of course, here we >> knock against the arithmetical paradox; there appears to be a great >> multitude of these conscious >> egos, the world is however only one. There is obviously only one >> alternative, namely the >> unification of minds or consciousnesses, Their multiplicity is only >> apparent, in truth there is only >> one mind. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not only of the >> Upanishads. The >> mystyically experienced union with God regularly entails this attitude >> unless it is opposed by strong >> existing prejudices; and this means that it is less easily accepted in >> the West than in the East. Let >> me quote as an example outside the Upanishads an Islamic Persian mystic >> of the thirteenth century, >> Aziz Nasafi. I am taking it from a paper by Fritz Meyer and translating >> from his German >> translation: On the death of any living creature the spirit returns to >> the spiritual world, the body to >> the bodily world. In this however only the bodies are subject to change. >> The spiritual world is one >> single spirit who stands like unto a light behind the bodily world and >> who, when any single creature >> comes into being, shines through it as through a window. According to the >> kind and size of the >> window less or more light enters the world. The light itself however >> remains unchanged." > > > > *Kurt Gödel *(interviewed by Rudy Rucker): > >> "I asked Gödel if he believed there is a single Mind behind all the >> various appearances and activities of the world. He replied that, yes, the >> Mind is the thing that is structured, but that the Mind exists >> independently of its individual properties. I then asked if he believed >> that the Mind is everywhere, as opposed to being localized in the brains of >> people. Gödel replied, “Of course. This is the basic mystic teaching.” > > > > > *Fred Hoyle:* > >> 'There's certainly a lot of things I don't understand. This light of >> yours, or whatever you like to call it, how does it decide that you are you >> and I am me?' >> > > > 'That could be another illusion. Look, along one wall of our office we >> have one complete set of pigeon holes, all in their nice tidy sequence. >> Along another wall we have another set of pigeon holes. Two completely >> different sets. But there is only one light. It dances about in both sets >> of pigeon holes. Wherever it happens to be, there is the phenomenon of >> consciousness. One set of pigeon holes is what you call *you*, the other >> is what I call *me*. It would be possible to experience both and never >> know it. It would be possible to follow the little patch of light wherever >> it went. There could be only one consciousness, although there must >> certainly be more than one set of pigeon holes.' >> > > > I found this a staggering idea. 'If you're right it would be possible to >> be a million people and never know it.' > > > > *Freeman Dyson:* > >> "Enlightenment came to me suddenly and unexpectedly one afternoon in >> March when I was walking up to the school notice board to see whether my >> name was on the list for tomorrow's football game. I was not on the list. >> And in a blinding flash of inner light I saw the answer to both my >> problems, the problem of war and the problem of injustice. The answer was >> amazingly simple. I called it Cosmic Unity. Cosmic Unity said: There is >> only one of us. We are all the same person. I am you and I am Winston >> Churchill and Hitler and Gandhi and everybody. There is no problem of >> injustice because your sufferings are also mine. There will be no problem >> of war as soon as you understand that in killing me you are only killing >> yourself." [Dyson 1979, p.17] >> > > > "For some days I quietly worked out in my own mind the metaphysics of >> Cosmic Unity. The more I thought about it, the more convinced I becaume >> that it was the living truth. It was logically incontrovertible. It >> provided for the first time a firm foundation for ethics. It offered >> mankind the radical change of heart and mind that was out only hope of >> peace at a time of desperate danger. Only one small problem remained. I >> must find a way to convert the world to my way of thinking. The work of >> conversion began slowly. I am not a good preacher. After I had expounded >> the new faith two or three times to my friends at school, I found it >> difficult to hold their attention. They were not anxious to hear more >> about it. They had the tenancy to run away when they saw me coming. They >> were good-natured boys, and generally tolerant of eccentricity, but they >> were repelled by my tone of moral earnestness. When I preached at them I >> sounded too much like the headmaster. So in the end I made only two >> converts, one wholehearted and one half-hearted. Even the whole-hearted >> convert did not share in the work of preaching. He liked to keep his >> beliefs to himself. I, too, began to suspect that I lacked some of the >> essential qualities of a religious leader. Relativity was more in my >> line. After a few months I gave up trying to make converts. When some >> friend would come up to me and say cheerfully, "How's cosmajoonity doing >> today?" I would just answer, "Fine, thank you," and let it go at that. [ >> Dyson 1979, pp. 17-18] > > >> " The universe as a whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make >> it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction >> between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond >> the scale of our comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a >> collection of world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms and humans and God >> may have minds that differ in degree but not in kind. We stand, in a >> manner of speaking, midway between the unpredictability of atoms and the >> unpredictability of God. Atoms are small pieces of our mental apparatus, >> and we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus. Our minds may receive >> inputs equally from atoms and from God. This view of our place in the >> cosmos may not be true, but it is compatible with the active nature of >> atoms as revealed in the experiments of modern physics. I don't say that >> this personal theology is supported or proved by scientific evidence. I >> only say that it is consistent with scientific evidence." > > > > *Arnold Zuboff:* > >> "This is also the resolution of the tension between the rival criteria >> for personal identity, >> psychological and bodily continuity. As with brain bisection, there is >> here an embarrassment of >> riches. Either side of the classic debate has the upper hand when it >> argues positively that the person >> could remain the same if its own pet criterion was maintained even if the >> other was wholly absent. >> And, indeed, one could easily imagine a person going along into another >> body with a transfer to that >> body’s brain of his pattern of memories. And yet one can also easily >> imagine the person’s >> continuing in the same body with an experience of amnesia or false >> memories. It seems that all >> such content of experience, in different bodies or with differing mental >> states, could be mine. In >> fact, all the mental content in different bodies and differing mental >> states actually is mine. For all of >> it has everything that it takes to be mine–the first person character >> that is common to all >> experience." > > >> "You possess all conscious life. Whenever in all time >> and wherever in all the universe (or beyond) any conscious being stands, >> sits, crawls, jumps, lies, >> rolls, flies or swims, its experience of doing so is yours and is yours >> now. You are that being. You >> are fish and fowl. Deer and hunter. You are saints and sinners. You are >> Germans, Jews and >> Palestinians. This is an important result. What else can come close to it >> in importance? And >> perhaps the spread of this knowledge among the intelligent beings that >> are you can help you to stop >> yourself from hurting yourself because you mistake yourself for another." > > > > This idea seems to be one of the foundational beliefs behind most > religions (and in answer to Bruno looking for more of a basis for the > silver rule): > > The ancient Chinese author Laozi, who wrote Tao Te Ching, a fundamental > text of *Daoism*: > >> "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss >> as your own loss." > > > On a papryrus scroll from the late period in *ancient Egypt*, it was > written: > >> "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another." > > > From the Hadith in *Islam*, Mohammad is quoted as saying: > >> "The most righteous person is the one who consents for other people what >> he consents for himself, and who dislikes for them what he dislikes for >> himself." > > > The Suman Suttam of *Jainism* preaches: > >> "Killing a living being is killing one's own self; showing compassion to >> a living being is showing compassion to oneself. He who desires his own >> good, should avoid causing any harm to a living being." > > > In the talmud, of *Judaism* masechet Shabbat, 31, A, Hillel said: > >> "What is hateful to you, do not do (to others)" > > > In the *Christian* new testament John, chapter 17 verses 20-23 Jesus says: > >> "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that >> all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May >> they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I >> have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are >> one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. " > > > Fritjof Capra, author of the Tao of Physics, writes of *Hindusim*: > >> "The basic recurring theme in Hindu mythology is the creation of the >> world by the self-sacrifice of God >> —'sacrifice' in the original sense of 'making sacred'—whereby God becomes >> the world which, in >> the end, becomes again God. This creative activity of the Divine is >> called lila, the play of God, and >> the world is seen as the stage of the divine play. Like most of Hindu >> mythology, the myth of lila >> has a strong magical flavour. Brahman is the great magician who >> transforms himself into the world >> and then performs this feat with his 'magic creative power', which is the >> original meaning of maya >> in the Rig Veda. The word maya—one of the most important terms in Indian >> philosophy—has >> changed its meaning over the centuries. From the might, or power, of the >> divine actor and >> magician, it came to signify the psychological state of anybody under the >> spell of the magic play. >> As long as we confuse the myriad forms of the divine lila with reality, >> without perceiving the unity >> of Brahman underlying all these forms, we are under the spell of maya." > > > In *Sikhism*, the soul (atma) is considered to be part of the Universal > Soul, which is God > (Parmatma).In the Sikh holy book, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, it is written: > >> "God is in the Soul and the Soul is in the God." and "The soul is >> divine; divine is the soul." > > > in *Buddhism* there is the concept of anattā which refers to the illusion > of the self. According to the doctrine of anattā there is no such thing as > a self > independent from the rest of the universe. Rather than attaching ourselves > to some independent entity, Gautama Buddha tells us: > >> "All that we are is the result of what we have thought." > > > > > >> >> To defend my faith: independently of the truth, if everyone operates >> on this belief we are all better off. Of course I am not claiming to >> be a saint or even close, I am just saying that this seems like an >> overall benevolent belief system. So, as you say, the AI might reach >> this same conclusion: it's better to bet that the well-being of all is >> equivalent to my well-being. >> > > I agree. I think this viewpoint is sorely needed. I believe our brains > evolved this sense of an ego for its own selfish purposes. I think some > chemicals or meditation (and in some cases stroke > <https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight>) > can disrupt the operation of this ego illusion, and allow us to see more > clearly the truth of the matter. > > >> >> I think our morality is constrained by evolution -- in the same way >> that some people suspect that even our perception of reality is >> constrained, a sort of Darwinian-Plato-Cave. Most people naturally >> feel that a human life is more valuable than the life of other >> sentient beings. I feel that myself, but is this fundamentally >> justifiable or is it just the outcome of kinship selection? What would >> the AI think about this? >> > > I think some ancestor may have understood this. But that belief interfered > with its survival, and so it lost out to those that had a mutation that > concealed the truth that we are all one. > > >> To go further: not so long ago, most people would freely defend that >> the lives of people from their ethnicity are more valuable than those >> of other ethnicities. It seems to me that only recently did the >> civilization process start to oppose this way of thinking, and it >> seems clear that there is still a long way to go. >> >> > It seem to me, that under computationalism, realizing conscious states >> > requires computation, and in our universe computation requires time. >> > Therefore maximizing the types and kinds of conscious states one wants >> to >> > exist requires persistence over time. I think for a conscious super >> > intelligence, utility functions must somehow be based of the perceived >> > utility of various conscious experiences. Ceasing to exist (or ceasing >> to >> > realize new conscious states) serves only to eliminate your own >> contribution >> > of experiences to the total set of experiences that exist. Therefore the >> > super intelligence that kills itself, is in effect, deciding a >> preference >> > for the other already extant conscious life forms and their experiences >> over >> > its own. >> >> Well put, I agree. >> Even without AI, bit assuming comp: would it make sense to kill >> yourself if you figure that you are significantly less happy than most >> other conscious beings? >> > > Interesting question. I don't have an answer on this question. > > One consideration is that if everyone followed this strategy (assuming > they could know where they stood in the spectrum of beings), is that it > would lead to all but the happiest observer killing themselves. > > > >> >> > If you look at everything that motivates all human endeavors, it is >> > ultimately, all about realizing and maximizing good experiences while >> > avoiding and minimizing bad experiences. >> >> I read replies to this, but I agree with you. People sacrifice for >> their kids because ultimately they bet that this makes them more happy >> than any short-term pleasure. It might seem cold to discuss such >> calculations, but within the "we are all the same person" faith it is >> perfectly benevolent. >> > > That is what I find so powerful about the idea. It abolishes selfishness. > If it is understood and adopted as a philosophy it would change the world > (and I think greatly for the better). > > > > I have a lot of sympathy for the quote above, as you can guess, which are > all rather close to the "theology of number", but my Lôbian Fear get > trigged by the terming "perfectly benevolent". > > The Lôbian machine can understand intellectually that "she", the ultimate > owner of the consciousness is not in its Gödel Number/body, but is shared > by *all* Relative Numbers. Even more awkward is the fact that the Löbian > machine can experienced it, in the 1p way, although not in a communicable > or justifiable way. The relative number can linked with their absolute > origin remaining a conscious person. > > It is all good, but saying this, is NOT benevolent. Of course, it is an > infinite relief for the prey when in the mouse of the predators, but in the > average, if it is said and understood, even more if experienced, it does > not help the prey to avoid the predators, and it does not help the > predators to hunt and kill the prey. > > I can understand how in the darwinian sense, it could makes predators and prey less successful. But in the sense of humans, who have technologically escaped most of the darwinian pressures, could this idea not improve life on earth? Would understanding such ideas not: Lead to laws for better treatment of farmed animals Lead more people to choose to eat lab grown meat Lead to better treatment of workers by employers Lead the wealthy to give more to the poor Lead to less harsh and more compassionate treatment of criminals Lead to significantly stronger opposition to war > A brain is mainly a machine to hide the truth, at the frontier between the > computable and the non computable (in arithmetic, but any applicative > algebra would do). > > The problem in the understanding that we are the same person is that > "misunderstood" it lead to the theological trap of threatening life (and > even afterlife actually). > > The Mechanist machine (the machine betting on mechanism (so p is sigma_1)) > knows that p <-> []p. > > She can justify all the p -> []p, but she can't justify all the []p -> p. > The "illumination result" is kept in the G* minus G corona. G* minus G is > the reservoir of the blasphem; that is the truth which go without sating, > and lead to the contrary when said. Hell is really paved with the good > intentions. > > Is there a difference between stating and helping someone to understand? > Also, nationalism, and nature can acts in that way in a restricted sense, > like when all the people of some group recognize themselves in a common > self as opposed to another group. Not all people can get to the source, and > sometimes failed attempts leads to fake religion and hate. It can transform > a child into bomb. It leads to paradoxical aspect of the unlimited freedom > of the Mindscape. > > So it is benevolent from the Heaven points of view, but can be > self-destructive on the terrestrial (effective, locally computable) view. > > The atheists are right: religion can be dangerous, but then they want to > throw it out completely (which makes no sense). It needs to be fixed, and > well, it is not easy, because by separating religion from science, we help > all the charlatans and make it impossible the field to progress. > > Nice post Jason. Very interesting paper Telmo, we have already discussed > some point, and if I remember well, we did already talk on the "theological > trap" problem at that occasion. I hope what I say here make sense. There > are also relation with the ethical use of psychotropes, > > Thank you. Jason > > > *"The Wise shut up" (Lao-Tseu)* > *"The Wise shut up, ... and believe me, I am Wise!" (Trump)* > > > LOL -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
