Oops, and what about this that goes directly to the point: Dalai LamaDec 7, 2012 - Public Those who have little interest in spirituality shouldn’t think that human inner values don’t apply to you. The inner peace of an alert and calm mind are the source of real happiness and good health. Our human intelligence tells us which of our emotions are positive and helpful and which are damaging and to be restrained or avoided.
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Sergio Donal <[email protected]> wrote: > Nice! > > Just looking my G+ that was unchecked for several weeks, I found this nice > post by the Dalai Lama: > > Dalai LamaJan 4, 2013 - Public > The ultimate source of a happy life is warm-heartedness. This means > extending to others the kind of concern we have for ourselves. On a simple > level we find that if we have a compassionate heart we naturally have more > friends. And scientists today are discovering that while anger and hatred > eat into our immune system, warm-heartedness and compassion are good for > our health. > > Very relevant. :-) > > > On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Sergio Donal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Daniel: >> >> Regarding your concern, in my opinion, intelligence is the capability to >> understand how things work. >> >> And my believe is that everything is interconnected, so we depend on each >> other. Our planet is an ecological system so we depend on the ants and on >> the bacteria. >> >> But even more, what makes sense to me is that our Universe is holistic >> (similar to the theory that a common pattern is repeated at every scale) >> and that its substance, the pattern is LOVE. >> >> It means that, though everything is interconnected we do not notice it at >> first! >> Why? >> Because we are part of this Universe so we have to express the same >> holistic pattern of love. In other words, love is unconditional, meaning >> that when one loves, it does not matter whether that attitude is reciprocal >> or not. One just does it because she/he wants it. Because Loving each other >> we feel that connection resonating that makes us happy. Actually, it is the >> only place where we can seek happiness. >> >> So we have to learn (by reasoning, and reinforcement learning :-) that >> only by loving unconditionally every other being we will find true, ever >> new joy and happiness. >> >> For me, intelligence is all about that, to understand not the abstraction >> or concepts, but to learn how to be happy. >> >> So in brief, if my hypothesis is right, then the smarter the machines >> are, the more compassionate they will be :-) >> >> Best! >> Sergio >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Schwartz, Daniel >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I really don’t know much about this subject , so if this question has >>> been answered and you know where to find the answer, I’d appreciate it if >>> someone could point it out to me. I’m really curious if there is anyone out >>> there as interested in the subject as me who I can converse with! This >>> seems to be the place!**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> I just started researching AGI and I was wondering about questions >>> regarding Ben’s criticisms on Minsky’s book “The society of mind” and “the >>> emotion machine”. Those theories makes a lot of sense to me, but ben thinks >>> “societies” is the wrong way to think about the mind, etc. Why is Minsky’s >>> theories different than bens? I can’t find the source from where he said >>> this, I think it might have been in an interview, but I’m not sure. But the >>> criticism was something along the lines of “Minsky’s mind society does not >>> consider the “synergy” of the mind working together.” **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Here is my rebuttal:**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> In his second book “Emotion Machine” Minsky describes the mind as a >>> series of “resources” instead of societies, but it’s largely the same >>> concept. Anyway, when a person “thinks”, certain “resources” get turned on >>> or off depending on the higher level goals of the question. When someone is >>> in excruciating Pain, most resources turn off, leaving the individual to >>> force to think about how to get rid of the pain. In Love, sometimes it >>> seems as if a whole new “program” is running and blemishes can turn into >>> embellishments—meaning, the “resources” for being turned off by physical, >>> or personality defects is switched off. In the example of Pain, the higher >>> level resource called “Pain” switches off all the other resources.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> How is it wrong to think of the mind as societies or resources as Minsky >>> thinks? Why does the idea of hierarchy societies controlling lesser >>> societies not work? **** >>> >>> I’m also aware that the question of “Where do the algorithms for the >>> higher level societies come from?” But that is answered by the code >>> described in our DNA and which has developed through mysterious events in >>> evolution over thousands of years. **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> I have not gotten too in depth in the book yet, but I don’ see how this >>> theory lacks as a supplementary framework for OpenCog. I am also familiar >>> with the different sets of learning that OpenCog is, including MOSES and >>> the others. I also have not investigated how these systems work, so maybe >>> they actually do function as switches of on and off resources. OpenCog is >>> supposed to emulate a three year olds mind, right? How is that working out? >>> **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> I vaguely understand the pattern theory that ben is all about, and I was >>> wondering also if someone could point out where I can read more of that? >>> **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> **This is so exciting and I am really grateful for everyone who is >>> dedicating their time working on this relatively unknown idea. I am talking >>> to all my friends about and trying to spread the idea of singularity. If I >>> had more knowledge in programming, I’d be on board to help out! I hope that >>> this happens in my lifetime, that it is a benevolent creature, and that it >>> is “sensitive”, caring, like humans. **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> As ben loves to say, “why would we care about a few ants or bacteria >>> that die in building a skyscraper?” It is because we realize they are >>> creatures too, and we wouldn’t want them to completely annihilate us. I do >>> not think that the only reason people study them is for reasons to only >>> elevate our understanding of the universe. Why can’t the reason be that we >>> want to help other creatures get better? Just because someone is smarter >>> than another, why wouldn’t it be comprehensible for it to wish to help the >>> lesser? I hope that AGI systems will “feel” that desire. The programmers >>> need to be very careful building this thing, even if that means gambling >>> their dreams of eternity, because we have to consider the future of our >>> children if it turns out to be malevolent, luckily most people are aware of >>> this alternative.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Thanks everybody,**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Danny**** >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/15717384-a248fe41> | >>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >> >> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
