On Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 21:41 James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: I'm on the side of sex but there being no word for sex anymore, due to the > sleazy moral zeitgeist's connotation loading, here's a clue: > > I'm on the side of individual male intrasexual selection in the state of > nature as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing >
I don't know why you add the word "male" in selection because females are also subject to selection. That is sexist. The fact that humans are all fighting against each other for survival does not contradict racial equality. Racial equality does not mean that everyone instantly become literally identical; it only means we're now on a level playing field, say if a black guy has more merits than you in a certain area, then you have to accept defeat in that competition. This happens all the time, in sports, at school, in business, in love, etc. But a lot of white people have problem accepting this. We also cannot "return" to the stage of the primitive jungle where two men duel it out with primitive weapons. That is only a myth and we talk about it for philosophizing purposes. In reality we live in social and cultural contexts where we cannot start a fight simply because we lose a game of chess or something. I'm surprised that I have to keep explaining this to adults. > as a remedy to the destruction of the biosphere, and what remains of human > sexuality that is being destroyed as the Unfriendly AGI called "The Global > Economy" turns us all into sterile worker mechanical Turks. But before > resorting to that conflagration, which would kill more people than an all > out nuclear war, > It is indeed a social problem that a lot of humans are forced to work meaningless, menial jobs. Perhaps the current capitalist economic model in the USA is wrong and we have to look towards welfare states like Northern Europe. I'm on the side of per capita territorial allocation of territory based on > individual choice of social theory under which mutually consenting adults > and their children live their lives by replacing prisons with exile and > border enforcement. > I get what you're saying and I sort of agree with that. But instead of "territory" I would simply say individuals muster up their resources (money mostly) to organize themselves voluntarily, with their AGIs working for their collective goals. I'm not sure if there would be a re-distribution of wealth (including land and other resources) before the coming of AGI. As we know from history, such re-distribution events are usually bloody. Also, it seems that most people and governments are too slow to react to the advent of AGI. They have not woken up to the rapid coming and extreme power of AGI. Those who are in the know, and want something above basic social welfare, would have to organize and fend for ourselves. But before resorting to a Thirty Years War disabling the infrastructure > sustaining the existing power structure that denies humanity at least that > mutually consenting revitalization of The Treaty of Westphalia's doctrine > of Cuius regio, eius religio, Cruiro, > Yes, that is unlikely to happen. We exist in a condition inherited through history, we usually cannot re-start with a clean slate. But old traditions also must fade out slowly to allow room for progress. The optimal strategy is to know how to play this game. > I'm on the side of admonishing our de facto secular theocracy, with its > hypocritical donning of the white lab coat of the "scientist" to justify > its claim to intermediate access to Truth between Society and Nature, to at > least take seriously its ethical obligation to seek the minimum prior in > data-driven truth discovery about the Nature of Society over which they > wield power: Algorithmic information approximation as the most principled > macrosocial model selection criterion. > I don't know what exactly you're complaining about. To admit that the West has historically been racist is quite simple and unproblematic, in my opinion at least. I'm also just a human being and have to admit mistakes I've made in the past. White people have to face the new era where they don't enjoy privileges as in the past. But like I've said before, I don't think there should be "retributions" for what was done in the past, or at least such compensations would be greatly diminished, for the same rationale that a rapist's children should not be responsible for the rapist's crime. The ancestors and the current generation are different individuals. Future AGIs would make comprehensive, summarizing judgements based on fuzzy logic just like humans do. AGIs would also more likely be without the biases that humans tend to make: for example white people tend to deny racism while the "woke" ideology tends to blame every failure on white racism. I think these silly disputes are likely to end once AGI can make logically coherent and unbiased judegments, and that final verdict would lie somewhere between those two extremes. > No one can stop the truth from being told, even if it makes some people >> lose face. That's what I'm saying. >> > > They can impede it and indeed they not only have been but are impeding it > in material ways that, were there a justice system still in operation, > would find the executives if not the boards of directors of the major > silicon valley network effect monopolies behind bars for the rest of their > lives for impeding freedom of speech. > Yes, that is a legit worry but I'm optimistic because we have new social media platforms that aim to mitigate such problems. > If you think sometimes white people slip in racial insults in ordinary >> conversations or movies or literature, this is actually quite ubiquitous >> > > It all comes down to the appeal of last resort in dispute processing. > Would you prefer disputants each be given a 25cm blade and 15m of strong > cordage, entering opposite ends of a wilderness area to engage in a natural > duel > <https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/civilization_takedown_the_tale_of_lin_tse/>, > or would you prefer to cut out the posturing about who is more serious > about seeking the minimum prior -- being more objective -- about using the > vast resources of the information age to discover The Truth -- and just > hold each other accountable to that serious objective function? > You don't need to specifically call out a duel because we are already dueling it out in the free market economy. It's a more civilized form of competition. And yes, I would agree with the AGI's algorithmic prior and that's what I'm trying to emulate or predict during this (short) interim period. We have no dispute on that. ☺ ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tcf822b60238b0592-M5e71f28128e20e803b422fb8 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
