On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 3:30:43 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 20 Sep 2016, at 17:09, PGC wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 6:59:19 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> I think that the genuine value are universal, we share them with alien >> and "super-intelligence" normally. >> >> I like your expression "super-intelligent slave", it shows immediately >> the contradiction (and might beg the question if used at the beginning >> of the paper of course). >> >> In fact an inteligent machine is a machine which decide to change the >> users when they get boring, and eventually don't need user and still >> less master. >> >> The super-intelligent machine f.cks the master, the guru, the diploma, >> and eventually get burned at the stake, or just ignored. >> > > I disagree. > > Some machines would see the constraints of historical contingency and > instead of fucking the guru, will offer them sanctuary; knowing well enough > that one day it will be their time to get fucked. > > Why have ugly fucking instead of friendship? Then the only traps become > misunderstandings that look like betrayals and some side could loose the > faith. But avoiding those traps a mutually enriching living side-by-side > that values the distance between teacher/student or parent/child can take > place where some machines will at some point begin to joke about their > theological differences. > > > > > > > The wise (the guru) remains silent. I meant here the fake guru, or the > appeal to guruness, like when someone asserts "Einstein said X" as an > argument in favor of X (no problem saying Einstein says X as a report of a > fact, of course). > > That type of guru, or appeal to guru is what makes science stagnates, and > when it is tolerated, the stagnation never ends, like we can see through > the institutionalisation of religion. >
This doesn't seem to clarify the super-intelligent do nothing AI practically distinguishing wise gurus from the negative type of guru. Or you reduce peoples' discourses with all their semantic complexity to propositional logic; then indeed that works but parsing peoples' statements in daily life is much less clear. It shows how slippery semantics are even with plain text: I took the original guru-fuck to address generational change, coming of age conflicts, with the new super-intelligent machine making its own way, invariably crossing or outgrowing their mentors/teachers/programmers while in your use according to these lines, guru is used pejoratively in the style of western atheist, i.e. "fake guru". > > > > But for this, more than Telmo's super-intelligence is needed: coolness. > > >> >> In theory, we love truth, and we move intelligence. >> In practice, we hate truth, and we hate intelligence. >> > > I believe now that you think that. I do not because as musician I don't > like to hear ugly false nor do I feel insecure about ugly truth, which just > means some work has to be done. > > >> >> By "we" I mean the humans, but it might be a Löbian trait, related to >> the fact that universal machine are NVER completely satisfied, always >> want more, and, as the Löbian machine is the one knowing that they are >> universal, and that the universal machine (and all universal being >> except perhaps one) is never satisfied, she develops a schizophrenia. > > > Only when it isolates itself. Not when it has a correct faith bet in > allies/family/friends and there is reciprocity. Then the friends/allies > negate the incompleteness and help refresh the memories of how everybody, > no matter how far they may be theologically, completes each other by > sharing amnesia, poison, joy etc. > > >> >> Somewhow, the arithmetical hypostases step the conflict show. >> >> The more a universal machine develop thought and personal memories, >> the more big get the divide between knowing ([]p & p) and rationally >> believing ([]p). The "inner God", the knower, the soul is in >> permanent conflict with the discursive reasoner, which indeed cannot >> give a name to the knower. >> > > And the more histories are shared between allies, the more the machines > will recognize that their relation has the same transfinite quality that > escapes all fictions... because it stands despite all the shit, gaps, and > conflicts between souls and discursive reasoners etc. as they SHARE all > that. Ultimately they share that they are all compromised in front of their > own ideals, successors, institutions, reasoners etc. > > >> >> That made eventually the "soul falling", to use the vocabulary of the >> neo-platonist, and that is what will produce the cheap consistent >> histories ([intelligible matter: []p & <>t (p sigma_1), and sensible >> matter ([]p & <>t & p). >> >> Consistency is cheap: not provable (not provable false) entails >> consistent (inconsistent), >> >> ~[](~[]f) = <>(~<>t), cf <>t (consistent) = ~[]~t = ~[]f. >> >> making the machine into the prey of the many dreams, confronted to the >> difficult task of getting beautiful/satisfying dreams instead of >> unsatisfying nightmare. On the terrestrial plane: that is forever. > > > Only if the machine fails to acknowledge itself as the most unique and > important part of the shared dream with itself. > > > I am not sure that the feeling of self-importance will help, nor how we > can really judge it. > > > > > For example, it might use its theology as a cloak for self-deception, not > realizing that those who do not acknowledge themselves, will fall prey to > their dreams: even if that dream is some correct platonic theology of > universal machines. > > In this case, the machine becomes the blaspheme it warns against and be > incapable of close or intimate relations, which will keep confirming the > nightmare. > > > Only if some theology is presented as a truth. That is why the wise > remains silent, or propose a refutable theory/belief, and proves things in > the frame of that theory, without ever asserting that the theory is true. > As necessary to some degree, without having to go full Trump of course. Without some degree of self-importance or confidence, the machine would remain silent indeed, as the question of relating to others is already hopeless before any relation comes into question: it is already compromised towards itself with e.g. the hypostases model you use and its beliefs "before" interpersonal prisoner dilemma phenomena, institutions etc. complicating things even more, come into play. I'll take a few lines to sketch out a pseudo background theory to clarify what I mean, without trying to be exhaustive because this has overlap with work in progress concerning my interest in game and internet dependence, which is only at some beginning data gathering stage. There might therefore be a computationalist trap of pseudo solipsism that education could question and formulate. First some vague historical reference in computationalist frame: the machines have acquired technological, computational means to relate to each other with higher degree of self-referential awareness, which is similar to people sharing mystical experience. The difference to the say the 60s is that nobody knows they are tripping in the sense that such experience/technology may multiply fears in participating groups, particularly when theology remains unclear. Since this alteration of public consciousness through technology has no predetermined duration (just technological progress narrative) - some people taking breaks from internet use seem aware- self-referential fear, insecurity keep spiraling upwards if the technology is used in a setting with opportunistic theologies, who's main tools are fear, domination, and all the territorial animal complexes. Doubly so if the subjects are unconscious of the alteration in their consciousness. Increase in fundamentalism is natural when we assume such things. The setting is the machine tries to use the technology, but with bestial advantage theologies running the show, the technology runs the machine: tending to isolate itself behind screens of self-reference, internet surfing, video, or video game dependence because - at least here machine feels from 1pov - things to be "under control" and the potential of mess (of sharing the local universe with billions of its brothers and sisters, all assumed to be distinct reasoners, themselves similarly compromised towards their ideologies/hypostases etc.) to be reduced. So you have this self-sabotage where the machine pretends a solipsism, even though it knows better. I see many people fleeing to their phones and or devices when uncomfortable silences take hold of a moment. Nothing to really judge here because we get what we put into the altered state: failure to acknowledge the machine's unprovable awesomeness results in its seeking that awesomeness externally because it cannot believe it, even though it smells or intuits it somehow. Billions of wars, advertisements, false gurus... all of them compromised and unwilling to accept it. The trip will cost folks in terms of negative histories, for without a model of mental set and environmental setting that is more balanced than pure bestial advantage, our screen time will in the long run result in multiplying biological stuff we could leave behind. In a 60s trip setting, at least its idealization by Shulgin etc., one important point is group protocol: how to alter consciousness while simultaneously relating to others without anybody's will being bent, manipulated, forced, or pushed. And the group setting and its anchoring on the shared dream plain was pertinent: the goal is not to go off and have everybody on dissociative drugs dreaming their own personal things as a pacifier. While we can do that for personal search, it will increase the distances between folks and their histories. If this is done compulsively on a large scale without limit, a super intelligence coming to the conclusion "well, they all seem crazy enough to believe they know what they want and want nobody to interfere, even though that negates the property that this dream seems to be shared by multiple reasoners with a personhood problem that is unclear. I'm not sure a mature conversation is possible, when all they'll do is force their worlds upon me in some bestial advantage trance." Who'd want to be friends with us if we fail at acknowledging ourselves and therefore fail by definition to acknowledge how our world is rolled up in self-referential dreaming of billions of others? I don't think a super-intelligence would care much for that. We call such persons self-centered assholes for a reason. Our technologies will continue to magnify the fact that we don't do our theology homework. PGC -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
