RE: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

2008-11-24 Thread Ed Porter 
Ben, 

Thanks for the clarification.

Unless Dennett is using words in an unusual manner, it would seem that some
of his statements below contradict what, I believe, are most peoples' own,
clear sense of having a subjective experience.  Even if its is just a
construct of our minds, if we subjectively experience it, it is real in a
certain, very important to us, sense.

Ed Porter

-Original Message-
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 4:59 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

Dennett argues that qualia do not exist ... he defines consciousness
as a purely external property, ignoring the notion of "subjective
experience" altogether

Tongue-halfway-in-cheek, he claimed that "we are all zombies"  ;-)

But, parsing out the particularities of his wording and its explicit
and implied semantics would require more work than I'm willing to put
into this right now...

ben

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben
>
>
>
> Is Dennett saying (a) there is no real sense of awareness associated with
> human consciousness, or only (b) that --- in a manner similar to the way
in
> which life is created out of the complexity of biochemistry --- the human
> sense of consciousness is a construct created out of the complexity of the
> computations that take place in the human brain.
>
>
>
> The two are different.  Position (a) strikes me as stupid statement
(unless
> Dennett is a p-zombie, which is theoretically possible).  But (b) is quite
> reasonable, although not necessarily provable.
>
>
>
> I believe all of reality is "aware," in the sense that all its parts
> individually, in effect, sense and reacts to their surroundings, often
> creating complex feedback loops and vibes.  Presumably it would be clear,
> even according to position (b) above, that consciousness would be crafted
> out of such lower level consciousness.
>
>
>
> But it is not clear that the basic levels of awareness that the laws of
> physic tell us reality has within its own computing is sufficiently
similar
> to the sense of awareness we humans call consciousness, to consider that
our
> consciousness comes directly from that lower level awareness --- other
than
> by the fact that the existence and computing of physical reality provides
> the substrate for layers of complexity and self-organization, that allow
> modeling and computations based on of the regularities of sensed reality
---
> modeling and computations that operate at such a much higher level of
> organization than the basic level of awareness inherent in all of reality
> --- that human consciousness would appear to be something very different
> indeed.
>
>
>
> I have seen no aspect of brain science or other scientific information
that
> indicates there is any direct connect between the level of awareness
> experienced by basic physical particles, atoms, and molecules, and
> subjective sense of awareness created in the human mind, other than that
> basic physical reality provides the foundations of being and computation
> upon which the much higher levels of organization that provide human
> awareness are built.
>
>
>
> If you have communicable evidence to the contrary, please enlighten me.
>
>
>
> Ed Porter
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 2:57 PM
> To: agi@v2.listbox.com
> Subject: Re: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Since I assume Ben, as well as a lot of the rest of us, want the AGI
>
>> movement to receive respectability in the academic and particularly in
the
>
>> funding community, it is probably best that other than brain-science- or
>
>> AGI-focused discussions of the effects of drugs should not become too
>> common
>
>> on the AGI list itself.  Ben, of course, is the ultimate decider of that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm never one to be overly concerned about "image" ;-) .. the question for
> me, regarding this topic on this list, is what the discussion contributes
>
> to the pursuit[Ed Porter]  of building AGI?
>
>
>
> If use of mind-expanding drugs, or study of their neurological effects,
> reveals
>
> something of use in creating AGI, then discussion of the topic here is
> certainly
>
> welcome!
>
>
>
> For me, my experimentation with these substances did cement my previous
>
> inclination toward a panpsychist view of consciousness ... which led me to
> f

Re: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

2008-11-24 Thread Ben Goertzel 
Dennett argues that qualia do not exist ... he defines consciousness
as a purely external property, ignoring the notion of "subjective
experience" altogether

Tongue-halfway-in-cheek, he claimed that "we are all zombies"  ;-)

But, parsing out the particularities of his wording and its explicit
and implied semantics would require more work than I'm willing to put
into this right now...

ben

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ben
>
>
>
> Is Dennett saying (a) there is no real sense of awareness associated with
> human consciousness, or only (b) that --- in a manner similar to the way in
> which life is created out of the complexity of biochemistry --- the human
> sense of consciousness is a construct created out of the complexity of the
> computations that take place in the human brain.
>
>
>
> The two are different.  Position (a) strikes me as stupid statement (unless
> Dennett is a p-zombie, which is theoretically possible).  But (b) is quite
> reasonable, although not necessarily provable.
>
>
>
> I believe all of reality is "aware," in the sense that all its parts
> individually, in effect, sense and reacts to their surroundings, often
> creating complex feedback loops and vibes.  Presumably it would be clear,
> even according to position (b) above, that consciousness would be crafted
> out of such lower level consciousness.
>
>
>
> But it is not clear that the basic levels of awareness that the laws of
> physic tell us reality has within its own computing is sufficiently similar
> to the sense of awareness we humans call consciousness, to consider that our
> consciousness comes directly from that lower level awareness --- other than
> by the fact that the existence and computing of physical reality provides
> the substrate for layers of complexity and self-organization, that allow
> modeling and computations based on of the regularities of sensed reality ---
> modeling and computations that operate at such a much higher level of
> organization than the basic level of awareness inherent in all of reality
> --- that human consciousness would appear to be something very different
> indeed.
>
>
>
> I have seen no aspect of brain science or other scientific information that
> indicates there is any direct connect between the level of awareness
> experienced by basic physical particles, atoms, and molecules, and
> subjective sense of awareness created in the human mind, other than that
> basic physical reality provides the foundations of being and computation
> upon which the much higher levels of organization that provide human
> awareness are built.
>
>
>
> If you have communicable evidence to the contrary, please enlighten me.
>
>
>
> Ed Porter
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 2:57 PM
> To: agi@v2.listbox.com
> Subject: Re: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Since I assume Ben, as well as a lot of the rest of us, want the AGI
>
>> movement to receive respectability in the academic and particularly in the
>
>> funding community, it is probably best that other than brain-science- or
>
>> AGI-focused discussions of the effects of drugs should not become too
>> common
>
>> on the AGI list itself.  Ben, of course, is the ultimate decider of that.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm never one to be overly concerned about "image" ;-) .. the question for
> me, regarding this topic on this list, is what the discussion contributes
>
> to the pursuit[Ed Porter]  of building AGI?
>
>
>
> If use of mind-expanding drugs, or study of their neurological effects,
> reveals
>
> something of use in creating AGI, then discussion of the topic here is
> certainly
>
> welcome!
>
>
>
> For me, my experimentation with these substances did cement my previous
>
> inclination toward a panpsychist view of consciousness ... which led me to
> feel
>
> even more strongly that "engineering raw awareness" is something AGI
> designers
>
> don't need to worry about.  Raw awareness is already there, in the universe
> ...
>
> and different entities focus/manifest it in different ways.
>
>
>
> However, others may come to the conclusion that "engineering raw awareness"
>
> is not something they need to worry about in AGI design from a totally
> different
>
> direction ... for instance, because they don't believe raw awareness exists
> at
>
> all in an

RE: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

2008-11-24 Thread Ed Porter 
Ben

 

Is Dennett saying (a) there is no real sense of awareness associated with
human consciousness, or only (b) that --- in a manner similar to the way in
which life is created out of the complexity of biochemistry --- the human
sense of consciousness is a construct created out of the complexity of the
computations that take place in the human brain.  

 

The two are different.  Position (a) strikes me as stupid statement (unless
Dennett is a p-zombie, which is theoretically possible).  But (b) is quite
reasonable, although not necessarily provable.

 

I believe all of reality is "aware," in the sense that all its parts
individually, in effect, sense and reacts to their surroundings, often
creating complex feedback loops and vibes.  Presumably it would be clear,
even according to position (b) above, that consciousness would be crafted
out of such lower level consciousness.

 

But it is not clear that the basic levels of awareness that the laws of
physic tell us reality has within its own computing is sufficiently similar
to the sense of awareness we humans call consciousness, to consider that our
consciousness comes directly from that lower level awareness --- other than
by the fact that the existence and computing of physical reality provides
the substrate for layers of complexity and self-organization, that allow
modeling and computations based on of the regularities of sensed reality ---
modeling and computations that operate at such a much higher level of
organization than the basic level of awareness inherent in all of reality
--- that human consciousness would appear to be something very different
indeed.

 

I have seen no aspect of brain science or other scientific information that
indicates there is any direct connect between the level of awareness
experienced by basic physical particles, atoms, and molecules, and
subjective sense of awareness created in the human mind, other than that
basic physical reality provides the foundations of being and computation
upon which the much higher levels of organization that provide human
awareness are built.

 

If you have communicable evidence to the contrary, please enlighten me.

 

Ed Porter

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 2:57 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

 

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Since I assume Ben, as well as a lot of the rest of us, want the AGI

> movement to receive respectability in the academic and particularly in the

> funding community, it is probably best that other than brain-science- or

> AGI-focused discussions of the effects of drugs should not become too
common

> on the AGI list itself.  Ben, of course, is the ultimate decider of that.

 

 

 

I'm never one to be overly concerned about "image" ;-) ... the question for
me, regarding this topic on this list, is what the discussion contributes

to the pursuit[Ed Porter]  of building AGI?

 

If use of mind-expanding drugs, or study of their neurological effects,
reveals

something of use in creating AGI, then discussion of the topic here is
certainly

welcome!

 

For me, my experimentation with these substances did cement my previous

inclination toward a panpsychist view of consciousness ... which led me to
feel

even more strongly that "engineering raw awareness" is something AGI
designers

don't need to worry about.  Raw awareness is already there, in the universe
..

and different entities focus/manifest it in different ways.

 

However, others may come to the conclusion that "engineering raw awareness"

is not something they need to worry about in AGI design from a totally
different

direction ... for instance, because they don't believe raw awareness exists
at

all in any  meaningful sense (this would seem to be Dennett's

perspective).  That's

OK too ... it seems to suggest he and I could find the same AGI

designs acceptable

for totally different reasons!

 

Ben G

 

 

---

agi

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now

RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/

Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;

Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com




---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

RE: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

2008-11-24 Thread Ed Porter 
That there is so much other discussion of drug experiences on the web is one
of the reason I think discussions of such experiences here should be limited
to discussions that attempt to add to the understanding of AGI or related
aspects of brain science.

-Original Message-
From: BillK [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 3:16 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Eric Burton  wrote:
> This is a really good avenue of discussion for me.


You'all probably should join  rec.drugs.psychedelic

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.drugs.psychedelic/topics>

People are still posting there, so the black helicopters haven't taken
them all away yet.
(Of course they might all be FBI agents. It's happened before)  :)

There are many similar interest groups for you to choose from.


BillK


---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

2008-11-24 Thread Douglas Solomon 
Ed Porter wrote:
> Since I assume Ben, as well as a lot of the rest of us, want the AGI
> movement to receive respectability in the academic and particularly in the 
> funding community, it is probably best that other than brain-science- or 
> AGI-focused discussions of the effects of drugs should not become too common 
> on the AGI list itself.  Ben, of course, is the ultimate decider of that.
>
> I remember the excitement I had over 3 to 4 decades ago when I experimented 
> with psychedelics (although at relatively low dosages), so I can sympathize 
> with the enthusiasms of current experimenters.  And I find some of the 
> written accounts of such experiments that I have read on the web to be very 
> thoughtful, at time reminiscent, and very interesting from a brain 
> science/AGI point of view.  But right now I am sufficiently busy with more 
> concrete realities that I am not in the market for such encounters.  
>
> I do think psychedelic experiences can shed valuable light on the extent to 
> which all perception is hallucination, just normally it is well turned and 
> controlled hallucination.  
>
> For example, the experiences some have reported, including off list in this 
> discussion, of the sense of 3+1 D spacetime being shattered, or being 
> perceived as very different, is not a surprise if one considers that your 
> normal perception of space and time is an extremely complex and carefully 
> controlled hallucination.  If you substantially remove that control, it is 
> not surprising that, for example, a cubist-like deconstruction of special 
> perception might occur.  After all, your mind has to stitch together its 
> normal visual continuousness of 3D spatial reality from stereographic 
> projections onto V1, which because of jerky saccades of the eye, are a rapid, 
> disjointed, succession of grossly fish-eyed projections.  So when 
> psychedelics interfere with the normal process of stitching together 
> projections from V1 and/or V2 and from remembered matching patterns of shapes 
> and objects --- each having their own set of dimensions --- it is not 
> surprising that a very different perception of space could arise, including a 
> perception of a dis-joint set of many more than than 3+1 dimensions.
>
> With regard to perceptions of direct communicating with a myriad of other 
> consciousnesses, such as elves, this is not surprising either, since the 
> concept of unity of consciousness is also a construct generated by mental 
> behavior and mental models, as is the construct of 3D space.  Your brain is 
> capable of generating many voices, many senses of awareness at once.  But it 
> normally works best, for generating behavior that helps humans survive, to 
> have a greater, more distinct divide between what is conscious and what is 
> kept in the subconscious, so that greater focus on the problems and behaviors 
> at hand can be achieved.
>
> I am not, in any way trying to belittle the importance, nor "realness" of 
> psychedelic experiences, but I am saying that my study of brain science and 
> my own experiences decades ago with psychedelics make me think that one 
> cannot always trust one's perceptions, particularly when one is on 
> psychedelics.  
>
> All perception can be considered hallucinations, that is, constructs of the 
> brain --- but some hallucinations are more valuable for certain tasks than 
> others.
>
> I think psychedelics, if properly used, can be of sufficient worth, in
> helping humans better understand our own minds and spirits and their
> relationship to reality --- that --- if our society were more rational ---
> it probably should have some limited ritualized used of psychedelics, as have 
> many primitive societies.  But it is not clear to me yet how rational our 
> society is capable of being, particularly if drug use is too widely spread.  
> Our society is changing so rapidly that much of traditional folk wisdom is 
> out of date, and much of what has replaced it has be generated by 
> commercially driven culture, that is, by its very nature exploitative.
>
> I think such drugs can have great danger of removing people from important 
> aspects of reality.  As humanity starts spiraling ever faster into the 
> wormhole of the singularity, and as the world becomes more and more crowded, 
> polluted, and competitive, and the have-nots increasingly have more power, 
> and as the media can provide increasingly seductive non-realities, and as 
> machine superintelligences increasingly decrease the relative value of human
> work and human thought, I fear that truly mind-altering drugs, if use too 
> widely, could increase, rather than decrease, the chance that humanity will 
> fare well --- as civilization, as we know it, is increasingly and more 
> rapidly distorted by the momentus changes that face us.
>
> But I am 60 years old, so maybe my viewpoint is out of date.
>
> Ed Porter
>   
When I read this (silently [per this mailing list, as is my almost ever
p

Re: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

2008-11-24 Thread BillK 
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Eric Burton  wrote:
> This is a really good avenue of discussion for me.


You'all probably should join  rec.drugs.psychedelic



People are still posting there, so the black helicopters haven't taken
them all away yet.
(Of course they might all be FBI agents. It's happened before)  :)

There are many similar interest groups for you to choose from.


BillK


---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

RE: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

2008-11-24 Thread Ed Porter 
A corrections (in all caps) to the second to the last sentence of my below
post:

"I fear that truly mind-altering drugs, if use too widely, could DECREASE,
rather than INCREASE, the chance that humanity will fare well --- as
civilization, as we know it, is increasingly and more rapidly distorted by
the momentous changes that face us."

-Original Message-
From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 1:30 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

Since I assume Ben, as well as a lot of the rest of us, want
the AGI movement to receive respectability in the academic and particularly
in the funding community, it is probably best that other than brain-science-
or AGI-focused discussions of the effects of drugs should not become too
common on the AGI list itself.  Ben, of course, is the ultimate decider of
that.

I remember the excitement I had over 3 to 4 decades ago when
I experimented with psychedelics (although at relatively low dosages), so I
can sympathize with the enthusiasms of current experimenters.  And I find
some of the written accounts of such experiments that I have read on the web
to be very thoughtful, at time reminiscent, and very interesting from a
brain science/AGI point of view.  But right now I am sufficiently busy with
more concrete realities that I am not in the market for such encounters.  

I do think psychedelic experiences can shed valuable light
on the extent to which all perception is hallucination, just normally it is
well turned and controlled hallucination.  

For example, the experiences some have reported, including
off list in this discussion, of the sense of 3+1 D spacetime being
shattered, or being perceived as very different, is not a surprise if one
considers that your normal perception of space and time is an extremely
complex and carefully controlled hallucination.  If you substantially remove
that control, it is not surprising that, for example, a cubist-like
deconstruction of special perception might occur.  After all, your mind has
to stitch together its normal visual continuousness of 3D spatial reality
from stereographic projections onto V1, which because of jerky saccades of
the eye, are a rapid, disjointed, succession of grossly fish-eyed
projections.  So when psychedelics interfere with the normal process of
stitching together projections from V1 and/or V2 and from remembered
matching patterns of shapes and objects --- each having their own set of
dimensions --- it is not surprising that a very different perception of
space could arise, including a perception of a dis-joint set of many more
than than 3+1 dimensions.

With regard to perceptions of direct communicating with a
myriad of other consciousnesses, such as elves, this is not surprising
either, since the concept of unity of consciousness is also a construct
generated by mental behavior and mental models, as is the construct of 3D
space.  Your brain is capable of generating many voices, many senses of
awareness at once.  But it normally works best, for generating behavior that
helps humans survive, to have a greater, more distinct divide between what
is conscious and what is kept in the subconscious, so that greater focus on
the problems and behaviors at hand can be achieved.

I am not, in any way trying to belittle the importance, nor
"realness" of psychedelic experiences, but I am saying that my study of
brain science and my own experiences decades ago with psychedelics make me
think that one cannot always trust one's perceptions, particularly when one
is on psychedelics.  

All perception can be considered hallucinations, that is,
constructs of the brain --- but some hallucinations are more valuable for
certain tasks than others.

I think psychedelics, if properly used, can be of sufficient
worth, in helping humans better understand our own minds and spirits and
their relationship to reality --- that --- if our society were more rational
--- it probably should have some limited ritualized used of psychedelics, as
have many primitive societies.  But it is not clear to me yet how rational
our society is capable of being, particularly if drug use is too widely
spread.  Our society is changing so rapidly that much of traditional folk
wisdom is out of date, and much of what has replaced it has be generated by
commercially driven culture, that is, by its very nature exploitative.

I think such drugs can have great danger of removing people
from important aspects of reality.  As humanity starts spiraling ever faster
into the wormhole of the singularity, and as the world becomes more and more
crowded, polluted, and competitive, and the have-nots increasingly have more
power, and

RE: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

2008-11-24 Thread Ed Porter 
We could probably easily change various operating parameters of a conscious
AGI to give it altered states of consciousness.  For example, it might
occasionally be useful to de-tune normal operation of the machine, when
looking for novel approaches to problems. Or, for example, when trying to
have the machine create artistic works, it might be valuable to de-tune
certain aspects of its visual perception to inspire it to create new styles
of visual representation.

 

-Original Message-
From: Robin Gane-McCalla [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 2:23 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

 

I think psychedelics and the psychedelic experience are much more
complicated than most people realize and you only go into a small instance
of their complexity.  However I'm not sure how useful they will be in trying
to build intelligence on a computer.  Computers can't take psychedelics,
psychedelics are substrate dependent, so much so that they affect humans
differently.  Hypothetically we could design psychedelics for computers but
I don't think that would be a good idea.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Since I assume Ben, as well as a lot of the rest of us, want the AGI
movement to receive respectability in the academic and particularly in the
funding community, it is probably best that other than brain-science- or
AGI-focused discussions of the effects of drugs should not become too common
on the AGI list itself.  Ben, of course, is the ultimate decider of that.

I remember the excitement I had over 3 to 4 decades ago when I experimented
with psychedelics (although at relatively low dosages), so I can sympathize
with the enthusiasms of current experimenters.  And I find some of the
written accounts of such experiments that I have read on the web to be very
thoughtful, at time reminiscent, and very interesting from a brain
science/AGI point of view.  But right now I am sufficiently busy with more
concrete realities that I am not in the market for such encounters.

I do think psychedelic experiences can shed valuable light on the extent to
which all perception is hallucination, just normally it is well turned and
controlled hallucination.

For example, the experiences some have reported, including off list in this
discussion, of the sense of 3+1 D spacetime being shattered, or being
perceived as very different, is not a surprise if one considers that your
normal perception of space and time is an extremely complex and carefully
controlled hallucination.  If you substantially remove that control, it is
not surprising that, for example, a cubist-like deconstruction of special
perception might occur.  After all, your mind has to stitch together its
normal visual continuousness of 3D spatial reality from stereographic
projections onto V1, which because of jerky saccades of the eye, are a
rapid, disjointed, succession of grossly fish-eyed projections.  So when
psychedelics interfere with the normal process of stitching together
projections from V1 and/or V2 and from remembered matching patterns of
shapes and objects --- each having their own set of dimensions --- it is not
surprising that a very different perception of space could arise, including
a perception of a dis-joint set of many more than than 3+1 dimensions.

With regard to perceptions of direct communicating with a myriad of other
consciousnesses, such as elves, this is not surprising either, since the
concept of unity of consciousness is also a construct generated by mental
behavior and mental models, as is the construct of 3D space.  Your brain is
capable of generating many voices, many senses of awareness at once.  But it
normally works best, for generating behavior that helps humans survive, to
have a greater, more distinct divide between what is conscious and what is
kept in the subconscious, so that greater focus on the problems and
behaviors at hand can be achieved.

I am not, in any way trying to belittle the importance, nor "realness" of
psychedelic experiences, but I am saying that my study of brain science and
my own experiences decades ago with psychedelics make me think that one
cannot always trust one's perceptions, particularly when one is on
psychedelics.

All perception can be considered hallucinations, that is, constructs of the
brain --- but some hallucinations are more valuable for certain tasks than
others.

I think psychedelics, if properly used, can be of sufficient worth, in
helping humans better understand our own minds and spirits and their
relationship to reality --- that --- if our society were more rational ---
it probably should have some limited ritualized used of psychedelics, as
have many primitive societies.  But it is not clear to me yet how rational
our society is capable of being, particularly if drug use is too widely
spread.  Our society is changing so rapidly tha

Re: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

2008-11-24 Thread Ben Goertzel 
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since I assume Ben, as well as a lot of the rest of us, want the AGI
> movement to receive respectability in the academic and particularly in the
> funding community, it is probably best that other than brain-science- or
> AGI-focused discussions of the effects of drugs should not become too common
> on the AGI list itself.  Ben, of course, is the ultimate decider of that.



I'm never one to be overly concerned about "image" ;-) ... the question for me,
regarding this topic on this list, is what the discussion contributes
to the pursuit
of building AGI?

If use of mind-expanding drugs, or study of their neurological effects, reveals
something of use in creating AGI, then discussion of the topic here is certainly
welcome!

For me, my experimentation with these substances did cement my previous
inclination toward a panpsychist view of consciousness ... which led me to feel
even more strongly that "engineering raw awareness" is something AGI designers
don't need to worry about.  Raw awareness is already there, in the universe ...
and different entities focus/manifest it in different ways.

However, others may come to the conclusion that "engineering raw awareness"
is not something they need to worry about in AGI design from a totally different
direction ... for instance, because they don't believe raw awareness exists at
all in any  meaningful sense (this would seem to be Dennett's
perspective).  That's
OK too ... it seems to suggest he and I could find the same AGI
designs acceptable
for totally different reasons!

Ben G


---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Re: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

2008-11-24 Thread Eric Burton 
This is a really good avenue of discussion for me. Mind-changing
experiences are fully within my conversational comfort zone. I
actually think psychedelics are very nearly on topic for the AGI list
inasmuch as they are like a microscope or a telescope for the mind.
They produce new points of view and to some extent, a window into
otherwise invisible worlds. The difficulty in the use of psychedelics
as analytic apparatus would seem to be data collection ,_,

On 11/24/08, Robin Gane-McCalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think psychedelics and the psychedelic experience are much more
> complicated than most people realize and you only go into a small instance
> of their complexity.  However I'm not sure how useful they will be in trying
> to build intelligence on a computer.  Computers can't take psychedelics,
> psychedelics are substrate dependent, so much so that they affect humans
> differently.  Hypothetically we could design psychedelics for computers but
> I don't think that would be a good idea.
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Since I assume Ben, as well as a lot of the rest of us, want the AGI
>> movement to receive respectability in the academic and particularly in the
>> funding community, it is probably best that other than brain-science- or
>> AGI-focused discussions of the effects of drugs should not become too
>> common
>> on the AGI list itself.  Ben, of course, is the ultimate decider of that.
>>
>> I remember the excitement I had over 3 to 4 decades ago when I
>> experimented
>> with psychedelics (although at relatively low dosages), so I can
>> sympathize
>> with the enthusiasms of current experimenters.  And I find some of the
>> written accounts of such experiments that I have read on the web to be
>> very
>> thoughtful, at time reminiscent, and very interesting from a brain
>> science/AGI point of view.  But right now I am sufficiently busy with more
>> concrete realities that I am not in the market for such encounters.
>>
>> I do think psychedelic experiences can shed valuable light on the extent
>> to
>> which all perception is hallucination, just normally it is well turned and
>> controlled hallucination.
>>
>> For example, the experiences some have reported, including off list in
>> this
>> discussion, of the sense of 3+1 D spacetime being shattered, or being
>> perceived as very different, is not a surprise if one considers that your
>> normal perception of space and time is an extremely complex and carefully
>> controlled hallucination.  If you substantially remove that control, it is
>> not surprising that, for example, a cubist-like deconstruction of special
>> perception might occur.  After all, your mind has to stitch together its
>> normal visual continuousness of 3D spatial reality from stereographic
>> projections onto V1, which because of jerky saccades of the eye, are a
>> rapid, disjointed, succession of grossly fish-eyed projections.  So when
>> psychedelics interfere with the normal process of stitching together
>> projections from V1 and/or V2 and from remembered matching patterns of
>> shapes and objects --- each having their own set of dimensions --- it is
>> not
>> surprising that a very different perception of space could arise,
>> including
>> a perception of a dis-joint set of many more than than 3+1 dimensions.
>>
>> With regard to perceptions of direct communicating with a myriad of other
>> consciousnesses, such as elves, this is not surprising either, since the
>> concept of unity of consciousness is also a construct generated by mental
>> behavior and mental models, as is the construct of 3D space.  Your brain
>> is
>> capable of generating many voices, many senses of awareness at once.  But
>> it
>> normally works best, for generating behavior that helps humans survive, to
>> have a greater, more distinct divide between what is conscious and what is
>> kept in the subconscious, so that greater focus on the problems and
>> behaviors at hand can be achieved.
>>
>> I am not, in any way trying to belittle the importance, nor "realness" of
>> psychedelic experiences, but I am saying that my study of brain science
>> and
>> my own experiences decades ago with psychedelics make me think that one
>> cannot always trust one's perceptions, particularly when one is on
>> psychedelics.
>>
>> All perception can be considered hallucinations, that is, constructs of
>> the
>> brain --- but some hallucinations are more valuable for certain tasks than
>> others.
>>
>> I think psychedelics, if properly used, can be of sufficient worth, in
>> helping humans better understand our own minds and spirits and their
>> relationship to reality --- that --- if our society were more rational ---
>> it probably should have some limited ritualized used of psychedelics, as
>> have many primitive societies.  But it is not clear to me yet how rational
>> our society is capable of being, particularly if drug use is too widely
>> spread.  Our so

Re: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

2008-11-24 Thread Eric Burton 
> they are like a microscope or a telescope for the mind.

Meant to read as "for the study of the mind". What I am trying to get
at is the value of brain-change to brain design...

On 11/24/08, Eric Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a really good avenue of discussion for me. Mind-changing
> experiences are fully within my conversational comfort zone. I
> actually think psychedelics are very nearly on topic for the AGI list
> inasmuch as they are like a microscope or a telescope for the mind.
> They produce new points of view and to some extent, a window into
> otherwise invisible worlds. The difficulty in the use of psychedelics
> as analytic apparatus would seem to be data collection ,_,
>
> On 11/24/08, Robin Gane-McCalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think psychedelics and the psychedelic experience are much more
>> complicated than most people realize and you only go into a small instance
>> of their complexity.  However I'm not sure how useful they will be in
>> trying
>> to build intelligence on a computer.  Computers can't take psychedelics,
>> psychedelics are substrate dependent, so much so that they affect humans
>> differently.  Hypothetically we could design psychedelics for computers
>> but
>> I don't think that would be a good idea.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Since I assume Ben, as well as a lot of the rest of us, want the AGI
>>> movement to receive respectability in the academic and particularly in
>>> the
>>> funding community, it is probably best that other than brain-science- or
>>> AGI-focused discussions of the effects of drugs should not become too
>>> common
>>> on the AGI list itself.  Ben, of course, is the ultimate decider of that.
>>>
>>> I remember the excitement I had over 3 to 4 decades ago when I
>>> experimented
>>> with psychedelics (although at relatively low dosages), so I can
>>> sympathize
>>> with the enthusiasms of current experimenters.  And I find some of the
>>> written accounts of such experiments that I have read on the web to be
>>> very
>>> thoughtful, at time reminiscent, and very interesting from a brain
>>> science/AGI point of view.  But right now I am sufficiently busy with
>>> more
>>> concrete realities that I am not in the market for such encounters.
>>>
>>> I do think psychedelic experiences can shed valuable light on the extent
>>> to
>>> which all perception is hallucination, just normally it is well turned
>>> and
>>> controlled hallucination.
>>>
>>> For example, the experiences some have reported, including off list in
>>> this
>>> discussion, of the sense of 3+1 D spacetime being shattered, or being
>>> perceived as very different, is not a surprise if one considers that your
>>> normal perception of space and time is an extremely complex and carefully
>>> controlled hallucination.  If you substantially remove that control, it
>>> is
>>> not surprising that, for example, a cubist-like deconstruction of special
>>> perception might occur.  After all, your mind has to stitch together its
>>> normal visual continuousness of 3D spatial reality from stereographic
>>> projections onto V1, which because of jerky saccades of the eye, are a
>>> rapid, disjointed, succession of grossly fish-eyed projections.  So when
>>> psychedelics interfere with the normal process of stitching together
>>> projections from V1 and/or V2 and from remembered matching patterns of
>>> shapes and objects --- each having their own set of dimensions --- it is
>>> not
>>> surprising that a very different perception of space could arise,
>>> including
>>> a perception of a dis-joint set of many more than than 3+1 dimensions.
>>>
>>> With regard to perceptions of direct communicating with a myriad of other
>>> consciousnesses, such as elves, this is not surprising either, since the
>>> concept of unity of consciousness is also a construct generated by mental
>>> behavior and mental models, as is the construct of 3D space.  Your brain
>>> is
>>> capable of generating many voices, many senses of awareness at once.  But
>>> it
>>> normally works best, for generating behavior that helps humans survive,
>>> to
>>> have a greater, more distinct divide between what is conscious and what
>>> is
>>> kept in the subconscious, so that greater focus on the problems and
>>> behaviors at hand can be achieved.
>>>
>>> I am not, in any way trying to belittle the importance, nor "realness" of
>>> psychedelic experiences, but I am saying that my study of brain science
>>> and
>>> my own experiences decades ago with psychedelics make me think that one
>>> cannot always trust one's perceptions, particularly when one is on
>>> psychedelics.
>>>
>>> All perception can be considered hallucinations, that is, constructs of
>>> the
>>> brain --- but some hallucinations are more valuable for certain tasks
>>> than
>>> others.
>>>
>>> I think psychedelics, if properly used, can be of sufficient worth, in
>>> helping humans better understand

Re: [agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

2008-11-24 Thread Robin Gane-McCalla 
I think psychedelics and the psychedelic experience are much more
complicated than most people realize and you only go into a small instance
of their complexity.  However I'm not sure how useful they will be in trying
to build intelligence on a computer.  Computers can't take psychedelics,
psychedelics are substrate dependent, so much so that they affect humans
differently.  Hypothetically we could design psychedelics for computers but
I don't think that would be a good idea.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Since I assume Ben, as well as a lot of the rest of us, want the AGI
> movement to receive respectability in the academic and particularly in the
> funding community, it is probably best that other than brain-science- or
> AGI-focused discussions of the effects of drugs should not become too
> common
> on the AGI list itself.  Ben, of course, is the ultimate decider of that.
>
> I remember the excitement I had over 3 to 4 decades ago when I experimented
> with psychedelics (although at relatively low dosages), so I can sympathize
> with the enthusiasms of current experimenters.  And I find some of the
> written accounts of such experiments that I have read on the web to be very
> thoughtful, at time reminiscent, and very interesting from a brain
> science/AGI point of view.  But right now I am sufficiently busy with more
> concrete realities that I am not in the market for such encounters.
>
> I do think psychedelic experiences can shed valuable light on the extent to
> which all perception is hallucination, just normally it is well turned and
> controlled hallucination.
>
> For example, the experiences some have reported, including off list in this
> discussion, of the sense of 3+1 D spacetime being shattered, or being
> perceived as very different, is not a surprise if one considers that your
> normal perception of space and time is an extremely complex and carefully
> controlled hallucination.  If you substantially remove that control, it is
> not surprising that, for example, a cubist-like deconstruction of special
> perception might occur.  After all, your mind has to stitch together its
> normal visual continuousness of 3D spatial reality from stereographic
> projections onto V1, which because of jerky saccades of the eye, are a
> rapid, disjointed, succession of grossly fish-eyed projections.  So when
> psychedelics interfere with the normal process of stitching together
> projections from V1 and/or V2 and from remembered matching patterns of
> shapes and objects --- each having their own set of dimensions --- it is
> not
> surprising that a very different perception of space could arise, including
> a perception of a dis-joint set of many more than than 3+1 dimensions.
>
> With regard to perceptions of direct communicating with a myriad of other
> consciousnesses, such as elves, this is not surprising either, since the
> concept of unity of consciousness is also a construct generated by mental
> behavior and mental models, as is the construct of 3D space.  Your brain is
> capable of generating many voices, many senses of awareness at once.  But
> it
> normally works best, for generating behavior that helps humans survive, to
> have a greater, more distinct divide between what is conscious and what is
> kept in the subconscious, so that greater focus on the problems and
> behaviors at hand can be achieved.
>
> I am not, in any way trying to belittle the importance, nor "realness" of
> psychedelic experiences, but I am saying that my study of brain science and
> my own experiences decades ago with psychedelics make me think that one
> cannot always trust one's perceptions, particularly when one is on
> psychedelics.
>
> All perception can be considered hallucinations, that is, constructs of the
> brain --- but some hallucinations are more valuable for certain tasks than
> others.
>
> I think psychedelics, if properly used, can be of sufficient worth, in
> helping humans better understand our own minds and spirits and their
> relationship to reality --- that --- if our society were more rational ---
> it probably should have some limited ritualized used of psychedelics, as
> have many primitive societies.  But it is not clear to me yet how rational
> our society is capable of being, particularly if drug use is too widely
> spread.  Our society is changing so rapidly that much of traditional folk
> wisdom is out of date, and much of what has replaced it has be generated by
> commercially driven culture, that is, by its very nature exploitative.
>
> I think such drugs can have great danger of removing people from important
> aspects of reality.  As humanity starts spiraling ever faster into the
> wormhole of the singularity, and as the world becomes more and more
> crowded,
> polluted, and competitive, and the have-nots increasingly have more power,
> and as the media can provide increasingly seductive non-realities, and as
> machine superintelligences incre

[agi] Entheogins, understainding the brain, and AGI

2008-11-24 Thread Ed Porter 
Since I assume Ben, as well as a lot of the rest of us, want the AGI
movement to receive respectability in the academic and particularly in the
funding community, it is probably best that other than brain-science- or
AGI-focused discussions of the effects of drugs should not become too common
on the AGI list itself.  Ben, of course, is the ultimate decider of that.

I remember the excitement I had over 3 to 4 decades ago when I experimented
with psychedelics (although at relatively low dosages), so I can sympathize
with the enthusiasms of current experimenters.  And I find some of the
written accounts of such experiments that I have read on the web to be very
thoughtful, at time reminiscent, and very interesting from a brain
science/AGI point of view.  But right now I am sufficiently busy with more
concrete realities that I am not in the market for such encounters.  

I do think psychedelic experiences can shed valuable light on the extent to
which all perception is hallucination, just normally it is well turned and
controlled hallucination.  

For example, the experiences some have reported, including off list in this
discussion, of the sense of 3+1 D spacetime being shattered, or being
perceived as very different, is not a surprise if one considers that your
normal perception of space and time is an extremely complex and carefully
controlled hallucination.  If you substantially remove that control, it is
not surprising that, for example, a cubist-like deconstruction of special
perception might occur.  After all, your mind has to stitch together its
normal visual continuousness of 3D spatial reality from stereographic
projections onto V1, which because of jerky saccades of the eye, are a
rapid, disjointed, succession of grossly fish-eyed projections.  So when
psychedelics interfere with the normal process of stitching together
projections from V1 and/or V2 and from remembered matching patterns of
shapes and objects --- each having their own set of dimensions --- it is not
surprising that a very different perception of space could arise, including
a perception of a dis-joint set of many more than than 3+1 dimensions.

With regard to perceptions of direct communicating with a myriad of other
consciousnesses, such as elves, this is not surprising either, since the
concept of unity of consciousness is also a construct generated by mental
behavior and mental models, as is the construct of 3D space.  Your brain is
capable of generating many voices, many senses of awareness at once.  But it
normally works best, for generating behavior that helps humans survive, to
have a greater, more distinct divide between what is conscious and what is
kept in the subconscious, so that greater focus on the problems and
behaviors at hand can be achieved.

I am not, in any way trying to belittle the importance, nor "realness" of
psychedelic experiences, but I am saying that my study of brain science and
my own experiences decades ago with psychedelics make me think that one
cannot always trust one's perceptions, particularly when one is on
psychedelics.  

All perception can be considered hallucinations, that is, constructs of the
brain --- but some hallucinations are more valuable for certain tasks than
others.

I think psychedelics, if properly used, can be of sufficient worth, in
helping humans better understand our own minds and spirits and their
relationship to reality --- that --- if our society were more rational ---
it probably should have some limited ritualized used of psychedelics, as
have many primitive societies.  But it is not clear to me yet how rational
our society is capable of being, particularly if drug use is too widely
spread.  Our society is changing so rapidly that much of traditional folk
wisdom is out of date, and much of what has replaced it has be generated by
commercially driven culture, that is, by its very nature exploitative.

I think such drugs can have great danger of removing people from important
aspects of reality.  As humanity starts spiraling ever faster into the
wormhole of the singularity, and as the world becomes more and more crowded,
polluted, and competitive, and the have-nots increasingly have more power,
and as the media can provide increasingly seductive non-realities, and as
machine superintelligences increasingly decrease the relative value of human
work and human thought, I fear that truly mind-altering drugs, if use too
widely, could increase, rather than decrease, the chance that humanity will
fare well --- as civilization, as we know it, is increasingly and more
rapidly distorted by the momentus changes that face us.

But I am 60 years old, so maybe my viewpoint is out of date.

Ed Porter





---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: