Re: The consciousness singularity
The simulation argument: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html If any civilization in this universe or others has reached the point where they choose to explore consciousness (rather than or in addition to exploring their environment) then there are super-intelligences which may chooses to see what it is like to be you, or any other human, or any other species. After they generate this experience, they may integrate its memories into the larger super-mind, and therefore there are continuations where you become one with god. Alternate post-singularity civilizations may maintain individuality, in which case, any one person choosing to experience another being's life will after experiencing that life awaken to find themselves in a type of heaven or nirvana offering unlimited freedom, from which they can come back to earth or other physical worlds as they choose (via simulation). Therefore, even for those that don't survive to see the human race become a trans-humanist, omega-point civilization, and for those that don't upload their brain, there remain paths to these other realities. I think this can address the eternal aging implied by many-worlds: eventually, the probability that you survive by other means, e.g., waking up as a being in a post-singularity existence, exceeds the probability of continued survival through certain paths in the wave function. Jason On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:36 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Outside of QTI, does anyone consider any hypothesis as 'viable' for immortality? I am not sure that I mean, never dying, I think I mean, some kind of continuation, beyond our current 'mortality ? I am not meaning Uploading while still alive, or brain in a vat; but basically, an afterlife of some kind? I ask, realizing, that cosmology and consciousness, do not, by necessity, dovetail (UDA?). Thanks for your patience, everyone. Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Nov 15, 2011 9:21 am Subject: Re: The consciousness singularity On 14 Nov 2011, at 18:39, benjayk wrote: I have a few more ideas to add, considering how this singularity might work in practice. I think that actually consciousness does not start in a linear fashion in our coherent material world, but creates an infinity of semi-coherent beginngs all the time (at all levels of consciousness), which might be termed virtual experiences, that exist right now. These are experiences are more akin to exploring the possibility space than having a consistent world (though they have to have a relative consistency, no one wants to experience random noise). This would explain the encounters with intelligent entities encountered on drug trips (sometimes dreams and meditation), that seem very conscious. It seems hard to explain where they could come from in coventional terms (future, spririt world, parallel universes, etc...?). Why not mind subroutine? Living in Platonia, and manifesting through brain's module? This is already the case if mechanism is correct. My theory is that they are virtual beings, that really experience, but in them consciousness has not yet decided by which real entitiy (like a human) it is experienced, in which way the real subjective future will be experienced (there already might exist a virtual future, though), when it is experienced in reality and how exactly the experience is reflected to outside observers. The thema of this list is that virtual or possible = real. Real = virtual seen from inside. You are reintroducing a suspect reality selection principle, similar to the wave collapse. Bruno They are somehow left in abeyance. In the future, and partially already in the present, we might download these experiences and interface them with our normal history. With download, I mean experience them, and giving them a context, so they can become actual in a manner that makes sense in our reality. This can happen in our imagination, in our dreams, through playing games, reading books, surfing the internet and on trips. As we download the experience, we may infuse it with our personality/humaness (this often felt as merging with entities on trips), which leads to more consistent development in the virtual realm (so that entities can exist that are stable enough to make a clear and consistent communication possible). On the other hand, by downloading experiences, we can infuse our realm with creative new ideas (and the possibility of paranormal events), bring these virtual realm on earth. If we learn to navigate this virtual realm more efficiently in the future, it might be immensly powerful. For example, it allows the interaction between physically seperated entities. Or it may allow us to make time jumps (of course not collectively, since
Re: The consciousness singularity
Thanks Jason, Yes, I am not sure if QTI is really Immortality, as in post-mortality, if memory, and personality, are destroyed? To a hammer, the entire world looks like a nail; as the Japanese expression goes, so I personally wonder, if the old 'move' function of data processing, can somehow be analogous, to our minds being moved elsewhere-sort of a copy paste function? One has to have a program or a developer to execute the 'move' function, as I see it. Therefore, even for those that don't survive to see the human race become a trans-humanist, omega-point civilization, and for those that don't upload their brain, there remain paths to these other realities. I think this can address the eternal aging implied by many-worlds: eventually, the probability that you survive by other means, e.g., waking up as a being in a post-singularity existence, exceeds the probability of continued survival through certain paths in the wave function. On a Schmidhiber-Zuse-Lloyd-Bostrum-Fredkin hypothesis, that the cosmos is a quantum computer, a hypercomputer, a simulation; we must first ascertain, how we as subroutines in such a cosmos, can determine if this is fact or not? Because this kind of pursuit seems so complicated,and frustrating, most scholars just give up on the question. Then the question has to be asked, what is the pay off? My answer would be, post-mortality, not necessarilly immortality, in the eternal sense. Jokingly, I would add to my answer that, this is the best offer you'll have all day! If we can prove this. If we can achieve post-mortality,(biological or silicon) as Ettinger longed for, as Ray Kurzweil pursues, as the people at Alcor are going for, as well as Vernor Vinge's uploading, then all the better for us. Living on, seems less severe than biologically perishing, first. But that choice (as far as we now know) is not yet available to us. So the rough road of dying and hoping along the way, that we are a simulation, that will be subject to recurrence, is about all we have. Mitch -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: UDA refutation take 2
On 22 Nov 2011, at 10:01, Pierz wrote: OK, at last some time to sit down and reply properly. I want to come back on this point about measuring proportions of an infinite set - the measure theory you speak of. Now it seems clear enough that to measure such proportions (say, the proportion of even numbers in the set of natural numbers) one needs to iterate through that set in a specific order. If one uses the counting algorithm n=n+1 iteratively, then the result will be 50%, but if you use some other algorithm such as the alternative one I provided, you get a completely different result. You agree with this? Not really. There are no uniform sigma-additive measure on N, or on discrete infinite spaces, but you can weaken the notion of sigma- additivity to simple additivity, and in that case there are solutions. See amenable group in wikipedia, for a summary on how to get rather nice, even uniform, measure on infinite discrete group. Now, in the UD*, the measure does not bear on an infinite discrete space but on a continuum, because the UD, notably, reiterate infinitely self-duplications (like the little Mandelbrot sets do on their neighborhoods). The measure on first person consistent extensions are thus defined on a continuum, due to the first person invariance for the UD delays. And the measure depends, and is even defined, by the geometry of the extensions, structured by the logic corresponding to the first person points of view. That is the part technically handled (even if only embyronically) in the interview of the LUM (AUDA). Now this is an issue for UDA (it seems), because in order to calculate the proportion of calculations in the infinite set in which I become a giraffe, then we must iterate through those calculations in a specific order. Otherwise, by arranging things the right way, I can get *any result I want*. I demonstrated this in my post by showing how there are more natural numbers divisible by a million than by 2. Again, agreed? The first person invariance results shows that the order of the states in the UD does not matter at all. What matter is the logical (including the epistemological) relationships that a state can have with the infinitely many universal machines going through that state. OK, so I assume the order of calculations used to determine the measure on the set must be the order they run in the UD. Not at all. All what will count is a mix of redundancy, depth, and the self-reference constraints. But my point is that this order is *arbitrary*. This is because wherever the UD uses a natural number n in its calculation, I can imagine some other UD that uses someFunction(n) instead, where someFunction() transforms n in such a way that all natural numbers are generated, but in a different sequence. There are infinite such alternative UDs. So why should your UD algorithm be the 'real' one, simply because it uses the limiting case where someFunction(n) is the identity function (return n)? Each UD generates all possible UDs.The theology of machines, including physics, does not depend on the choice of any reasonable UD. Physics does not depend either of the precise ontology, as far as it is sigma_1 complete (emulate the UD). It seems fatal to me - unless some other less arbitrary means of counting the algorithms is (implicitly) employed. I say implicitly since what I have read of the UDA from you seems to pass over this critical question in silence. I think I do the exact contrary. UDA exposes the problem, which is passed over by scientists since the neoplatonist have been banished from Occident in 500 and in Orient in the eleventh century. AUDA illustrates the solution, by taking the machine points of view into consideration (as made obligatory by the mechanist mind body problem). It leads to a mathematical formulation of the mind-body problem, and to a theory of qualia and quanta satisfying the UDA requests. I'd also like to put another question which relates to arithmetical realism. Mechanism seems to be able to escape the UDA by denying arithmetical realism in the first place - a doctrine which seems to me to be far from self-evident, and certainly anathema to many physicists. Arithmetical realism is the weaker hypothesis in all science, with the exception of ultrafinitist physicalism (an infinitesimal minority). Note that to define or assert that we are ultrafinitist physicalists, we need arithmetical realism. In fact: NOT arithmetical realism needs more than arithmetical realism. Someone really disbelieving AR should just say I don't understand Pascal triangle, or I don't understand all the fuss on the prime numbers, etc. It is just the belief that the use of the excluded middle is sound for the first order logical sentences talking about the internal facts of the structure of (N, +, x). Intuitionists and classical mathematicians agree on AR, up to a change of
Re: The consciousness singularity
To the posts below: where is this 'immortality' come from at all? in the 'existence' in change it is implied that what comes around goes around, the rest is our imagination afraid of dying. Our (living???) complexity changes int other constructs. Nothing dies, just transforms. Relations change. Immortality implies mortality, which is unreasonable. Transfer into 'bio' or 'silicon? brings me to the 2nd point: *On a Schmidhuber-Zuse-Lloyd-Bostrum-Fredkin hypothesis, that the cosmos is a quantum computer, a hypercomputer, a simulation...* reminds me of the previous times metaphors, when we (the cosmos?) were steam engines, etc., because THAT was the actual image of the level of thinking. Today it is the computer - that embryonic machine we so far constructed on 'silicon' basis. Not the last step in our development. Our 'simulations' are mirrored by the now images as well. Smart people are wasting their time into arguments not reasonably thought over. I rather confess to my agnosticism: I dunno, but do not present fancy theories to hide my ignorance. I tell that we are far from the omniscient level and I expect many novelties to show up - we do not even fantasize about - today. Otherwise I appreciate the in part concluding results: our present line of technology, what I try to enjoy with thanks. John Mikes On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:40 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: ** Thanks Jason, Yes, I am not sure if QTI is really Immortality, as in post-mortality, if memory, and personality, are destroyed? To a hammer, the entire world looks like a nail; as the Japanese expression goes, so I personally wonder, if the old 'move' function of data processing, can somehow be analogous, to our minds being moved elsewhere-sort of a copy paste function? One has to have a program or a developer to execute the 'move' function, as I see it. *Therefore, even for those that don't survive to see the human race become a trans-humanist, omega-point civilization, and for those that don't upload their brain, there remain paths to these other realities. I think this can address the eternal aging implied by many-worlds: eventually, the probability that you survive by other means, e.g., waking up as a being in a post-singularity existence, exceeds the probability of continued survival through certain paths in the wave function.* ** On a Schmidhiber-Zuse-Lloyd-Bostrum-Fredkin hypothesis, that the cosmos is a quantum computer, a hypercomputer, a simulation; we must first ascertain, how we as subroutines in such a cosmos, can determine if this is fact or not? Because this kind of pursuit seems so complicated,and frustrating, most scholars just give up on the question. Then the question has to be asked, what is the pay off? My answer would be, post-mortality, not necessarilly immortality, in the eternal sense. Jokingly, I would add to my answer that, this is the best offer you'll have all day! If we can prove this. If we can achieve post-mortality,(biological or silicon) as Ettinger longed for, as Ray Kurzweil pursues, as the people at Alcor are going for, as well as Vernor Vinge's uploading, then all the better for us. Living on, seems less severe than biologically perishing, first. But that choice (as far as we now know) is not yet available to us. So the rough road of dying and hoping along the way, that we are a simulation, that will be subject to recurrence, is about all we have. Mitch -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The consciousness singularity
On 11/23/2011 4:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: The simulation argument: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html If any civilization in this universe or others has reached the point where they choose to explore consciousness (rather than or in addition to exploring their environment) then there are super-intelligences which may chooses to see what it is like to be you, or any other human, or any other species. After they generate this experience, they may integrate its memories into the larger super-mind, and therefore there are continuations where you become one with god. Alternate post-singularity civilizations may maintain individuality, in which case, any one person choosing to experience another being's life will after experiencing that life awaken to find themselves in a type of heaven or nirvana offering unlimited freedom, from which they can come back to earth or other physical worlds as they choose (via simulation). Therefore, even for those that don't survive to see the human race become a trans-humanist, omega-point civilization, and for those that don't upload their brain, there remain paths to these other realities. I think this can address the eternal aging implied by many-worlds: eventually, the probability that you survive by other means, e.g., waking up as a being in a post-singularity existence, exceeds the probability of continued survival through certain paths in the wave function. Jason Why stop there. Carrying the argument to it's natural conclusion the above has already happened (infinitely many) times and we are now all in the simulation of the super-intelligent beings who long ago discovered that nirvana is too boring. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The consciousness singularity
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:40 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: ** Thanks Jason, Yes, I am not sure if QTI is really Immortality, as in post-mortality, if memory, and personality, are destroyed? To a hammer, the entire world looks like a nail; as the Japanese expression goes, so I personally wonder, if the old 'move' function of data processing, can somehow be analogous, to our minds being moved elsewhere-sort of a copy paste function? One has to have a program or a developer to execute the 'move' function, as I see it. *Therefore, even for those that don't survive to see the human race become a trans-humanist, omega-point civilization, and for those that don't upload their brain, there remain paths to these other realities. I think this can address the eternal aging implied by many-worlds: eventually, the probability that you survive by other means, e.g., waking up as a being in a post-singularity existence, exceeds the probability of continued survival through certain paths in the wave function.* ** On a Schmidhiber-Zuse-Lloyd-Bostrum-Fredkin hypothesis, that the cosmos is a quantum computer, a hypercomputer, a simulation; we must first ascertain, how we as subroutines in such a cosmos, can determine if this is fact or not? Because this kind of pursuit seems so complicated,and frustrating, most scholars just give up on the question. Then the question has to be asked, what is the pay off? My answer would be, post-mortality, not necessarilly immortality, in the eternal sense. Jokingly, I would add to my answer that, this is the best offer you'll have all day! If we can prove this. If we can achieve post-mortality,(biological or silicon) as Ettinger longed for, as Ray Kurzweil pursues, as the people at Alcor are going for, as well as Vernor Vinge's uploading, then all the better for us. Living on, seems less severe than biologically perishing, first. But that choice (as far as we now know) is not yet available to us. So the rough road of dying and hoping along the way, that we are a simulation, that will be subject to recurrence, is about all we have. If we assume the universe is very large (infinite in volume, many-worlds, Tegmark's all mathematical structures, or Bruno's all programs) then it is a virtual certainty that at least one of the many possible explanations for your current moment of awareness is due to some omega-point mind, or otherwise advanced (human or non-human) individual choosing to experience your life. If you die in all physical realities that instantiate you, then the only ones where you would continue would be those omega-point/post-humans where you are immortal. The result is our continued existence doesn't depend on realizing immortality in this universe, it only requires that reality is big enough that an immortal being somewhere discovers us. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The consciousness singularity
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/23/2011 4:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: The simulation argument: http://www.simulation-**argument.com/simulation.htmlhttp://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html If any civilization in this universe or others has reached the point where they choose to explore consciousness (rather than or in addition to exploring their environment) then there are super-intelligences which may chooses to see what it is like to be you, or any other human, or any other species. After they generate this experience, they may integrate its memories into the larger super-mind, and therefore there are continuations where you become one with god. Alternate post-singularity civilizations may maintain individuality, in which case, any one person choosing to experience another being's life will after experiencing that life awaken to find themselves in a type of heaven or nirvana offering unlimited freedom, from which they can come back to earth or other physical worlds as they choose (via simulation). Therefore, even for those that don't survive to see the human race become a trans-humanist, omega-point civilization, and for those that don't upload their brain, there remain paths to these other realities. I think this can address the eternal aging implied by many-worlds: eventually, the probability that you survive by other means, e.g., waking up as a being in a post-singularity existence, exceeds the probability of continued survival through certain paths in the wave function. Jason Why stop there. Carrying the argument to it's natural conclusion the above has already happened (infinitely many) times and we are now all in the simulation of the super-intelligent beings who long ago discovered that nirvana is too boring. Brent Brent, I agree. About 10% of all humans who have ever lived are alive today. With a silicon-based brain, we could experience things about 1,000,000 times the rate our biological brains do. If the humans that uploaded themselves spend just 1 day (real time) experiencing other human lives that is equivalent to 40 human lifetimes worth of experience, and thus 80% of all human lives experienced would be simulated ones. (After that 1 day) This is after just one day, but such a civilization could thrive in this universe for trillions of years. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The consciousness singularity
On 23 Nov 2011, at 19:17, meekerdb wrote: On 11/23/2011 4:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: The simulation argument: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html If any civilization in this universe or others has reached the point where they choose to explore consciousness (rather than or in addition to exploring their environment) then there are super- intelligences which may chooses to see what it is like to be you, or any other human, or any other species. After they generate this experience, they may integrate its memories into the larger super- mind, and therefore there are continuations where you become one with god. Alternate post-singularity civilizations may maintain individuality, in which case, any one person choosing to experience another being's life will after experiencing that life awaken to find themselves in a type of heaven or nirvana offering unlimited freedom, from which they can come back to earth or other physical worlds as they choose (via simulation). Therefore, even for those that don't survive to see the human race become a trans-humanist, omega-point civilization, and for those that don't upload their brain, there remain paths to these other realities. I think this can address the eternal aging implied by many-worlds: eventually, the probability that you survive by other means, e.g., waking up as a being in a post-singularity existence, exceeds the probability of continued survival through certain paths in the wave function. Jason Why stop there. Carrying the argument to it's natural conclusion the above has already happened (infinitely many) times and we are now all in the simulation of the super-intelligent beings who long ago discovered that nirvana is too boring. Why stop there. Carrying to its logical conclusion we are already in all arithmetical emulation, with oracles, right here, there and now. But that *arithmetical emulation space* is highly structured, and diversely structured according to the points of view. You need a theory of self-reference, and using the classical (Gödelian one) it is illuminating to see this, in the eyes of the universal (Turing) machine, especially the one who already know (in some precise weak sense) that they are universal. Smullyan's degree four of self- referencial. K4 reasonner, lost in on the island of Knight and knaves, why? that's the fate of universal number in arithmetic, by a theorem known as Gödel diagonalization lemma. Addition and multiplication entails already universal dreamers. Even universally shared dreams. At least that is what the 'number' (or combinators, etc.) can already explain, so why not listen to them? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
