I think the moral is that you shouldn't try to write software for which you don't have the hardware to run on, not even if the code could run itself by emulating the hardware. A rock runs on physics, Euclid's rules don't. We have morality to run on our brains, and... isn't FAI about porting it to physics?

So shouldn't we distinguish between the symbols physics::dynamic and human_brain::dynamic? (In a way, me reading the word "dynamic" uses more computing power than running any Java applet could on current computers...)

Well... I liked the video, especially to watch how all the concepts mentioned on OB before work in... real life. But showing how you should think to be effective (which Eliezer is writing about on OB) is a different goal from persuading people that the Singularity is not some other dull pseudo-religion. No, they haven't read OB, and they won't even have a reason to if they are told "you won't understand all this all of a sudden, see inferential distances, which is a concept I also can't explain now". To get thorough their spam filter, we'll need stories, even details, with a "this is very unprobable, but if you're interested, read OB" disclaimer at the end. See the question "but how could we use AI to fight poverty etc."... Why is the Singularity still "that strange and scary prediction some weird people make without any reason"?

Eliezer, does this whole theory cause us to _anticipate_ something different after thinking about it? For example, after I upload, will I (personally) feel anything or only the death-like dark nothingness comes?

I think I did find such a thing, involving copying yourself in parts varying in size. (Well, it's leading to a contradiction, by the way, but maybe that's why it's even more worthwhile to talk about.)

We have that "special" feeling: we are distinct beings from all the others, including zombie twins. I think we tend to use only one word for two different concepts, which causes a lot of confusion... Namely: 1) the ability of intelligent physical systems to reflect on themselves, imagine what we think or whatever makes us think that whichever we are talking to is "conscious" 2) that special feeling that somebody is listening in there. AGI research tries to solve the first problem, Chalmers the second one.

---

So let's try to create zombies then! I don't see why this seems logically so difficult, we only need some nanotechnology... So consider the following thought experiment.

You enter room A. Some equipment scans your atoms, and after scanning each, replaces it with one of the same element, same position. Meanwhile, the original atoms are assembled in room B, resulting in a zombie twin of you. You were conscious all along, and noticed nothing except some buzz coming from the walls... So you wouldn't be worried about the experiment even if your zombie is killed afterward, or sent to the stone mines of Mars for a lifelong sentence, etc.

You enter room A. Now, the copy process goes cell by cell. Scanning every cell, making an atom-by-atom perfect copy of it, then replacing, original goes into room B, assembled. You still notice nothing.

You enter room A. Your whole brain is grabbed, scanned, and then placed into room B. The body with the copied brain and other organs walks out happily of room A, while you go to the stone mines. A bit more depressing than the original version.

So, if we copy only atoms or cells (which is regularly done in our bodies), we stay in room A. If we copy whole organs or bodies, we go to room B. It wouldn't be intuitive to postulate that consciousness can be divided, it's either in room A or room B. But the quantity of atoms to be moved in one step is almost continous... it would be weird to assume that there is some magic number of them which allows consciousness to transfer.

The conclusion: to differentiate between "conscious beings" and "zombies" leads to contradiction even from a subjective viewpoint. (Where would that mysterious "inner Chalmers" be in the above cases?)

I think we are used to our consistent self-image too much, and can't imagine how anything else would feel. An example: using brain-computer interfaces, we construct a camera which watches our surroundings, even as we sleep. As we wake up, we could "remember" what happened while we slept, because of the connection the camera hardware made with our memories. (The right images just "popped into our minds".) But how would it feel? Were we conscious at night? If not, why do we remember certain things? If we were, why did we just watch as those thieves got away with all our stuff?

All we need to understand that is some experience. If it were given, we wouldn't ask questions like "why am I so special", I think.

athmwiji: if I understood correctly, you said that the concept of the physical world arises from our subjective experiences, and even if we explain that consistently, there still remain subjective experiences which we can't. We could for example imagine a simulated world in which everyone has silicon-based brains, including, at first sight, you, but in the real world you're still a human with a traditional flesh-based brain. There would be no physics then, which you could use to explain your headache with in-world mechanisms.

But without assuming that you're in such a special position in the world, you just have to explain why the other seemingly conscious beings (including AIs made by us) argue that they must have special subjective experiences which aren't explainable by the objective physics. (In fact, the whole thought process is explainable.) I think it's the same as free will...

Tiiba: no, the Martians wouldn't be able to contradict our math, as it's a model about what's happening around us, of the things we perceive. They wouldn't have different anticipations of real-world facts, but they would have different concepts, as their "hardware" differs from us, and so do their models. If our world would consist of fluid, seemingly infinitely divisible things, I don't think we would understand prime numbers at all... (As quantum mechanics doesn't seem to be intuitive to us.)

So I can imagine another math in which 2+2=5 is not obviously false, but needs a long proof and complicated equations...

Unknown: see Dennett: Kinds of Minds, he has a fairly good theory for what consciousness is. (To put it short: it's the capability to reflect on one's own thoughts, and so use them as tools.)

At the current state of science and AI, this is what sounds like a difficult (and a bit mysterious) question. For the hunter-gatherers, "what makes your hand move" was the same (or even more) difficult question. (The alternative explanation, "there is a God who began all movement etc." is still popular nowadays...)

Tiiba: an algorithm is a model in our mind to describe the similarities of those physical systems implementing it. Our mathematics is the way _we_ understand the world... I don't think the Martians with four visual cortexes would have the same math, or would be capable of understanding the same algorithms... So algorithms aren't fundamental, either.

>>If you personally did the astoundingly complex science and engineering to build the replicator, drinking that Earl Grey tea would be a lot more satisfying.

One of the fundamental differences between technology and magic is that two engineers do twice as much work as one would do, while a more powerful sorcerer gets farther than 10 not so powerful ones. It matters more how good you are than how many of you exist.

What NBA players do looks similar in quality to the thing you did with your friends at home, because even if you play well, you five can't put your powers together to be equivalent to one NBA star. Engineers can, so the things you create with technology aren't comparable to the products of big companies, even if you're good at engineering, and even if you're better than anyone in that company. (Yet another reason, I think, why people often like sports better than math.)

Yes, if I could design a replicator myself, I would be statisfied. I can't.

Eliezer, isn't reading a good fantasy story like being transported into another world?

Jed Harris: I agree... Our world seems to have the rule: "you are not significant". You can't design and build an airplane in your backyard, no one can. Even if you've got enough money, you haven't got enough time for that. In magical worlds (including Star Trek, Asimov, etc) that is what seems to be normal. (And I've never read about a committee which coordinates the work of hundreds of sorcerers, who create new spells 8 hours a day...)

rfriel: Yes, we could build the technology to do the things magic can do, but even with our current technology we also can do things which magic can't. And these limitations are which make magic so "nice", not only the features.

Martin: to be the best, you only have to make your world small. (I was one of the best in math in our secondary school, and it didn't bother me that I wasn't the best in the whole country, or that I was quite bad in history...) But it would have been soo good to be the one who makes the best operating systems in the whole school...

In what category does "the starship from book X" fit?

Definitely not into the "real, explainable, playing by the rules of our world" category. We can't observe it's inner workings more closely, although in the world of the book everything seems to be explained. (They know how it works, we don't.)

But also not in the "does'nt exist, is not worth caring about" category: we know that it doesn't exist in the real world even before reading the full book, but is nevertheless interesting and worth reading.

I personally would be less curious about bird droppings after reading such a book. (And read the sequel instead.) Does this count as self-deception?

So how should we overcome this "virtual reality bias"? Eliezer, you once wrote that reading sci-fi is one of the "software methods" to increase intelligence (and shock level). But to be accustomed to interstellar travel and AIs, and be interested in bird droppings and "mere reality" at the same time... If I could do that, I would be happy, but I can't, I think. So how do scientists manage to do that?

"If we cannot learn to take joy in the merely real, our lives will be empty indeed."

It's true... but... why do we read sci-fi books then? Why should we? I don't think that after reading a novel about intelligent, faster-than-light starships the bus stopping at the bus stop nearby will be as interesting as it used to be when we were watching it on the way to the kindergarten... Or do you think it is? (Without imagining starships in place of buses, of course.)

So what non-existing things should we imagine to be rational (= to win), and how? I hope there will be some words about that in tomorrow's post, too...