Le 15-oct.-07, à 20:51, John Mikes a écrit :

> Marc: excellent.
> Even Statis responded - although I cannot understand why he wrote 
> "they" and not "us"?
> My problem is the "A" pertinent to SAI: s  u  p  e  r  i  n  t  e  l  
> l  i  g  e  n  c  e  dores not contain an "A". 

Well seen!

>  If it is ''a'-rtificial' I question the 'natural one' (following 
> Bruno's fear of the (natural?) 'super stupidity'.) Yet I don't think 
> Marc wants to let himself denature into an artifact.

Not necessarily, but look at Saibal's recent answer!
This raises a question for Mark. What if the "future "SAI"", "SI" 
should we say, are computationalist? Marc, is it ok if those SI 
reincarnate you digitally? Could they decide without your consent 
(without being super-stupid?).

> So: what is the "A" standing for?
> I have a solution to the ID of superintelligence, I got it in a 
> malicious discussion group of peers when I denigrated the 'exceedingly 
> wealthy' as getting inevitably demoralised, I was asked whom I 
> consider 'exceedingly wealthy'? One chap quipped: whoever is wealthier 
> then himself. So I can find lots of 'superintelligents' in these 
> terms. it is not a contractual belonging-to it is a quality. 
> Unidefinable. But: smarter than me.
> It is some 'koanic' wisdom of the Budhist to "kill all 
> superintelligent on the road". It requires considerable 'intelligence' 
> (whatever that may be) to recognise the more-'so' on the road.

Again, not necessarily. Buddhism, unlike Christianity, has always been 
very aware that "religious truth", once "institutionalized" get wrong 
To kill the buddha, or sompetimes just the master, is a way to remind 
the monk that they have to find the truth in themsleves and never to 
take any master talk for granted.

> In our (definition-wise) lower mentality it is not likely that we can 
> 'kill' the smarter. So the condition involves the un-possibility, even 
> if we are capable to recognise them
>  - what we are not likely to be.

Agreed. It was just a parabola for driving attention against any use of 
authoritative argument in the field of fundamentals.
Ah! But the lobian machine too can be shown allergic to such argument. 
It's a universal dissident. Unforunately, humans, like dog are still 
attracted to the practical philosophy according to which the "boss is 
right" (especially when wrong!)


PS Perhaps this week I will got the time to send the next post in the 
"observer-moment = Sigma_1 sentence".

> On 10/15/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Le 15-oct.-07, à 07:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Oct 14, 3:39 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Take care, trust yourself and "kill all the "SAI"" on the road, to
>> >> paraphrase a well known Buddhist idea. Either you are sufficiently
>> >> clever to understand the SAI arguments, showing you are already an 
>> SAI
>> >> yourself, and your message is without purpose, or you are not, in
>> >> which
>> >> case, to keep soundness (by lobianity), you better be skeptical, 
>> (and
>> >> not to abide so quick imo).
>>  >>
>> >> Unless you want to loose your universality, and be a slave, a tool.
>> >>
>> >> Bruno
>> >>
>> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>> >
>> > Heh.  Bruno, I continue to analyse my current (human) condition to 
>> try
>> > to find a way out of this mess (I'm not a happy bloke).  Still
>> > considering many possibilities.  Given the possibility that super-
>> > intelligences do already (or will in the future) exist,  there's a
>> > chance that a non-interference policy is being/will be pursued, but
>> > that there's a way to get their attention - it could be a simple
>> > matter of indicating that you are aware of the possibility and
>> > requesting to 'sign' a 'social contract'.  Get in early now! ;)
>> The price of the existence of intelligence, is the existence of
>> stupidity. I am afraid that the price of super-intelligence is
>> super-stupidity, and if you are not super-intelligent yourself, then
>> you cannot be sure of making the difference, and you are taking the
>> risk of alerting the super-idiots of the universe ...
>> So be careful when writing the "social contract". What do *you* intend
>> to put in the contract?
>> Bruno
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>  >>

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to