Konkvistador comments on Stanovich, 'The Robot's Rebellion' (mini-review) - Less Wrong

7 Post author: lukeprog 16 November 2011 05:07AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (38)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 November 2011 09:31:06AM *  2 points [-]

Does it matter? Your genes and memes basically are who you are. They contain most of the necessary information to make you you, you can not exist without the information describing you existing (however hidden or unavailable it may be to any particular mind) as well!

Freedom in any reasonable sense is the ability to make the future universe will end up in states that you find desirable. Altering the fitness landscape or letting it stay just as it is are both valid courses of action to this goal, though the latter is very unlikely to be the wise choice for us. Hacking your mind to fool your memes to help spread your genes, or vice versa are also merely a tactic in this goal. Replacing your genes and memes with ones that you are supremley confident will do the job of making the future universe as you'd like, or changing the envrionment they express themselves in seem to be valid as well.

Comment author: timtyler 16 November 2011 12:32:34PM *  4 points [-]

Does it matter? Your genes and memes basically are who you are. They contain most of the necessary information to make you you [...]

Well, probably not in an information-theory sense. Genes and memes are part of who you are, but there's a whole buch of other stuff that wasn't inherited from anywhere and was instead learned from the environment. It is likely to consist of more information than the genes and memes combined.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 November 2011 12:52:10PM *  2 points [-]

Well, probably not in an information-theory sense. Genes and memes are part of who you are, but there's a whole buch of other stuff that wasn't inherited from anywhere and was instead learned from the environment. It is likely to consist of more information than the genes and memes combined.

Anything you learned from the envrionment and can be transmitted to another brain is a meme, though not necessarily a very successful one. Meme's seem to be more or less used interchangeably with ideas, which isn't right obviously since there are things we learn that we can't transmit with currently available tools. If a day comes when I can directly upload and share the exact smell of a loved one or the muscle memory of me playing basketball for half an hour those things too will become memes, or some other kind of replicator if one wants to quibble about definitions.

But I'm using learned from the envrionment in too narrow a meaning, I think you are using learn here as any difference of behaviour or function that is the result of your interaction with your envrionment. If a slight heavy metal contamination in my childhood caused me to grow a bit less neurotypical or less likley to receive a religious experience or fall in love or anything at all, if someone was trying to upload my brain, that would clearly be something that would need be simulated! It constitutes information about me, even if it isn't something we would in the everyday sense of the word call "learning".

Perhaps I'm spending too much of my intellectual life in RH's scenario of a future of emulated minds competing with each other at the Malthusian margin, where my mind to be perfectly simulated on another medium, any of the states of my body or the rules that govern how these states transition to other states is a piece of information that can be shared and recombined with others. And you would necessarily find some propagating more while others not at all in essence replicator dynamics would I think being operating on a totality of what I am (I wish to emphasise I am making several implicit assumptions about the simulated envrionment here and these may not necessarily hold).

But my primary point was, you can't really make a you without including lots of the information encoded in your genes or memes, even if this isn't the totality, or as you point out the majority of information needed to build a you. Arguably if you change their medium, looking at them just as replicators one could argue that they indeed did survive the transition and you are still even in your uploaded and heavily modified or in your "rational" unbiased form the lumbering survival machine of the subset of them that survived the latest selection challenge in their long long history.

Comment author: timtyler 16 November 2011 01:17:37PM *  1 point [-]

Anything you learned from the envrionment and can be transmitted to another brain is a meme, though not necessarily a very successful one.

Memes are what you get culturally. There's a big mountain of human experience that is not culturally transmitted - because it is learned anew in each generation. When you learn how to tie a new knot, maybe 10% of the skill is culturally transmitted, and 90% is muscle movement information discovered by trial and error on the spot while figuring out how to get to the goal.

Meme's seem to be more or less used interchangeably with ideas, which isn't right obviously since there are things we learn that we can't transmit with currently available tools.

Indeed: "A meme is not equivalent to an idea. It's not an idea, it's not equivalent to anything else, really." - Sue Blackmore

If a day comes when I can directly upload and share the exact smell of a loved one or the muscle memory of me playing basketball for half an hour those things too will become memes, or some other kind of replicator if one wants to quibble about definitions.

Yes, when we can upload our minds, things like knowledge of how balls bounce will be capable of being transmitted memetically - rather than being learned anew in each generation, which is what happpens today.

However, that day has not yet come.

But my primary point was, you can't really make a you without including lots of the information encoded in your genes or memes [...]

Sure, granted.

Comment author: torekp 20 November 2011 02:26:38AM 0 points [-]

I'm with you there, but I'm at a loss as to how you can reconcile this with your earlier post.

Comment author: timtyler 20 November 2011 12:35:55PM 1 point [-]

Where most of the information that composes a person comes from and what function they "should" optimise seem like rather different topics to me.

A lot of what we acquire from our environment is not information that impacts on what our goals are, but rather is used to build a model of the environment - which we then use to help us pursue our goals.

Comment author: torekp 21 November 2011 11:33:44PM 0 points [-]

That's true, but some of the information does impact what our goals are. We learn "values" from experience, not just "facts". (I'm putting scare-quotes here because I believe the fact/value dichotomy is often overblown.) This gives the person a place to stand which is neither gene nor meme nor simply a mixture of the two. When we rationally reach reflective equilibrium on our goals, I believe, this will continue to be the case.

Comment author: timtyler 22 November 2011 05:47:57PM 0 points [-]

We learn "values" from experience, not just "facts". (I'm putting scare-quotes here because I believe the fact/value dichotomy is often overblown.) This gives the person a place to stand which is neither gene nor meme nor simply a mixture of the two.

A huge amount of the value-related information that we get from our environment comes from other living entities attempting to manipulate us. Sometimes, they negotiate with us, or manipulate our sense data - rather than attempting to affect our values. However, sometimes they attempt to "hijack our brains" - and redirect our values towards their own ends, or those of their makers.

The biggest influences come from other humans, symbionts, pathogens and memes. Basically most goal directedness comes from other living, goal-directed systems - so genes and memes - though not necessarily your own genes and memes.

The next biggest source of human values comes from the theory of self-organising systems. The brain is probably the most important self-organising system involved. It mostly has desires that arise by virtue of it being a large reinforcement learning system. Essentially, the brain sometimes acts as though it wants its own reward signals - and it fulfills those desires by doing things like taking rewarding drugs. The brain was made by genes - but wireheading is not exactly what the genes want.

The next-most significant effect on human values is probably mistakes (e.g. sub-optimal adaptations).

Many humans delight in seeking out noble sources of value - probably for signalling reasons. They do not like hearing that genes and memes are primarily responsible for what they hold most dear - and the next biggest influences are probably wireheading and mistakes.

Comment author: torekp 24 November 2011 08:15:07PM *  0 points [-]

The next biggest source of human values comes from the theory of self-organising systems. The brain is probably the most important self-organising system involved. It mostly has desires that arise by virtue of it being a large reinforcement learning system.

That's the sort of thing I had in mind. Because our conceptual framework is learned from experience, what we learn to seek is not necessarily what our genes "want". Of course if you place a human being in "the ancestral environment" then you will get learned values that serve the "aim of the genes" reasonably well - but not perfectly. In the modern environment, less so. The brain sometimes wants its own reward signals per se, and more often wants certain distal events that have been favored over the learning process.

Having thus discovered certain activities to be meaningful and rewarding, people go on to tell each other about them. This strongly shapes the meme environment.

How noble or ignoble this is, may be in the eyes of the beholder. It doesn't look so ignoble to me.

Comment author: timtyler 26 November 2011 12:47:34PM *  0 points [-]

Because our conceptual framework is learned from experience, what we learn to seek is not necessarily what our genes "want". Of course if you place a human being in "the ancestral environment" then you will get learned values that serve the "aim of the genes" reasonably well - but not perfectly. In the modern environment, less so.

The idea of values coming from genes does not say anything about whether those desires are adaptive in the modern environment. Humans desire fat and sugar. Those desires are built in - coded in genes. That they are currently probably maladaptive is a different issue.

Saying that we have desires for chocolate gateau and ice cream that we must have learned from our environment seems like a "less helpful" way of looking at it the situation to me. It is better to regard chocolate gateau and ice cream as being learned associations with things actually valued. If they are to be classified as being "learned values", they are learned instrumental values.

Comment author: torekp 26 November 2011 01:23:47PM 1 point [-]

Humans desire fat and sugar. Those desires are built in - coded in genes.

That's a half-truth, or maybe a truth-value-less sentence. One could just as easily say humans desire calories and vitamin C. Fat and sugar just happen to be, in the ancestral environment, means to these ends. Or perhaps humans simply desire survival and reproduction. I'm doubtful that any of these interpretations can claim to be the true one, at least until an individual human endorses one.

It is better to regard chocolate gateau and ice cream as being learned associations with things actually valued.

"Actually valued" suggests that ice cream is not actually valued except as a means to fat and sugar, which is definitely not true. Just try taking away someone's ice cream and offering lard and sugar in their stead.

Comment author: timtyler 26 November 2011 02:27:39PM *  0 points [-]

Humans desire fat and sugar. Those desires are built in - coded in genes.

That's a half-truth, or maybe a truth-value-less sentence. One could just as easily say humans desire calories and vitamin C.

Calories, yes, vitamin C - probably not. It took quite a while for the link between vitamin C deficiency and the foods containing it to be discovered. Humans apparently don't have an instinctive craving for it - perhaps because their diet is normally saturated with it.

Or perhaps humans simply desire survival and reproduction.

Sure - e.g. the maternal instinct.

I'm doubtful that any of these interpretations can claim to be the true one, at least until an individual human endorses one.

So: those are not really different interpretations of the same facts, but statements covering several different desires - so we don't have to choose between them.

It is better to regard chocolate gateau and ice cream as being learned associations with things actually valued.

"Actually valued" suggests that ice cream is not actually valued except as a means to fat and sugar, which is definitely not true. Just try taking away someone's ice cream and offering lard and sugar in their stead.

It was not an intended implication that fat and suger represent all the human gustatory desires.

Comment author: wedrifid 16 November 2011 03:37:29PM *  0 points [-]

Does it matter? Your genes and memes basically are who you are. They contain most of the necessary information to make you you

They are two important parts but there is a whole heap of important information stored in the brain that isn't 'memes'. Sentiments, desires, weightings, skills, habits, aversions. They just don't fit in under 'memes' - I mean whole parts of the brain don't even store memes at all.