On 13 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:00 AM, John Clark <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
We know that humans are capable of choosing self-destruction. It is
also obvious that most don't
I would argue that given the proper circumstances anybody would
choose self
destruction.
I just saw a documentary about 911, it showed people jumping to
their death
out of windows. I believe if I was faced with a choice between
living for an
additional minute or two in searing pain as I burned to death and
the only
other alternative I too would determine that jumping from the 95th
floor was
the more attractive option.
Yes, I agree.
and as a human you probably feel a
strong resistance against harming yourself. Where does this
resistance
come from? Our brains where evolved to have it.
But why evolve brains at all? Why not hard wire us on how to behave
in every
conceivable circumstance? Because the human genome is only 3
billion base
pares long, and if it were a hundred thousand million billion
trillion times
as big it would still be ridiculously too small for that. So
Evolution had
to invent brains and give it a rather vague and general command
"do the
best you can to figure out a way to get your genes into the next
generation". But like a good lawyer that brain was able to find
lots and
lots of loopholes in that poorly written command, and hence we have
suicide
and birth control pills and people wasting time (from Evolution's
point of
view) looking for a quantum theory of gravity instead of looking
for a
satisfactory mate. Not every, or even not most, aspects of human
behavior
can be predicted from evolutionary theory.
I agree.
We are getting better and better at utility function
self-modification. However, we still embedded in a process that
actively resists certain modifications (in the long term). Further, we
are fighting an unequal fight. We are in the situation of your Jupiter
Brain, that cannot fully understand itself.
In my "designed superintelligence" scenario, the entity is confronted
with a protection mechanism that was conceived by a lesser
intelligence. Notice that it will still suffer from the Jupiter Brain
problem otherwise. Suppose it's a neural network: adaptation in neural
network learning can generate tremendous complexity. This is already
the case: deep learning works really well but nobody really knows for
sure what it is doing. But if we want the designed AI to follow
certain rules, we are the ones setting the rules and we are the ones
trying to prevent it from changing them.
Mutations that go
against this feature are weeded out.
A mutation to kill yourself before that age of puberty even under
normal
environmental conditions would be weeded out, but things are
usually far
more subtle than that.
I agree that it is much more subtle than that. My point is that
evolutionary pressure resists total inertia. It somehow creates
entities that are compelled to play the game, even if only for awhile.
I think you illustrate what I have called once the "theological trap",
which is also well debated on hot discussion between zen buddhists,
and eventually related to what is called (by some) the last step of
the illumination (enlightenment), which is after "having gone
there" (the blissful state out of time and space, say), you have still
to "come back to the village".
For genuinely doing that you have to abandon the most precious thing
you have always searched, somehow, and/or stay mute on what you would
like to share the most (with the risk that you talk to much and that
stupid parrots will repeat what you said without understanding for
generations and generations).
Biology, psychology and theology can differ a lot on the "utility
function", and can oppose each other at different level. That is why
consistency requires some amount of silence and muteness if we want to
be successful on the different planes.
There are transfinite lattice of competence degrees, most incomparable
in strength, so there will always been matter to come back to the
village, and the village has no ends. But "there" the wise know, but
cannot say, that utility is futile. Oops! Well, something like that
should be a theorem of G* minus G, identifying wiseness with self-
referential correctness.
Very complex subject, which I think is already quite hot in the soul
of all universal numbers. I think we can link it also to the problem
of euthanasia (which I think should better not been permitted in
states having medication prohibition laws).
Bruno
Telmo.
John K Clark
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
