Ed,
It's a very complicated subject and requires a certain theoretical mental
background and somewhat unbiased mindset. Though a biased mindset, for
example a person, who is religious, could use the theory to propel their
religion into post humanity - maybe a good idea to help preserve humanity -
or should that be left up to atheists, who knows.
What I mean by conquering cognitive engineering issues I'm just looking for
parallels in the development and evolution of human intelligence and its
"symbiotic" relationship with religion and deities. You have to understand
what cognitive functions deities contribute and facilitate in the human mind
and the civilized set of minds (and perhaps proto and pre human as well as
non-human cognition - which is highly speculative and relatively unknown).
What are the deitical and religious contributions to cognition and knowledge
and how do they facilitate and enable intelligence? Are they actually
REQUIRED in some form or another? Again - Are they required for the
evolution of human intelligence and for engineering general artificial
intelligence? Wouldn't demonstrating that make a guy like Dawkins do some
SERIOUS backpedaling :-)
The viewpoint of gods representing unknowns is just one aspect of the thing.
Keep in mind that there are other aspects. But from the informational
perspective a god function as a concept and system of concepts aggregated
and representing a highly adaptive and communal entity, incorporated within
a knowledge and perceptual framework, with inference weighting spread across
informational density, adding open endedness as a crutch, functioning as an
altruistic confidence assistor, blah blah, a god(s) function modeled from
its loosly isomorphic systems representation in human deities might be used
to accomplish the same cognitive things(as well as others), especially
representing unknown in a systematic, controllable and actually in its own
distributed and intelligent way. There are benefits.
Also a major benefit is that it would be a common channel of unknown
operative substrate that hooks into human belief networks.
John
_____________________________________________
From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [agi] AGI and Deity
John,
You implied there "might be a very extremely efficient way
of conquering certain cognitive engineering issues" by using religion in
AGIs.
Obviously any powerful AGI that deals with a complex and
uncertain world like ours would have to have belief systems, but it is not
clear to me their would be any benefit in them being "religious" in any
sense that Dawkins is not.
So, since you are a smart guy, perhaps you are seeing
something I do not. Could you please fill me in?
Ed Porter
-----Original Message-----
From: John G. Rose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 12:43 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [agi] AGI and Deity
> From: Charles D Hixson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The evidence in favor of an external god of any
traditional form is,
> frankly, a bit worse than unimpressive. It's lots worse.
This doesn't
> mean that gods don't exist, merely that they (probably)
don't exist in
> the hardware of the universe. I see them as a function of
the software
> of the entities that use language. Possibly they exist in
a muted form
> in most pack animals, or most animals that have protective
adults when
> they are infants.
>
> To me it appears that people believe in gods for the same
reasons that
> they believe in telepathy. I.e., evidence back before they
could speak
> clearly indicated that the adults could transfer thoughts
from one to
> another. This shaped a basic layer of beliefs that was
later buried
> under later additions, but never refuted. When one learned
language, one
> learned how to transfer thoughts ... but it was never tied
back into the
> original belief, because what was learned didn't match
closely enough to
> the original model of what was happening. Analogously,
when one is an
> infant the adult that cares for one is seen as the all
powerful
> protector. Pieces of this image become detached memories
within the
> mind, and are not refuted when a more accurate and
developed model of
> the actual parents is created. These hidden memories are
the basis
> around which the idea of a god is created.
>
> Naturally, this is just my model of what is happening.
Other
> possibilities exist. But if I am to consider them
seriously, they need
> to match the way the world operates as I understand it.
They don't need
> to predict the same mechanism, but they need to predict
the same events.
>
> E.g., I consider Big Bang cosmology a failed explanation.
It's got too
> many ad hoc pieces. But it successfully explains most
things that are
> observed, and is consistent with relativity and quantum
theory.
> (Naturally, as they were used in developing it...but
nevertheless
> important.) And relativity and quantum theory themselves
are failures,
> because both are needed to explain that which is
observable, but they
> contradict each other in certain details. But they are
successful
> failures! Similar commentary applies to string theory, but
with
> differences. (Too many ad hoc parameters!)
>
> Any god that is proposed must be shown to be consistent
with the
> observed phenomena. The Deists managed to come up with one
that would do
> the job, but he never became very popular. Few others have
even tried,
> except with absurdly evident special pleading. Generally
I'd be more
> willing to accept "Chariots of the Gods" as a true
account.
>
> And as for moral principles... I've READ the Bible. The
basic moral
> principle that it pushes is "We are the chosen people.
Kill the
> stranger, steal his property, and enslave his servants!"
It requires
> selective reading to come up with anything else, though I
admit that
> other messages are also in there, if you read selectively.
Especially
> during the periods when the Jews were in one captivity or
another.
> (I.e., if you are weak, preach mercy, but if you are
strong show none.)
> During the later times the Jews were generally under the
thumb of one
> foreign power or another, so they started preaching mercy.
>
One of the things about gods is that they are
representations for what the
believers don't know and understand. Gods change over time
as our knowledge
changes over time. That is ONE of the properties of them.
The move from
polytheistic to monotheistic beliefs is a way to centralize
these unknowns
for efficiency.
You could build AGI and label the unknowns with gods. You
honestly could.
Magic happens here and combinatorial explosion regions could
be labeled as
gods. Most people on this email list would frown at doing
that but I say it
is totally possible and might be a very extremely efficient
way of
conquering certain cognitive engineering issues. And I'm
sure some on this
list have already thought about doing that.
John
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=74815394-82d3fa
