Hi Telmo,
On 04 Dec 2017, at 11:39, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I have a lot of sympathy for the quote above, as you can guess,
which are
all rather close to the "theology of number", but my Lôbian Fear
get trigged
by the terming "perfectly benevolent".
The Lôbian machine can understand intellectually that "she", the
ultimate
owner of the consciousness is not in its Gödel Number/body, but is
shared by
*all* Relative Numbers. Even more awkward is the fact that the Löbian
machine can experienced it, in the 1p way, although not in a
communicable or
justifiable way. The relative number can linked with their absolute
origin
remaining a conscious person.
I know...
It is all good, but saying this, is NOT benevolent. Of course, it
is an
infinite relief for the prey when in the mouse of the predators,
but in the
average, if it is said and understood, even more if experienced, it
does not
help the prey to avoid the predators, and it does not help the
predators to
hunt and kill the prey.
A brain is mainly a machine to hide the truth, at the frontier
between the
computable and the non computable (in arithmetic, but any applicative
algebra would do).
Would you say that hiding the truth is what permits the diversity of
experiences?
Yes, although it could be trivial somehow. An analogy is the white
page, which needs to be obscured in some places to get the drawing
perceptible.
Then "illumination" is like, after having seen tuns of drawings,
finding a white page, and finding it rather so much beautiful that you
ask yourself why people keep hiding parts of it ....
The problem in the understanding that we are the same person is that
"misunderstood" it lead to the theological trap of threatening life
(and
even afterlife actually).
What do you mean by threatening afterlife?
Think of the Eastern notion of Karma. If we do not well our job here
and now, we augment the probability that You/Other will wake up with
more taxes and less bread, if not less water, less fire, less soils,
less air ... and, in case you did succeed to cut you out of the life-
death cycle, you might still have remorse and guilt, and fall back
rather quickly.
Life and Intelligence are Delicate and Fragile. Ultimate resting is
not that easy to accomplish. Souls fall, easily.
The Mechanist machine (the machine betting on mechanism (so p is
sigma_1))
knows that p <-> []p.
She can justify all the p -> []p, but she can't justify all the []p
-> p.
The "illumination result" is kept in the G* minus G corona. G*
minus G is
the reservoir of the blasphem; that is the truth which go without
sating,
and lead to the contrary when said. Hell is really paved with the
good
intentions.
Also, nationalism, and nature can acts in that way in a restricted
sense,
like when all the people of some group recognize themselves in a
common self
as opposed to another group. Not all people can get to the source,
and
sometimes failed attempts leads to fake religion and hate. It can
transform
a child into bomb. It leads to paradoxical aspect of the unlimited
freedom
of the Mindscape.
What about this enhanced Golden Rule:
Do unto others *as they want done to themselves*, the other is you but
locally constrained by different memories, this with possibly
different preferences.
But to make matters more complicated:
Masochist: please hurt me!
Sadist: I will not!
Of course. It is a sadist. Don't ask a sadist to follow the "enhanced
Golden rule", given they really want to apply the Acid Rule: "Do unto
others the worst they can possibly dislike" (in this case: not to
torture the masochist (which of course is still a (meta)torture for
him).
With that positive rule, if you are pretty, you might need to f.ck all
the neighborhood. So I would prefer its negative presentation, what
Brent called the Silver Rule "don't do to the other what they ask you
not to". Put shortly: "acknowledge when people say "no thanks"".
Of course, this applies between adults. The kids have to learn the
meaning of "no", and this needs to weaken the rule quite a bit.
So it is benevolent from the Heaven points of view, but can be
self-destructive on the terrestrial (effective, locally computable)
view.
The atheists are right: religion can be dangerous, but then they
want to
throw it out completely (which makes no sense). It needs to be
fixed, and
well, it is not easy, because by separating religion from science,
we help
all the charlatans and make it impossible the field to progress.
Nice post Jason. Very interesting paper Telmo, we have already
discussed
some point, and if I remember well, we did already talk on the
"theological
trap" problem at that occasion. I hope what I say here make sense.
There are
also relation with the ethical use of psychotropes,
If you can expand on this when you have time, please do.
We know why drugs are illegal: to prevent a free market and sell us
any craps. But our acceptance of it is based on religious prejudice,
and worst, on pseudo-religious principle, like we have to suffer
hereby, and anything pleasing on earth is not well seen by the "the
big boss". This is enhanced by an intellectual fear, which is that if
we ever find a simple way toward happiness, we could lose all
motivations for doing anything. They fear that this would lead to the
ultimate sloth philosophy: if hungry, but too lazy to hunt, you would
take that pill which is far more pleasurable than hunting and eating.
But meditation, fasting, ... all technic which brings you on the verge
of death (and supposedly calm you down and make you accept to die,
like before going to the front during some war) can make you loss some
appetite into life. In practice, this is never verified, except when
people have not the choice, but it is the same kind of fear which is
at the base of the religious "authorities" to be against personal
research in the field, especially with the use of the magical plants.
Then, behind that, you have the genuine secret hold by the plant,
which corresponds (probably) to the genuine secret hold by the machine
(or the amoeba), and which is axiomatized by the "proper theology" of
the machine; the difference modal logic G* and G (and their
intensional variants).
Here, at least we can say clearly what we cannot say, by using the
Mechanist hypothesis explicitly (and using still some informal believe
in our sanity, implicitly). But we get very near inconsistency, and
some caution has to be kept in mind.
Ask perhaps more, as I am not sure I expanded enough. (The subject is
of course infinite!)
Best,
Bruno
Telmo.
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 everything-
[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 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.
