Re: The consciousness singularity

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:44 PM, benjayk wrote:

>
>
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:17 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/23/2011 4:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> >>
> >>> The simulation argument:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.simulation-**argument.com/simulation.html<
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 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.
> >
> Isn't uploading somewhat superflous if we are already simulated?
>

If everyone were to think like that, then nothing would be simulated.  It
is like deciding not to put on a seat belt when you go in a car because you
believe in other branches you won't get in an accident in the first place.
 The decisions we make affect the relative proportions and frequencies of
events.


> It seems this whole argument more plausibly means that there is no
> simulation needed in the first place (it already there anyway). It seems
> that ultimately we all will inveitably get lost in our simulations and all
> the others that we could be a part of (how would we avoid this?), so no one
> knows anymore what is simulated and what not, and who simulates and who is
> simluating (and how it is simulated), what is past and what is future, who
> is who, etc... So ultimately, there are not really concrete simulations
> going on at all, since there are so intermingled with each other and with
> "reality" that we can't distinguish different simulations and simulations
> from reality (in an absolute way).
>

I mostly agree with the above.  Reality and paths through it are very
complex, and what is simulated vs. what isn't may be impossible to
distinguish.


> Everything occurs that subjectively can occur. Subjectivity orders the
> space
> of infinite possibilities, and learns to navigate it (creating a subjective
> future). "Normal", material reality is just the ordering mechanism to avoid
> getting lost over and over again in "simulation-like" or "dreamy"
> realities.
>
> So we may just feel to be biological beings because this experience is
> subjectively consistent, not because any objective progress is lacking. We
> could already be a part of a infinite progressed simulation, we are just
> lost in it. We wouldn't know how to navigate the infinite possiblilities
> without biological bodies, that's why we have them. Look at how lost we get
> in the internet, and that's just things on a screen! Material existence and
> biological bodies (together with their restrictions) help us to order the
> possibilities in a very coherent (but sometimes very painful and annoying)
> way.
> We may already be in that "virt

Re: The consciousness singularity

[benjayk]

Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:17 PM, 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.
>>
>> 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.
> 
Isn't uploading somewhat superflous if we are already simulated?
It seems this whole argument more plausibly means that there is no
simulation needed in the first place (it already there anyway). It seems
that ultimately we all will inveitably get lost in our simulations and all
the others that we could be a part of (how would we avoid this?), so no one
knows anymore what is simulated and what not, and who simulates and who is
simluating (and how it is simulated), what is past and what is future, who
is who, etc... So ultimately, there are not really concrete simulations
going on at all, since there are so intermingled with each other and with
"reality" that we can't distinguish different simulations and simulations
from reality (in an absolute way).
Everything occurs that subjectively can occur. Subjectivity orders the space
of infinite possibilities, and learns to navigate it (creating a subjective
future). "Normal", material reality is just the ordering mechanism to avoid
getting lost over and over again in "simulation-like" or "dreamy" realities.

So we may just feel to be biological beings because this experience is
subjectively consistent, not because any objective progress is lacking. We
could already be a part of a infinite progressed simulation, we are just
lost in it. We wouldn't know how to navigate the infinite possiblilities
without biological bodies, that's why we have them. Look at how lost we get
in the internet, and that's just things on a screen! Material existence and
biological bodies (together with their restrictions) help us to order the
possibilities in a very coherent (but sometimes very painful and annoying)
way.
We may already be in that "virtual" space in our dreams, we just can't stay
there very long and harness it to a great extent, because we have no clue
what to do with it - it is just too confusing.
It is obviously extremely challening to navigate the space of all
possibilities, especially considering an infinite amount of agents are doing
the same. The only way is to let go of self-centered goals and learn to go
with the flow of self-organizing intelligence.

So according to this argument, we will never upload ourselves, because we
already "did", or rather we are already part of an infinite network of
possibilities. If we upload ourselves, we would go "fully" virtual "again",
with no benifit whatsoever, so this possbility won't subj

Re: The consciousness singularity

[Bruno Marchal]

On 23 Nov 2011, at 17:59, John Mikes wrote:


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.


Those explanations are not incompatible, and we have to use the  
simplest and clearest explanations, if only we want to be able to be  
corrected and to progress. From the evidences we have we are steam  
engine and, at least, computer.





Smart people are wasting their time into arguments not reasonably  
thought over.


We can only propose theories and see if they fit with the observation.



I rather confess to my agnosticism: "I dunno",


In science we are always agnostic, except when a theory is refuted. We  
have only beliefs, and they can be true by chance, but this we never  
know as such.





but do not present fancy theories to hide my ignorance.


But then you will be unable to be shown wrong, and you can't progress.  
Fancy theories is all we have. We should just not pretend that they  
are the truth.



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.


Good intuition ... which is already explainable with the theory above.  
If we are universal machine, then we are forever ignorant even just  
with respect to what numbers can do. As far as mechanism is correct we  
can correctly believe (know)  why. Arithmetic is full of surprises and  
we cannot not expect novelties to show up. Here a theory explains and  
make necessary one of you main persistent point.


Actually the "Schmidhuber-Suze-LLoyd-Bostrom-Fredkin hypothesis" (that  
the cosmos is a quantum computer) has been refuted a long time ago. If  
we are universal machine, reality is not. Even if the quantum  
computing machine wins the statistical game in the limit, which is  
experimentally plausible. But this has to be justified from less  
demanding hypothesis, if only to be able to distinguish the qualia  
from the quanta (but also to get an explanation where such machine  
comes from.


Those researcher rely on a conception of Soul and Matter which comes  
from Aristotle and is incompatible with mechanism. Given that they use  
mechanism, they are inconsistent. It is a case where we can't be  
agnostic, we can know that the theory is inconsistent. Neither Mind,  
nor the Cosmos (the Mind's border) can be a computer. They are not  
aware of the distinction between first and third person views, nor are  
they aware of the first person indeterminacy.
It looks like many still fail to see this clearly. This does not  
jeopardize all their conclusions, to be sure.


Bruno





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,  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