= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Uncritical Supercriticality - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (159)
You are welcome, shminux. Since you used this collection of letters, "reductionism," and appear to posit that my view is "incompatible" with it, I looked it up. Yukdowsky's article, for starters. Aside from EY using the device of positing a series of stupid arguments to refute, and being a bit naive about what others "believe," when he actually gets to the definition, it seems quite like the way I think. In fact, if I hadn't noticed this many times, reading his work, I'd not be bothering with LW at all.
Yet I'm suspicious of any "ism," a high-level abstraction, proposed as if representing reality. Indeed, wouldn't a reductionist be suspicious?
Reductionism as a practical approach, fine.
Now, I notice that EY, in the post, capitalizes Reality.
He's expressing, first, a reductionist position. It is indeed an "ism." It proposes itself as what is "really" so (but, to his credit, he qualifies it: as far as we can tell. Setting aside a quibble about "we," that's fine).
He is pointing to a unity, but is describing that unity in terms of present understanding ("elementary particle fields and fundamental forces"). Take out the "really," understand "physics" as a heuristic, a method of making predictions, a map rather than the territory, and I'm right with him, down to capitalizing Reality, because it becomes a proper noun.
A proper noun that happens to have, it seems, amazing "computing power." Now, my question: is this "computing power" intelligent?
If you have an answer, coming from knowledge, I'd love to hear how you know it. I'd answer the question myself, but these comments are already long.
I guess we should first agree on what the term "intelligent" means. I do not have a good definition, but let's borrow the one given by Eliezer. It ought to be an instrumentally good one, given that constructing an intelligence (a "friendly" one) is his life's goal:
Now, I assume that your definition would not be identical to his, so feel free to express it here.
Smart.
[edit: I didn't see an alternate meaning for what I wrote. I meant that it was smart to check for or seek agreement on the meaning, not that "intelligent" means "smart," a mere synonym.]
The post refers to a definition, but doesn't state it. A previous post has a definition:
I read this as an ability to "solve problems" efficiently, "cross-domain," i.e., not just in some narrow field. In our discussion, I quote EY as referring to Reality as if it has huge computational ability.
My own thinking has reflected on the "omniscience" and "omnipotence" of God as being almost a tautology: Reality knows all things, and over all things has power.
Reality, however, is not an "artificial intelligence," although artificial intelligence may exist, may be real. If it exists, it is limited by its computational power. The computational power of Reality will necessarily be greater. It may not be unlimited though. The Many Worlds interpretation might extend the power of Reality almost infinitely.
On the other hand, is Reality "efficient"?
I have no confidence in these ideas as "truth," but do see them as possibly useful, in terms of the relationship with Reality that might be fostered by them.
So, if you agree with EY's definition of intelligence, where do you think you two diverge, him being an atheist and you a Muslim?
I don't know that we diverge. We have not discussed this. Do remember, above, that I said that the difference between a theist and atheist was only a thin space. It might not even be an important space. However, that could depend on what he means by "atheist" and what I mean by "Muslim," which has been the whole point of this discussion, coming as commentary on EY's "Uncritical Supercriticality."
His post seems to me to be about this problem we have of making assumptions about people and positions from affliiations, and what amount to political responses to real or imagined difference. "The affective death spiral." Thanks, shminux, for the questions you ask, which, in my experience, bring insight.
You are most welcome, though my assessment of our exchange is less glowing, given that neither of us changed their worldview to any significant degree.
Give it time.