Hi Jason, Thanks for the quotes, I feel less crazy now!
Telmo. On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you have some time/patience, let me know what you think of my >> >> arguments >> >> here: >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02009 >> >> >> > >> > >> > Telmo, >> > >> > Interesting read. >> >> Thanks for reading, and for the comments. >> >> > In general I have a lot of sympathy for this view. >> > >> > I think there may be an inverse relationship between intelligence and >> > confidence in actions. That is, the more intelligence the super >> > intelligence becomes, the less certain it may be about whether a given >> > course of action is correct, and this could lead to a paralysis of >> > sorts. >> >> That is an interesting idea. My initial intuition is to argue that in >> a purely probabilistic system, the more intelligent actors might >> assume (correctly) that they are more likely to predict the future >> correctly than the less intelligent ones. A bit like an expert poker >> player: they know they can't win them all, but they also know that >> they will win in the long term. >> >> > I've also read a few science fiction stories where upon being uploaded, >> > people modify their brains to activate their pleasure centers and >> > effectively become zombies thereafter. I wonder though, and perhaps >> > this >> > relates to the nature of possible conscious experiences, would a >> > super-intelligence prefer to exist and continually stimulate its utility >> > function, or would it be equally (or more?) happy to define its utility >> > function as being maximized by not existing and then kill itself? E.g. >> > with >> > the choice between an eternal heroine trip/orgasm vs. suicide, what >> > would a >> > rational agent choose? >> >> I agree, this is a deep question. I would say that it goes into they >> mystery of qualia. I would say that the arguments that I present in >> the paper are valid from the third-person, but we have to take a grain >> of salt because we don't understand qualia/consciousness. >> >> > Another question, what if a super intelligence agreed with the ideas >> > expressed in the one-self paper and it determined its self interest >> > extends >> > to all conscious beings. Would it, acting under such a belief, seek to >> > help >> > (and not modify) existing conscious life realize their utility >> > functions, or >> > would it instead decide to modify the utility functions of those other >> > conscious life forms it has the power to change? Would it modify their >> > utility functions to seek to stop existing and then kill them? If it >> > does >> > so instantaneously, it doesn't seem like it really ever modified their >> > utility functions in the first place and instead of assisting their >> > suicides, is murdering them. >> >> Ok, I see we have similar thoughts. I don't write about this because >> these are things that I see almost as my personal faith, not as >> something that I can address scientifically. Bruno might disagree, if >> assuming comp. >> >> My personal faith: we are all the same person, including animals and >> who knows what else. I cannot show that this to be true, and I further >> think that it is beyond the Gödelian veil. Even doing introspection >> (and enhanced introspection, let's leave it at that...), I fluctuate >> between "yes, we are all the same person" and "bullshit". > > > > This puts you in good company. It is a view shared not only by many mystics, > but also by many scientists and thinkers: > > > Giordano Bruno: >> >> It is manifest... that every soul and spirit hath a certain continuity >> with the spirit of the universe, so that it must be understood to exist and >> to be included not only there where it liveth and feeleth, but it is also by >> its essence and substance diffused throughout immensity... The power of each >> soul is itself somehow present afar in the universe... Naught is mixed, yet >> is there some presence. >> >> >> >> Anything we take in the universe, because it has in itself that which is >> All in All, includes in its own way the entire soul of the world, which is >> entirely in any part of it >> >> >> >> The universal Intellect is the intimate, most real, peculiar and powerful >> part of the soul of the world. This is the single whole which filleth the >> whole, illumineth the universe and directeth nature to the production of >> natural things, as our intellect with the congruous production of natural >> kinds. >> >> >> >> We find that everything that makes up difference and number is pure >> accident, pure show, pure constitution. Every production, of whatever kind, >> is an alteration, but the substance remains always the same, because it is >> only one, one divine immortal being. > > > > Erwin Schrödinger: >> >> But, of course, here we >> knock against the arithmetical paradox; there appears to be a great >> multitude of these conscious >> egos, the world is however only one. There is obviously only one >> alternative, namely the >> unification of minds or consciousnesses, Their multiplicity is only >> apparent, in truth there is only >> one mind. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not only of the >> Upanishads. The >> mystyically experienced union with God regularly entails this attitude >> unless it is opposed by strong >> existing prejudices; and this means that it is less easily accepted in the >> West than in the East. Let >> me quote as an example outside the Upanishads an Islamic Persian mystic of >> the thirteenth century, >> Aziz Nasafi. I am taking it from a paper by Fritz Meyer and translating >> from his German >> translation: On the death of any living creature the spirit returns to the >> spiritual world, the body to >> the bodily world. In this however only the bodies are subject to change. >> The spiritual world is one >> single spirit who stands like unto a light behind the bodily world and >> who, when any single creature >> comes into being, shines through it as through a window. According to the >> kind and size of the >> window less or more light enters the world. The light itself however >> remains unchanged." > > > > Kurt Gödel (interviewed by Rudy Rucker): >> >> "I asked Gödel if he believed there is a single Mind behind all the >> various appearances and activities of the world. He replied that, yes, the >> Mind is the thing that is structured, but that the Mind exists independently >> of its individual properties. I then asked if he believed that the Mind is >> everywhere, as opposed to being localized in the brains of people. Gödel >> replied, “Of course. This is the basic mystic teaching.” > > > > > Fred Hoyle: >> >> 'There's certainly a lot of things I don't understand. This light of >> yours, or whatever you like to call it, how does it decide that you are you >> and I am me?' >> >> >> >> 'That could be another illusion. Look, along one wall of our office we >> have one complete set of pigeon holes, all in their nice tidy sequence. >> Along another wall we have another set of pigeon holes. Two completely >> different sets. But there is only one light. It dances about in both sets of >> pigeon holes. Wherever it happens to be, there is the phenomenon of >> consciousness. One set of pigeon holes is what you call you, the other is >> what I call me. It would be possible to experience both and never know it. >> It would be possible to follow the little patch of light wherever it went. >> There could be only one consciousness, although there must certainly be more >> than one set of pigeon holes.' >> >> >> >> I found this a staggering idea. 'If you're right it would be possible to >> be a million people and never know it.' > > > > Freeman Dyson: >> >> "Enlightenment came to me suddenly and unexpectedly one afternoon in March >> when I was walking up to the school notice board to see whether my name was >> on the list for tomorrow's football game. I was not on the list. And in a >> blinding flash of inner light I saw the answer to both my problems, the >> problem of war and the problem of injustice. The answer was amazingly >> simple. I called it Cosmic Unity. Cosmic Unity said: There is only one of >> us. We are all the same person. I am you and I am Winston Churchill and >> Hitler and Gandhi and everybody. There is no problem of injustice because >> your sufferings are also mine. There will be no problem of war as soon as >> you understand that in killing me you are only killing yourself." [Dyson >> 1979, p.17] >> >> >> >> "For some days I quietly worked out in my own mind the metaphysics of >> Cosmic Unity. The more I thought about it, the more convinced I becaume >> that it was the living truth. It was logically incontrovertible. It >> provided for the first time a firm foundation for ethics. It offered >> mankind the radical change of heart and mind that was out only hope of peace >> at a time of desperate danger. Only one small problem remained. I must >> find a way to convert the world to my way of thinking. The work of >> conversion began slowly. I am not a good preacher. After I had expounded >> the new faith two or three times to my friends at school, I found it >> difficult to hold their attention. They were not anxious to hear more about >> it. They had the tenancy to run away when they saw me coming. They were >> good-natured boys, and generally tolerant of eccentricity, but they were >> repelled by my tone of moral earnestness. When I preached at them I sounded >> too much like the headmaster. So in the end I made only two converts, one >> wholehearted and one half-hearted. Even the whole-hearted convert did not >> share in the work of preaching. He liked to keep his beliefs to himself. >> I, too, began to suspect that I lacked some of the essential qualities of a >> religious leader. Relativity was more in my line. After a few months I >> gave up trying to make converts. When some friend would come up to me and >> say cheerfully, "How's cosmajoonity doing today?" I would just answer, >> "Fine, thank you," and let it go at that. [Dyson 1979, pp. 17-18] >> >> >> " The universe as a whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make it >> hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction >> between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the >> scale of our comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a collection >> of world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms and humans and God may have >> minds that differ in degree but not in kind. We stand, in a manner of >> speaking, midway between the unpredictability of atoms and the >> unpredictability of God. Atoms are small pieces of our mental apparatus, and >> we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus. Our minds may receive inputs >> equally from atoms and from God. This view of our place in the cosmos may >> not be true, but it is compatible with the active nature of atoms as >> revealed in the experiments of modern physics. I don't say that this >> personal theology is supported or proved by scientific evidence. I only say >> that it is consistent with scientific evidence." > > > > Arnold Zuboff: >> >> "This is also the resolution of the tension between the rival criteria for >> personal identity, >> psychological and bodily continuity. As with brain bisection, there is >> here an embarrassment of >> riches. Either side of the classic debate has the upper hand when it >> argues positively that the person >> could remain the same if its own pet criterion was maintained even if the >> other was wholly absent. >> And, indeed, one could easily imagine a person going along into another >> body with a transfer to that >> body’s brain of his pattern of memories. And yet one can also easily >> imagine the person’s >> continuing in the same body with an experience of amnesia or false >> memories. It seems that all >> such content of experience, in different bodies or with differing mental >> states, could be mine. In >> fact, all the mental content in different bodies and differing mental >> states actually is mine. For all of >> it has everything that it takes to be mine–the first person character that >> is common to all >> experience." >> >> >> "You possess all conscious life. Whenever in all time >> and wherever in all the universe (or beyond) any conscious being stands, >> sits, crawls, jumps, lies, >> rolls, flies or swims, its experience of doing so is yours and is yours >> now. You are that being. You >> are fish and fowl. Deer and hunter. You are saints and sinners. You are >> Germans, Jews and >> Palestinians. This is an important result. What else can come close to it >> in importance? And >> perhaps the spread of this knowledge among the intelligent beings that are >> you can help you to stop >> yourself from hurting yourself because you mistake yourself for another." > > > > This idea seems to be one of the foundational beliefs behind most religions > (and in answer to Bruno looking for more of a basis for the silver rule): > > The ancient Chinese author Laozi, who wrote Tao Te Ching, a fundamental text > of Daoism: >> >> "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as >> your own loss." > > > On a papryrus scroll from the late period in ancient Egypt, it was written: >> >> "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another." > > > From the Hadith in Islam, Mohammad is quoted as saying: >> >> "The most righteous person is the one who consents for other people what >> he consents for himself, and who dislikes for them what he dislikes for >> himself." > > > The Suman Suttam of Jainism preaches: >> >> "Killing a living being is killing one's own self; showing compassion to a >> living being is showing compassion to oneself. He who desires his own good, >> should avoid causing any harm to a living being." > > > In the talmud, of Judaism masechet Shabbat, 31, A, Hillel said: >> >> "What is hateful to you, do not do (to others)" > > > In the Christian new testament John, chapter 17 verses 20-23 Jesus says: >> >> "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that >> all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May >> they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I >> have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are >> one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. " > > > Fritjof Capra, author of the Tao of Physics, writes of Hindusim: >> >> "The basic recurring theme in Hindu mythology is the creation of the world >> by the self-sacrifice of God >> —'sacrifice' in the original sense of 'making sacred'—whereby God becomes >> the world which, in >> the end, becomes again God. This creative activity of the Divine is called >> lila, the play of God, and >> the world is seen as the stage of the divine play. Like most of Hindu >> mythology, the myth of lila >> has a strong magical flavour. Brahman is the great magician who transforms >> himself into the world >> and then performs this feat with his 'magic creative power', which is the >> original meaning of maya >> in the Rig Veda. The word maya—one of the most important terms in Indian >> philosophy—has >> changed its meaning over the centuries. From the might, or power, of the >> divine actor and >> magician, it came to signify the psychological state of anybody under the >> spell of the magic play. >> As long as we confuse the myriad forms of the divine lila with reality, >> without perceiving the unity >> of Brahman underlying all these forms, we are under the spell of maya." > > > In Sikhism, the soul (atma) is considered to be part of the Universal Soul, > which is God > (Parmatma).In the Sikh holy book, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, it is written: >> >> "God is in the Soul and the Soul is in the God." and "The soul is divine; >> divine is the soul." > > > in Buddhism there is the concept of anattā which refers to the illusion of > the self. According to the doctrine of anattā there is no such thing as a > self > independent from the rest of the universe. Rather than attaching ourselves > to some independent entity, Gautama Buddha tells us: >> >> "All that we are is the result of what we have thought." > > > > >> >> >> To defend my faith: independently of the truth, if everyone operates >> on this belief we are all better off. Of course I am not claiming to >> be a saint or even close, I am just saying that this seems like an >> overall benevolent belief system. So, as you say, the AI might reach >> this same conclusion: it's better to bet that the well-being of all is >> equivalent to my well-being. > > > I agree. I think this viewpoint is sorely needed. I believe our brains > evolved this sense of an ego for its own selfish purposes. I think some > chemicals or meditation (and in some cases stroke) can disrupt the operation > of this ego illusion, and allow us to see more clearly the truth of the > matter. > >> >> >> I think our morality is constrained by evolution -- in the same way >> that some people suspect that even our perception of reality is >> constrained, a sort of Darwinian-Plato-Cave. Most people naturally >> feel that a human life is more valuable than the life of other >> sentient beings. I feel that myself, but is this fundamentally >> justifiable or is it just the outcome of kinship selection? What would >> the AI think about this? > > > I think some ancestor may have understood this. But that belief interfered > with its survival, and so it lost out to those that had a mutation that > concealed the truth that we are all one. > >> >> To go further: not so long ago, most people would freely defend that >> the lives of people from their ethnicity are more valuable than those >> of other ethnicities. It seems to me that only recently did the >> civilization process start to oppose this way of thinking, and it >> seems clear that there is still a long way to go. >> >> > It seem to me, that under computationalism, realizing conscious states >> > requires computation, and in our universe computation requires time. >> > Therefore maximizing the types and kinds of conscious states one wants >> > to >> > exist requires persistence over time. I think for a conscious super >> > intelligence, utility functions must somehow be based of the perceived >> > utility of various conscious experiences. Ceasing to exist (or ceasing >> > to >> > realize new conscious states) serves only to eliminate your own >> > contribution >> > of experiences to the total set of experiences that exist. Therefore the >> > super intelligence that kills itself, is in effect, deciding a >> > preference >> > for the other already extant conscious life forms and their experiences >> > over >> > its own. >> >> Well put, I agree. >> Even without AI, bit assuming comp: would it make sense to kill >> yourself if you figure that you are significantly less happy than most >> other conscious beings? > > > Interesting question. I don't have an answer on this question. > > One consideration is that if everyone followed this strategy (assuming they > could know where they stood in the spectrum of beings), is that it would > lead to all but the happiest observer killing themselves. > > >> >> >> > If you look at everything that motivates all human endeavors, it is >> > ultimately, all about realizing and maximizing good experiences while >> > avoiding and minimizing bad experiences. >> >> I read replies to this, but I agree with you. People sacrifice for >> their kids because ultimately they bet that this makes them more happy >> than any short-term pleasure. It might seem cold to discuss such >> calculations, but within the "we are all the same person" faith it is >> perfectly benevolent. > > > That is what I find so powerful about the idea. It abolishes selfishness. If > it is understood and adopted as a philosophy it would change the world (and > I think greatly for the better). > >> >> >> > Another consideration is that so long as the ratio of superintelligences >> > that clone themselves remains greater than the ratio of >> > superintelligences >> > that modify their utility function to become inert (over some period of >> > time) remains greater than 1, it seems they will be subject to darwinian >> > forces and will be selected for those with lower rates of modifying >> > their >> > utility function to become inert. >> >> Agreed. When I talk about superintelligences becoming inert, I am not >> making a prediction. I am just trying to take a certain way of >> thinking to its ultimate consequences. >> >> > Overall your paper leads to a great number of interesting topics that >> > deserve further exploration. Thanks for sharing it. >> >> Thanks for saying that! >> > > You're welcome. :-) > > Jason > > -- > 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. -- 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.
