Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 16 Jun 2015, at 00:50, meekerdb wrote: On 6/15/2015 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jun 2015, at 01:21, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. When they're winners and losers I'm in favor of being a winner. To win you need to master the art of losing. The future belongs to the good losers :) Is that an extrapolation from the past? It is more an interpolation on the futures :) It is a principle in the Art of the War. It is also a principle of many martial art, with the many ways to fall down, in judo, and technic to transform defeat into victory. Good losers are better than bad winners, if you mind this quasi- tautology (as the good is always better than the bad, by definition). Bruno Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 Jun 2015, at 20:26, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:40, LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? According to most people on this list, they are ALL failed attempts. Heehee. (Or at least most people are willnig to entertain the possibility.) Which is enough to doubt such kind of self-sampling assumption, which are based on ASSA (absolute self-sampling), which I thought was shown non valid (cf our old discussion on the doomsday argument). Then what is super-intelligence? I doubt this make sense, or at the least should be made more precise. I know it is counter-intuitive, or that I use perhaps a non standard notion of intelligence(*), but I think that intelligence is maximal with the virgin universal machine, or perhaps Löbian machine (but I am not sure), and then can only decrease. The singularity is when the machine will supersede the human' stupidity. I might think that animals are more intelligent than humans. May be plants are more intelligent than animals. But I guess people talk here about competence. This can grow, but is often used for stupid behavior. By what standard can you judge that an animal putatively more intelligent than you has acted stupidly? Where did I do that? A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. I am not sure of this, but if true that makes my point even more obvious. (I might be blasphemous, with respect to the machine theology, so add IF comp is true, and keep in mind I use the terms in larger sense than usual). Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 Jun 2015, at 16:44, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 09:51, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:40, LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? According to most people on this list, they are ALL failed attempts. Heehee. (Or at least most people are willnig to entertain the possibility.) Which is enough to doubt such kind of self-sampling assumption, which are based on ASSA (absolute self-sampling), which I thought was shown non valid (cf our old discussion on the doomsday argument). Then what is super-intelligence? I doubt this make sense, or at the least should be made more precise. For the purpose of this discussion, I would say that you would only have to grant that there is some utility function that captures chances of survival. Then, super-intelligence is something that can optimize this function beyond what human intelligence is capable. Then amoeba and bacteria are more clever than dinosaurs and humans. OK, but again, I would say that it is a particular competence. It might be that intelligence per se is not necessarily useful for surviving, as it makes you more sensible to events. It is suggested by some studies that very gifted people dies more quickly than others. I know it is counter-intuitive, or that I use perhaps a non standard notion of intelligence(*), but I think that intelligence is maximal with the virgin universal machine, or perhaps Löbian machine (but I am not sure), and then can only decrease. The singularity is when the machine will supersede the human' stupidity. I believe I understand what you mean, but perhaps we are talking about different things. I define intelligence in a very general sense by the negation of stupidity, and I define stupidity by either the assertion of I am intelligent, or of I am stupid. It makes pebble intelligent, but this is not a problem. I distinguish this from competence, and from consciousness. I might think that animals are more intelligent than humans. May be plants are more intelligent than animals. But I guess people talk here about competence. This can grow, but is often used for stupid behavior. A human is an ape which torture other apes. Perhaps they merge in the end. For example, the super-intelligence according to my definition eventually develops a TOE that makes it believe that the well-being of others is the same as its own. I am OK with this. Bruno PS Sorry for the delays (exam period) Best Telmo Bruno (*) a machine is intelligent if it is not stupid, and a machine is stupid if she asserts that she is intelligent, or that she is stupid. (it makes pebble infinitely intelligent, I agree). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 11 Jun 2015, at 01:21, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. When they're winners and losers I'm in favor of being a winner. To win you need to master the art of losing. The future belongs to the good losers :) Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 11 June 2015 at 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 6:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 11:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. When they're winners and losers I'm in favor of being a winner. But your original statement didn't talk about winners and losers, it talked about elimination, specifically it sounded as though you were in favour of one ape eliminating another one (on a species basis, going by your mention of neanderthals). So, are you actually in favour of genocide, or were you just shooting your mouth off? Are you a Neanderthal or are you just trolling? Neither, you're the one who said the things quoted above, which certainly look like you're in favour of genocide when directed against the Neanderthals. Making spiteful comments doesn't change that, and is actually quite hurtful. How about manning up and explaining yourself properly, instead of retreating behind being flip, snide and childish? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 6/15/2015 1:27 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 6:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 11:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. When they're winners and losers I'm in favor of being a winner. But your original statement didn't talk about winners and losers, it talked about elimination, specifically it sounded as though you were in favour of one ape eliminating another one (on a species basis, going by your mention of neanderthals). So, are you actually in favour of genocide, or were you just shooting your mouth off? Are you a Neanderthal or are you just trolling? Neither, you're the one who said the things quoted above, which certainly look like you're in favour of genocide when directed against the Neanderthals. Making spiteful comments doesn't change that, and is actually quite hurtful. How about manning up and explaining yourself properly, instead of retreating behind being flip, snide and childish? How about not imputing opinions not in evidence and trolling with have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife questions. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 6/15/2015 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jun 2015, at 01:21, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. When they're winners and losers I'm in favor of being a winner. To win you need to master the art of losing. The future belongs to the good losers :) Is that an extrapolation from the past? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Meh! I have read that some theorists now predict that dark whatever will cause a new contraction and that this is already occuring. Its the sort of thing that gets mentioned in ARIXV, and physorg. Please note, I am not waiting up for the next x-billion years to see if this occurs or not? Predict? The only thing I've heard is that because nobody knows what Dark Energy is we can't entirely rule out the possibility that in trillions of years it will suddenly reverse direction even though there is absolutely no sign of that happening now. But no amount of spin can change the fact that the discovery of an accelerating universe was a devastating blow to Tipler's Omega Theory. And how do you explain away Tipler's incorrect predictions about the value of the Hubble constant and the mass of the Higgs boson when Tipler wrote in black and white that those predictions HAD to be correct or his theory wouldn't work? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Yes, but there have been so much counter examples for the 1997 WMAP analysis that Tipler may end up correct. I don't know what you're talking about. In his 1993 book Tipler made a number of predictions and said that if even one of those predictions was wrong his entire theory could not work; and Tipler's predictions turned out to be wrong, some spectacularly wrong. Tipler predicted the expansion of the universe would slow down, then it would stop, then it would change direction and collapse in on itself; from the heat of that imploding fireball he thought a hyper-advanced civilization could theoretically extract an infinite amount of energy. But we now know that due to Dark Energy (which he did NOT predict) the expansion of the cosmos is accelerating not decelerating so that fireball will never happen. Tipler also predicted that the Higgs boson must be at 220GEV +- 20 but we now know it is 125.3GEV +- .5.And Tipler predicted that the Hubble constant must be less than or equal to 45, but we now know it's 67.8 +- .77 . It's clear we don't live in the sort of universe that Tipler thought we did. More than one of his predictions was wrong so if we take Tipler at his word then his theory must be wrong too. Tipler I am talking about the accelerated expansion reversing, I hold computer theory as over-taking most cosmo theories be it a saddle, a doughnut, flat as a pancake, whatever. And no, you need not agree, but for me it seems apparent. You? -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 10, 2015 3:00 pm Subject: Re: super intelligence and self-sampling On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Now you are talking of Tipler's Omega Point. A usable theory when combined with MWI, which Tipler supports. Tipler's idea of the Omega Point was interesting in 1993 when he introduced the idea, but unfortunately in the last 22 years it has proven to be wrong. And no matter how beautiful a theory is if it doesn't fit the facts it must be abandoned. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 6/11/2015 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Yes, but there have been so much counter examples for the 1997 WMAP analysis that Tipler may end up correct. I don't know what you're talking about. In his 1993 book Tipler made a number of predictions and said that if even one of those predictions was wrong his entire theory could not work; and Tipler's predictions turned out to be wrong, some spectacularly wrong. Tipler predicted the expansion of the universe would slow down, then it would stop, then it would change direction and collapse in on itself; from the heat of that imploding fireball he thought a hyper-advanced civilization could theoretically extract an infinite amount of energy. But we now know that due to Dark Energy (which he did NOT predict) the expansion of the cosmos is accelerating not decelerating so that fireball will never happen. We know the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and that is well modeled by a cosmological constant. But general relativity is only an effective approximation to some as yet unknown quantum theory of gravity; and in a quantum theory of gravity the cosmological constant may be a manifestation of some field that is subject to a phase change and would allow for an ultimate contraction of the universe. Not that I put in credence in Tipler's speculations. Brent Tipler also predicted that the Higgs boson must be at 220GEV +- 20 but we now know it is 125.3GEV +- .5.And Tipler predicted that the Hubble constant must be less than or equal to 45, but we now know it's 67.8 +- .77 . It's clear we don't live in the sort of universe that Tipler thought we did. More than one of his predictions was wrong so if we take Tipler at his word then his theory must be wrong too. Tipler I am talking about the accelerated expansion reversing, I hold computer theory as over-taking most cosmo theories be it a saddle, a doughnut, flat as a pancake, whatever. And no, you need not agree, but for me it seems apparent. You? -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 10, 2015 3:00 pm Subject: Re: super intelligence and self-sampling On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Now youare talking of Tipler's Omega Point. A usable theory when combined with MWI, which Tipler supports. Tipler's idea of the Omega Point was interesting in 1993 when he introduced the idea, but unfortunately in the last 22 years it has proven to be wrong. And no matter how beautiful a theory is if it doesn't fit the facts it must be abandoned. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Dark energy and matter have predicted by some physicists and astronomers to call the expansion to reverse. I don't know what you're talking about. Dark Energy is causing the universe's expansion to accelerate not slow down No he did not predict dark matter or energy but it seems to be in the cards despite this. Tipler didn't predict Dark Energy but he did predict that the that the Higgs boson would have a mass of 220GEV +- 20 and that the Hubble constant must be less than or equal to 45, and Tipler's predictions have been proven to be DEAD WRONG. Some called Tipler a crackpot in 1993 when he wrote his book but I did not because he made clear predictions and said if any one of them was wrong then his entire theory was wrong. Well lots of his predictions were wrong and however much I may have personally wished it was true my preferences has nothing to do with the way things are. Tipler was right about one thing, if a theory does not fit the facts it must be abandoned. That's why Tipler wasn't a crackpot, he was just wrong. general relativity is only an effective approximation to some as yet unknown quantum theory of gravity; and in a quantum theory of gravity the cosmological constant may be a manifestation of some field that is subject to a phase change and would allow for an ultimate contraction of the universe You can ALWAYS say that if the fundamental laws of physics are not what we think they are then my theory could still be right, but that's not science, in science you say if X isn't Y then my ideas are wrong. To his credit Tipler gave himself no wiggle room, he insisted that ALL his predictions HAD to be true. They wen't. End of story. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
Meh! I have read that some theorists now predict that dark whatever will cause a new contraction and that this is already occuring. Its the sort of thing that gets mentioned in ARIXV, and physorg. Please note, I am not waiting up for the next x-billion years to see if this occurs or not? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jun 11, 2015 10:19 PM Subject: Re: super intelligence and self-sampling div id=AOLMsgPart_2_f85d573b-d2be-4711-b87d-af98203c96c1 div dir=ltr div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List span dir=ltra target=_blank href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a/span wrote: /div div class=aolmail_gmail_quote blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex font color=black size=2 face=arial Dark energy and matter have predicted by some physicists and astronomers to call the expansion to reverse./font /blockquote I don't know what you're talking about. Dark Energy is causing the universe's expansion to accelerate not slow down blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex font color=black size=2 face=arial No he did not predict dark matter or energy but it seems to be in the cards despite this./font /blockquote Tipler didn't predict Dark Energy but he did predict that the t font color=#00 face=arial, helveticaspan style=font-size:13.330154419pxhat the Higgs boson would have a mass of 220GEV +- 20 and that the Hubble constant must be less than or equal to 45, and Tipler's predictions have been proven to be DEAD WRONG. Some called Tipler a crackpot in 1993 when he wrote his book but I did not because he made clear predictions and said if any one of them was wrong then his entire theory was wrong. Well lots of his predictions were wrong and however much I may have personally wished it was true my preferences has nothing to do with the way things are. /span/font span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:13.330154419pxTipler was right about one thing, if a theory does not fit the facts it must be abandoned. That's why Tipler wasn't a crackpot, he was just wrong./span font color=#00 face=arial, helveticaspan style=font-size:13.330154419px /span/font blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex span style=color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:13.330154419px general relativity is only an effective approximation to some as yet unknown quantum theory of gravity; and in a quantum theory of gravity the cosmological constant may be a manifestation of some field that is subject to a phase change and would allow for an ultimate contraction of the universe/span /blockquote You can ALWAYS say that if the fundamental laws of physics are not what we think they are then my theory could still be right, but that's not science, in science you say if X isn't Y then my ideas are wrong. To his credit Tipler gave himself no wiggle room, he insisted that ALL his predictions HAD to be true. They wen't. End of story. John K Clark font color=#00 face=arial, helveticaspan style=font-size:13.330154419px /span/font blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex font color=black size=2 face=arial div style=font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black div div blockquote div dir=ltr div class=aolmail_gmail_extra div class=aolmail_gmail_quote blockquote class=aolmail_gmail_quote style=margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex font color=black face=arial size=2 div /font /blockquote /div /div /div /blockquote /div /div /div /div/font /blockquote /div /div /div p/p -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 12 June 2015 at 14:19, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Dark energy and matter have predicted by some physicists and astronomers to call the expansion to reverse. I don't know what you're talking about. Dark Energy is causing the universe's expansion to accelerate not slow down Since we don't know it's nature, it's *possible* it will wear off after a while, or even go into reverse. But this is 100% speculation at present, of course - and will be until we devise a testable theory of what it actually is! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
Dark energy and matter have predicted by some physicists and astronomers to call the expansion to reverse. Whether this really occurs in out of my pudgy hands. No he did not predict dark matter or energy but it seems to be in the cards despite this. Agrees that there is physics that we have never seen before, awaiting the scientist. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Jun 11, 2015 3:10 pm Subject: Re: super intelligence and self-sampling On 6/11/2015 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Yes, but there have been so much counter examples for the 1997 WMAP analysis that Tipler may end up correct. I don't know what you're talking about. In his 1993 book Tipler made a number of predictions and said that if even one of those predictions was wrong his entire theory could not work; and Tipler's predictions turned out to be wrong, some spectacularly wrong. Tipler predicted the expansion of the universe would slow down, then it would stop, then it would change direction and collapse in on itself; from the heat of that imploding fireball he thought a hyper-advanced civilization could theoretically extract an infinite amount of energy. But we now know that due to Dark Energy (which he did NOT predict) the expansion of the cosmos is accelerating not decelerating so that fireball will never happen. We know the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and that is well modeled by a cosmological constant. But general relativity is only an effective approximation to some as yet unknown quantum theory of gravity; and in a quantum theory of gravity the cosmological constant may be a manifestation of some field that is subject to a phase change and would allow for an ultimate contraction of the universe. Not that I put in credence in Tipler's speculations. Brent Tipler also predicted that the Higgs boson must be at 220GEV +- 20 but we now know it is 125.3GEV +- .5.And Tipler predicted that the Hubble constant must be less than or equal to 45, but we now know it's 67.8 +- .77 . It's clear we don't live in the sort of universe that Tipler thought we did. More than one of his predictions was wrong so if we take Tipler at his word then his theory must be wrong too. Tipler I am talking about the accelerated expansion reversing, I hold computer theory as over-taking most cosmo theories be it a saddle, a doughnut, flat as a pancake, whatever. And no, you need not agree, but for me it seems apparent. You? -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 10, 2015 3:00 pm Subject: Re: super intelligence and self-sampling On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Now you are talking of Tipler's Omega Point. A usable theory when combined with MWI, which Tipler supports. Tipler's idea of the Omega Point was interesting in 1993 when he introduced the idea, but unfortunately in the last 22 years it has proven to be wrong. And no matter how beautiful a theory is if it doesn't fit the facts it must be abandoned. John K Clark
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 12 June 2015 at 07:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Not that I put in credence in Tipler's speculations. They seem to be based on a comp1 style idea, namely that consciousness is generated by computation and that recreating the computation would effectively resurrect that person. I think he assumes that the recreation is an emulation at the level of the (as yet unknown) physics, which would run afoul of no-cloning (and probably lots of other things. As I said in replyto David's recent summary, I find it hard to believe that an emulated me will actually be me in the important sense that I experience becoming it). Didn't Tipler make some testable predictions? (including the Higgs mass???) If so did they pan out? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:40, LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? According to most people on this list, they are ALL failed attempts. Heehee. (Or at least most people are willnig to entertain the possibility.) Which is enough to doubt such kind of self-sampling assumption, which are based on ASSA (absolute self-sampling), which I thought was shown non valid (cf our old discussion on the doomsday argument). Then what is super-intelligence? I doubt this make sense, or at the least should be made more precise. I know it is counter-intuitive, or that I use perhaps a non standard notion of intelligence(*), but I think that intelligence is maximal with the virgin universal machine, or perhaps Löbian machine (but I am not sure), and then can only decrease. The singularity is when the machine will supersede the human' stupidity. I might think that animals are more intelligent than humans. May be plants are more intelligent than animals. But I guess people talk here about competence. This can grow, but is often used for stupid behavior. A human is an ape which torture other apes. Bruno (*) a machine is intelligent if it is not stupid, and a machine is stupid if she asserts that she is intelligent, or that she is stupid. (it makes pebble infinitely intelligent, I agree). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 Jun 2015, at 09:51, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:40, LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? According to most people on this list, they are ALL failed attempts. Heehee. (Or at least most people are willnig to entertain the possibility.) Which is enough to doubt such kind of self-sampling assumption, which are based on ASSA (absolute self-sampling), which I thought was shown non valid (cf our old discussion on the doomsday argument). Then what is super-intelligence? I doubt this make sense, or at the least should be made more precise. For the purpose of this discussion, I would say that you would only have to grant that there is some utility function that captures chances of survival. Then, super-intelligence is something that can optimize this function beyond what human intelligence is capable. I know it is counter-intuitive, or that I use perhaps a non standard notion of intelligence(*), but I think that intelligence is maximal with the virgin universal machine, or perhaps Löbian machine (but I am not sure), and then can only decrease. The singularity is when the machine will supersede the human' stupidity. I believe I understand what you mean, but perhaps we are talking about different things. I might think that animals are more intelligent than humans. May be plants are more intelligent than animals. But I guess people talk here about competence. This can grow, but is often used for stupid behavior. A human is an ape which torture other apes. Perhaps they merge in the end. For example, the super-intelligence according to my definition eventually develops a TOE that makes it believe that the well-being of others is the same as its own. Best Telmo Bruno (*) a machine is intelligent if it is not stupid, and a machine is stupid if she asserts that she is intelligent, or that she is stupid. (it makes pebble infinitely intelligent, I agree). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? According to most people on this list, they are ALL failed attempts. Right, but only from the perspective of the person attempting suicide. Maybe higher intelligence makes you more successful at reducing your measure. Telmo Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:51, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 09:39:37AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 08:37, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging lots of non-super intelligences. So the chances of finding yourself non-super is vastly greater, because it takes billions of us to make one of them. However, this could lead to you eventually finding yourself super (especially if quantum immortality operates). Or a subset of super. PS Ants aren't relevant, as Russell explains in Theory of Nothing. OK, but the same argument can easily be made otherwise: why should you find yourself living in tiny New Zealand rather than populous China? I address that as well. Because of a peculiar conspiracy, country populations follow a near power law, which means it is just as likely that you will be born in a low population country like New Zealand, as a high population country like China, simply because there are more low population countries in just the right number. I remember that argument and I agree. Do biological species follow a power law distribution? Which leads one to suspect that self-sampling is another mechanism for the ubuquity of power laws in nature. I had a proof in one version of my paper that fragmentation/coalescence processes in general lead to power law distributions in just the right way to solve self-sampling problems like the above, but referees made me take it out. I suppose I should try to publish that result in a more mathematical journal at some point, but I'm getting tired of arguing with referees all the time ):. Why not publish on arxiv? Telmo -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
Now you are talking of Tipler's Omega Point. A usable theory when combined with MWI, which Tipler supports. -Original Message- From: Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 9, 2015 7:15 pm Subject: Re: super intelligence and self-sampling From a quantum immortality perspective, I think if a superintelligence was merging lots of intelligences, including yours, you find yourself in increasingly unlikely situations where you were able to escape being merged with the superintelligence. Eventually, against all odds, you might be the only non-integrated intelligence left. Terren On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:37 PM, LizRlizj...@gmail.com wrote: The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging lots of non-super intelligences. So the chances of finding yourself non-super is vastly greater, because it takes billions of us to make one of them. However, this could lead to you eventually finding yourself super (especially if quantum immortality operates). Or a subset of super. PS Ants aren't relevant, as Russell explains in Theory of Nothing. On 10 June 2015 at 09:41, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so that their measure effectively becomes zero. Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that this would reduce its measure. Consider the fact that you are no an ant, even though there are apparently 100 trillion of them compared to 7 billion humans. Telmo. The way I resolve that one is to assume that self-sampling requires a high enough level intelligence to have an ego (the 'self' in self-sampling). This is required to differentiate the computational histories we identify with as identity memory. Let's say the entirety of humanity uploaded into a simulated environment, and that one day the simulated separation between minds was eradicated, giving rise to a super-intelligence (just one path of many to a superintelligence). From that moment on it would be impossible to differentiate computational histories in terms of personal identity/memory, so the measure goes to zero. Why zero? There is still one conscious entity. Why wouldn't it remember the great unification and the multitude of humans events before that? Telmo. When I say goes to zero I mean it as in, approaches
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
Yes, but there have been so much counter examples for the 1997 WMAP analysis that Tipler may end up correct. I am talking about the accelerated expansion reversing, I hold computer theory as over-taking most cosmo theories be it a saddle, a doughnut, flat as a pancake, whatever. And no, you need not agree, but for me it seems apparent. You? -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Jun 10, 2015 3:00 pm Subject: Re: super intelligence and self-sampling On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Now you are talking of Tipler's Omega Point. A usable theory when combined with MWI, which Tipler supports. Tipler's idea of the Omega Point was interesting in 1993 when he introduced the idea, but unfortunately in the last 22 years it has proven to be wrong. And no matter how beautiful a theory is if it doesn't fit the facts it must be abandoned. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 6/10/2015 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:40, LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? According to most people on this list, they are ALL failed attempts. Heehee. (Or at least most people are willnig to entertain the possibility.) Which is enough to doubt such kind of self-sampling assumption, which are based on ASSA (absolute self-sampling), which I thought was shown non valid (cf our old discussion on the doomsday argument). Then what is super-intelligence? I doubt this make sense, or at the least should be made more precise. I know it is counter-intuitive, or that I use perhaps a non standard notion of intelligence(*), but I think that intelligence is maximal with the virgin universal machine, or perhaps Löbian machine (but I am not sure), and then can only decrease. The singularity is when the machine will supersede the human' stupidity. I might think that animals are more intelligent than humans. May be plants are more intelligent than animals. But I guess people talk here about competence. This can grow, but is often used for stupid behavior. By what standard can you judge that an animal putatively more intelligent than you has acted stupidly? A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Now you are talking of Tipler's Omega Point. A usable theory when combined with MWI, which Tipler supports. Tipler's idea of the Omega Point was interesting in 1993 when he introduced the idea, but unfortunately in the last 22 years it has proven to be wrong. And no matter how beautiful a theory is if it doesn't fit the facts it must be abandoned. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 6/10/2015 7:44 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: For the purpose of this discussion, I would say that you would only have to grant that there is some utility function that captures chances of survival. Then, super-intelligence is something that can optimize this function beyond what human intelligence is capable. Ahh, so it's bacteria. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 June 2015 at 19:05, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Do biological species follow a power law distribution? I don't know, but I imagine so - there are generally a lot more of the smaller ones. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 11 June 2015 at 07:21, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Yes, but there have been so much counter examples for the 1997 WMAP analysis that Tipler may end up correct. I am talking about the accelerated expansion reversing, I hold computer theory as over-taking most cosmo theories be it a saddle, a doughnut, flat as a pancake, whatever. And no, you need not agree, but for me it seems apparent. You? I must admit I have always found it a bit tenuous to base the cosmological acceleration only on the measurement of light from distant supernovas. It's at least possible supernovas operated differently in the early universe, or that something in between has affected the signal. It would be nice to get independent confirmation from a completely different source. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 11 June 2015 at 10:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 7:44 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: For the purpose of this discussion, I would say that you would only have to grant that there is some utility function that captures chances of survival. Then, super-intelligence is something that can optimize this function beyond what human intelligence is capable. Ahh, so it's bacteria. It is indeed, at least if we leave aside the ones that have foolishly aglommerated into large colonies that then sit around typing stuff on forums. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:04:47AM +1200, LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 19:05, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Do biological species follow a power law distribution? I don't know, but I imagine so - there are generally a lot more of the smaller ones. I don't have empirical data, but by a combination of Damuth's law and the Hutchinson-MacArthur model, it is a power law, but with a higher exponent (ie falls off faster) than the 1/x power law of country populations. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. When they're winners and losers I'm in favor of being a winner. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 6/10/2015 6:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 11:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. When they're winners and losers I'm in favor of being a winner. But your original statement didn't talk about winners and losers, it talked about elimination, specifically it sounded as though you were in favour of one ape eliminating another one (on a species basis, going by your mention of neanderthals). So, are you actually in favour of genocide, or were you just shooting your mouth off? Are you a Neanderthal or are you just trolling? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
super intelligence and self-sampling
Hi everyone, Something I have been thinking about. I start with two assumptions: - Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer (e.g. it is more likely to be able to anticipate existencial threats and prepare accordingly; it is more likely to spread throughout the galaxy); - A super-intelligence is necessarily conscious (I think both computacionalists and emergentists can agree here). If a super-intelligence is created at some point in time, then we can expect there to exists much more of it in an entire timeline than human intelligence. By self-sampling, it is therefore unlikely that I exist as a human and not as a super-intelligence. I can think of three options: 1) We are outliers -- it is hard to estimate the likelihood of this, but it would be tempting to assume that it is very very low if we imagine a galaxy-spanning AI civilisation; 2) No super-intelligence will ever be created; 3) We are already super-intelligences, having an experience in a simulation for some reason. What do you think? Cheers Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so that their measure effectively becomes zero. Terren On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Hi everyone, Something I have been thinking about. I start with two assumptions: - Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer (e.g. it is more likely to be able to anticipate existencial threats and prepare accordingly; it is more likely to spread throughout the galaxy); - A super-intelligence is necessarily conscious (I think both computacionalists and emergentists can agree here). If a super-intelligence is created at some point in time, then we can expect there to exists much more of it in an entire timeline than human intelligence. By self-sampling, it is therefore unlikely that I exist as a human and not as a super-intelligence. I can think of three options: 1) We are outliers -- it is hard to estimate the likelihood of this, but it would be tempting to assume that it is very very low if we imagine a galaxy-spanning AI civilisation; 2) No super-intelligence will ever be created; 3) We are already super-intelligences, having an experience in a simulation for some reason. What do you think? Cheers Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so that their measure effectively becomes zero. Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that this would reduce its measure. Consider the fact that you are no an ant, even though there are apparently 100 trillion of them compared to 7 billion humans. Telmo. The way I resolve that one is to assume that self-sampling requires a high enough level intelligence to have an ego (the 'self' in self-sampling). This is required to differentiate the computational histories we identify with as identity memory. Let's say the entirety of humanity uploaded into a simulated environment, and that one day the simulated separation between minds was eradicated, giving rise to a super-intelligence (just one path of many to a superintelligence). From that moment on it would be impossible to differentiate computational histories in terms of personal identity/memory, so the measure goes to zero. T -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so that their measure effectively becomes zero. Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that this would reduce its measure. Consider the fact that you are no an ant, even though there are apparently 100 trillion of them compared to 7 billion humans. Telmo. Terren On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Hi everyone, Something I have been thinking about. I start with two assumptions: - Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer (e.g. it is more likely to be able to anticipate existencial threats and prepare accordingly; it is more likely to spread throughout the galaxy); - A super-intelligence is necessarily conscious (I think both computacionalists and emergentists can agree here). If a super-intelligence is created at some point in time, then we can expect there to exists much more of it in an entire timeline than human intelligence. By self-sampling, it is therefore unlikely that I exist as a human and not as a super-intelligence. I can think of three options: 1) We are outliers -- it is hard to estimate the likelihood of this, but it would be tempting to assume that it is very very low if we imagine a galaxy-spanning AI civilisation; 2) No super-intelligence will ever be created; 3) We are already super-intelligences, having an experience in a simulation for some reason. What do you think? Cheers Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. Mathematicians kill themselves at a rate 1.8 times higher than the general population, but they're not as bad as dentists, they kill themselves 5.6 times as often. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? Mathematicians kill themselves at a rate 1.8 times higher than the general population, but they're not as bad as dentists, they kill themselves 5.6 times as often. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging lots of non-super intelligences. So the chances of finding yourself non-super is vastly greater, because it takes billions of us to make one of them. However, this could lead to you eventually finding yourself super (especially if quantum immortality operates). Or a subset of super. PS Ants aren't relevant, as Russell explains in Theory of Nothing. On 10 June 2015 at 09:41, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so that their measure effectively becomes zero. Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that this would reduce its measure. Consider the fact that you are no an ant, even though there are apparently 100 trillion of them compared to 7 billion humans. Telmo. The way I resolve that one is to assume that self-sampling requires a high enough level intelligence to have an ego (the 'self' in self-sampling). This is required to differentiate the computational histories we identify with as identity memory. Let's say the entirety of humanity uploaded into a simulated environment, and that one day the simulated separation between minds was eradicated, giving rise to a super-intelligence (just one path of many to a superintelligence). From that moment on it would be impossible to differentiate computational histories in terms of personal identity/memory, so the measure goes to zero. Why zero? There is still one conscious entity. Why wouldn't it remember the great unification and the multitude of humans events before that? Telmo. When I say goes to zero I mean it as in, approaches the limit of zero in the relative measure. I think it would remember the great multitude of human events, but it would remember all of them as a single entity, as a single undifferentiated identity. It effectively collapses the measure from billions to one. Terren T -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 June 2015 at 11:39, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 08:37, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging lots of non-super intelligences. So the chances of finding yourself non-super is vastly greater, because it takes billions of us to make one of them. However, this could lead to you eventually finding yourself super (especially if quantum immortality operates). Or a subset of super. PS Ants aren't relevant, as Russell explains in Theory of Nothing. OK, but the same argument can easily be made otherwise: why should you find yourself living in tiny New Zealand rather than populous China? There is a way to show that you are more likely to find yourself in a smaller country. I can't remember the details (but I think a power law is involved :-) But I will have a go. I am more likely to find myself not in China than in China, because the majority of people live outside China. Of the rest of the world, the next most populous country is India, but more people live outside India than in it, so I am more likely not to live in India. Next is the USA, but of the remaining 4 or 5 billion people, most live outside the USA, so... Repeating the process, I end up living alone on an island in the Pacific. Or in New Zealand, which is almost the same thing. (And then the test is given on Tuesday, much to my surprise!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 09:39:37AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 08:37, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging lots of non-super intelligences. So the chances of finding yourself non-super is vastly greater, because it takes billions of us to make one of them. However, this could lead to you eventually finding yourself super (especially if quantum immortality operates). Or a subset of super. PS Ants aren't relevant, as Russell explains in Theory of Nothing. OK, but the same argument can easily be made otherwise: why should you find yourself living in tiny New Zealand rather than populous China? I address that as well. Because of a peculiar conspiracy, country populations follow a near power law, which means it is just as likely that you will be born in a low population country like New Zealand, as a high population country like China, simply because there are more low population countries in just the right number. Which leads one to suspect that self-sampling is another mechanism for the ubuquity of power laws in nature. I had a proof in one version of my paper that fragmentation/coalescence processes in general lead to power law distributions in just the right way to solve self-sampling problems like the above, but referees made me take it out. I suppose I should try to publish that result in a more mathematical journal at some point, but I'm getting tired of arguing with referees all the time ):. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
I was close :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:33 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 11:15, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: From a quantum immortality perspective, I think if a superintelligence was merging lots of intelligences, including yours, you find yourself in increasingly unlikely situations where you were able to escape being merged with the superintelligence. Eventually, against all odds, you might be the only non-integrated intelligence left. Yes, that does seem possible. It would imply that closest continuers of you could never be the versions within the Cloud - an alternative might be that the superintelligence starts off new arrivals with full autonomy inside a virtual world indistinguishable from their previous existence, and only gradually allow them to merge into the Overmind ... maybe giving them tests to check if they are ready to do so yet. But that would be a cul-de-sac if eventually the superintelligence reaps all individual consciousnesses. (Which may or may not involve being able to recite the Quran :-) lol, the religious parallels are many. The superintelligence is a sort of ego dissolution into the Void. Terren -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 June 2015 at 08:37, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging lots of non-super intelligences. So the chances of finding yourself non-super is vastly greater, because it takes billions of us to make one of them. However, this could lead to you eventually finding yourself super (especially if quantum immortality operates). Or a subset of super. PS Ants aren't relevant, as Russell explains in Theory of Nothing. OK, but the same argument can easily be made otherwise: why should you find yourself living in tiny New Zealand rather than populous China? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 June 2015 at 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? According to most people on this list, they are ALL failed attempts. Heehee. (Or at least most people are willnig to entertain the possibility.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
From a quantum immortality perspective, I think if a superintelligence was merging lots of intelligences, including yours, you find yourself in increasingly unlikely situations where you were able to escape being merged with the superintelligence. Eventually, against all odds, you might be the only non-integrated intelligence left. Terren On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging lots of non-super intelligences. So the chances of finding yourself non-super is vastly greater, because it takes billions of us to make one of them. However, this could lead to you eventually finding yourself super (especially if quantum immortality operates). Or a subset of super. PS Ants aren't relevant, as Russell explains in Theory of Nothing. On 10 June 2015 at 09:41, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so that their measure effectively becomes zero. Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that this would reduce its measure. Consider the fact that you are no an ant, even though there are apparently 100 trillion of them compared to 7 billion humans. Telmo. The way I resolve that one is to assume that self-sampling requires a high enough level intelligence to have an ego (the 'self' in self-sampling). This is required to differentiate the computational histories we identify with as identity memory. Let's say the entirety of humanity uploaded into a simulated environment, and that one day the simulated separation between minds was eradicated, giving rise to a super-intelligence (just one path of many to a superintelligence). From that moment on it would be impossible to differentiate computational histories in terms of personal identity/memory, so the measure goes to zero. Why zero? There is still one conscious entity. Why wouldn't it remember the great unification and the multitude of humans events before that? Telmo. When I say goes to zero I mean it as in, approaches the limit of zero in the relative measure. I think it would remember the great multitude of human events, but it would remember all of them as a single entity, as a single undifferentiated identity. It effectively collapses the measure from billions to one. Terren T -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 June 2015 at 11:15, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: From a quantum immortality perspective, I think if a superintelligence was merging lots of intelligences, including yours, you find yourself in increasingly unlikely situations where you were able to escape being merged with the superintelligence. Eventually, against all odds, you might be the only non-integrated intelligence left. Yes, that does seem possible. It would imply that closest continuers of you could never be the versions within the Cloud - an alternative might be that the superintelligence starts off new arrivals with full autonomy inside a virtual world indistinguishable from their previous existence, and only gradually allow them to merge into the Overmind ... maybe giving them tests to check if they are ready to do so yet. (Which may or may not involve being able to recite the Quran :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? According to most people on this list, they are ALL failed attempts. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so that their measure effectively becomes zero. Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that this would reduce its measure. Consider the fact that you are no an ant, even though there are apparently 100 trillion of them compared to 7 billion humans. Telmo. The way I resolve that one is to assume that self-sampling requires a high enough level intelligence to have an ego (the 'self' in self-sampling). This is required to differentiate the computational histories we identify with as identity memory. Let's say the entirety of humanity uploaded into a simulated environment, and that one day the simulated separation between minds was eradicated, giving rise to a super-intelligence (just one path of many to a superintelligence). From that moment on it would be impossible to differentiate computational histories in terms of personal identity/memory, so the measure goes to zero. Why zero? There is still one conscious entity. Why wouldn't it remember the great unification and the multitude of humans events before that? Telmo. When I say goes to zero I mean it as in, approaches the limit of zero in the relative measure. I think it would remember the great multitude of human events, but it would remember all of them as a single entity, as a single undifferentiated identity. It effectively collapses the measure from billions to one. Terren T -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so that their measure effectively becomes zero. Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that this would reduce its measure. Consider the fact that you are no an ant, even though there are apparently 100 trillion of them compared to 7 billion humans. Telmo. The way I resolve that one is to assume that self-sampling requires a high enough level intelligence to have an ego (the 'self' in self-sampling). This is required to differentiate the computational histories we identify with as identity memory. Let's say the entirety of humanity uploaded into a simulated environment, and that one day the simulated separation between minds was eradicated, giving rise to a super-intelligence (just one path of many to a superintelligence). From that moment on it would be impossible to differentiate computational histories in terms of personal identity/memory, so the measure goes to zero. Why zero? There is still one conscious entity. Why wouldn't it remember the great unification and the multitude of humans events before that? Telmo. T -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
