= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
If the evolutionary process results in either convergence, divergence or extinction, and most often results in extinction, what reason(s) do I have to think that this 23rd emerging complex homo will not go the way of extinction also? Are we throwing all our hope towards super intelligence as our salvation?
A cent does have a nonzero amount of purchasing power, but none of my victims have actually lost the ability to purchase anything
Assuming that none of them end up one cent short for something they would otherwise have been able to pay for, which out of a billion people is probably going to happen. It doesn't have to be their next purchase.
Like Eliezer says in reference to Newcomb's problem, if rationality seems to be telling us to go with the choice that results in losing, perhaps we need to take another look at what we're calling rationality.
Folks are definitely not rational when it comes to money, penny or otherwise. Take for example: gas pricing. The industry wide 9/10 cent pricing for a gallon of gas is price collusion and a deceptive marketing practice. It is not possible to purchase a gallon of gas at the advertised price.
I have talked to most of the major gas companies and they concur that it is easy to program the pump to whole cent pricing at the pump. Wayne Dresser, who makes most of the gas pumps, tells me this is a remnant of the old mechanical type pumps (sort of like the QWERTY phenomena).
There is a 15 to 10 bias towards rounding up rounds the total cost of purchase up to the next whole cent for multiples between one and five gallons( -i.e. 1, 11, 21, ...gallons)--and rounds cost down to the next whole cent for multiples between 6 and 9 gallons ( i.e. 6, 16, 26...gallons).
9/10 cent motor fuel pricing was banned in Iowa state law from 1985-1989 before special interests reinstated the deceptive practice.
Here's a wisegeek article about it ... You do the math! [http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-gas-prices-always-end-in-910-of-a-cent.htm]
We've been getting ripped off like this for over 70 years and pending laws in various states to ban this go unnoticed or forgotten. When I tell folks about it their eyes gloss over and they don't get it. Maybe some of you math guys will understand.
In response to
Holden's Objection 1: Friendliness is dangerous
Humans have a values hierarchy. Trouble is, most do not even know what it is (or, they are). IOW, for me honesty is one of the most important values to have. Also, sanctity of (and protection of) life is very high on the list. I would lie in a second to save my son's life. Some choice like that are no-brainers, however few people know all the values that they live by, let alone the hierarchy. Often humans only discover what these values are as they find themselves in various situations.
Just wondering... has anyone compiled a list of these values, morals, ethics... and applied them to various real-life situations to study the possible 'choices' an AI has and the potential outcomes with differing hierarchies?
ADDED: Sometime humans know the right thing but choose to do something else. Isn't that because of emotion? If so, what part does emotion play in superintelligence?
In response to
Many Worlds, One Best Guess
If the inflationary scenario in cosmology turns out to be wrong, and the topology of the universe is both finite and relatively small—so that Earth does not have the distant duplicates that would be implied by an exponentially vast universe—then this Earth could be the only Earth that exists anywhere, a rather unnerving thought!
Then prepare to be unnerved! 'The' Universe is space (nothing) and matter (something). Space can not expand as it is nothing. Nothing can expand as it does not exist and what would space expand into, more space? AND if space is something, then it would be a large block of matter where motion would be impossible (and still we are left wondering where that block of matter 'sits'). However, space is boundless (without borders) and there is a finite amount of matter. This is logically the default position. The burden of proof for creation lies on the one proposing this and is exactly what Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître attempted unsucessfully with his expanding universe theory. It may have satisfied the Pope, but it did not satisfy the burden of proof for creation.
But it is dangerous to focus too much on specific hypotheses that you have no specific reason to think about. This is the same root error of the Intelligent Design folk, who pick any random puzzle in modern genetics, and say, "See, God must have done it!" Why 'God', rather than a zillion other possible explanations?—which you would have thought of long before you postulated divine intervention, if not for the fact that you secretly started out already knowing the answer you wanted to find.
Yes, there is no reason to focus on the created (Big Bang) expanding universe. Not only because it is irrational to think of space expanding since it is nothing and can not expand into more nothing, but because the default position is that there is matter. That matter was created, requires the burden of proof on the creationist (if we are using the scientific method).
You shouldn't even ask, "Might there only be one world?" but instead just go ahead and do physics, and raise that particular issue only if new evidence demands it.
I wholeheartedly agree (as if that really matters). By default there is one world, and the question of many worlds is far from being 'settled' science or established fact!
Much worse, any physical scenario in which there was a single surviving world, so that any measurement had only a single outcome, would violate Special Relativity.[Linked] > When you have a pair of entangled particles, such as oppositely polarized photons, one particle seems to somehow "know" the result of distant measurements on the other article. Einstein famously called this "spukhafte Fernwirkung" or "spooky action at a distance". Einstein didn't know about decoherence, so it seemed spooky to him.
It is easy to conceive of a solution to entanglement without positing decoherence and one that satisfies Newton, SR and GR. For instance, if instead of discrete particles, there is an electromagnetic 'rope' connecting the two photons, from 'your' pov the rope can be rotating CW and from 'their' pov it will be rotating CCW. Not only will AAAD not be spooky in this instance, aether or "the fabric of space" and other worlds are unnecessary.
For a mathematicians POV on where physics went wrong, read what (Miles Mathis has to say:) [http://milesmathis.com/death.html]
ADDED: Since I am getting downvoted once again w/o explanation, I suppose it is for using pure logic and not math.
I may as well link you directly to the mathematician that refutes MWI and much more using (oh no!) MATH! He gives mechanical explanations for many of the experiments that supposedly 'prove' QM. Here are but a few. Enjoy!
(CHSH Bell Tests) [http://milesmathis.com/chsh.pdf]
(Entanglement) [http://milesmathis.com/entang.html]
(Superposition) [http://milesmathis.com/super.html]
(Mechanical explanation for Dbl Slit Experiment) [http://milesmathis.com/double.html]
(Bohm Bell & de Broglie) [http://milesmathis.com/pilot.pdf]
I would agree that if what I want to do is increase my understanding regardless of my ability to communicate effectively with other people (which isn't true of me, but might be true of others), and if communicating effectively with others doesn't itself contribute significantly to my understanding (which isn't true of me, but might be true of others), then choosing definitions for my words that maximize my internal clarity without reference to what those words mean to others is a pretty good strategy.
You started out by asking why EY doesn't do that, and I was suggesting that perhaps it's because his goals weren't the goals you're assuming here.
Reading between the lines a bit, I infer that the question was rhetorical in the first place, and your point is that maximizing individual understanding without reference to other goals, preferences, values, or communication with others should be what EY is doing... or perhaps that it is what he's doing, and he's doing a bad job of it.
If so, I apologize for misunderstanding.
@TheOtherDave:
Anotherblackhat said :
How can you be 100% confident that a look up table has zero consciousness when you don't even know for sure what consciousness is?
In response Monkeymind said :
Why not just define consciousness in a rational, unambiguous, non-contradictory way and then use it consistently throughout?
Not being100% confident what consciousness is, seemed to be a concern to anotherblackhat. Defining consciousness would have removed that concern.
No need to "read between the lines" as it was a straight forward question. I really didn't understand why the definition of consciousness wasn't laid out in advance of the thot experiment.
Defining terms allows one to communicate more effectively with others which is really important in any conversation but essential in presenting a hypothesis.
I was informed by Dlthomas that conceptspace is different than thingspace, so I think get the jest of it now.
However, my point was, and is, that the theorist's defs are crucial to the hypothesis and hypotheses don't care at all about goals, preferences, and values. Hypotheses simply illustrate the actors, define the terms in the script and set the stage for the first act. Now we can move on to the theory and hopefully form a conclusion.
No need to apologize, it is easy to misunderstand me, as I am not very articulate to begin with, and as usual, I don't understand what I know about it!
ADDED: And I still need to learn how to narrow the inferential gap!
In response to
Excluding the Supernatural
Occasionally, you hear someone claiming that creationism should not be taught in schools, especially not as a competing hypothesis to evolution, because creationism is a priori and automatically excluded from scientific consideration, in that it invokes the "supernatural".
Creationism should not be taught in school because it is irrational for the same reason that Big Bang should not be taught in school. Creationism is not possible weather done by a God or done by Hawking's tiny dimpled pea.
The problem can be solved conceptually right here and now. Matter can not exist without space and space precedes matter and motion. Therefore space, matter and motion is eternal.
It would take far more time and space (pun intended) to explain this in detail, so I will link to some refutation (here:) [http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0047v1.pdf]
and here: (Top 30 reasons) [ http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp]
and just skip directly to why conceptually it is impossible for a Big Bang.
Both space and time are self-referring fallacies. Also fallacy of reifying abstracts and fallacy of confusing between a set and its members.
Check it out here: (Space) {http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00NO19PDF/NR19ANT.PDF] and here: (Falacies space and time) [(http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf]
If my goal is to clarify some confusing aspects of what people think about when they use the word "consciousness", then if I end up talking about something other than what people think about when they use the word "consciousness" (for example, if I come up with some precise, unambiguous, non-circular, non-contradictory definition for the term) there's a good chance that I've lost sight of my goal.
Thanx! TheOtherDave:
The point of defining one's terms is to avoid confusion in the first place. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks consciousness means. Only the meaning as defined in the theorist's hypothesis is important at this stage of the scientific method.
"there's a good chance that I've lost sight of my goal"
That's something I don't understand (with epistemic rationality- "The art of choosing actions that steer the future toward outcomes ranked higher in your preferences ").
This is fine when a person is making personal choices on how to act, but when it comes to knowledge (and especially the scientific method)....It seems like ultimately one would be interested in increasing one's understanding regardless of an individual's goals, preferences or values.
Oh well, at least we aren't using Weber's affectual rationality involving feelings here.
In response to
Belief in the Implied Invisible
Should I believe that, in the moment where I can no longer interact with it even in principle, the photon disappears?
No.
It would violate Conservation of Energy. And the second law of thermodynamics. And just about every other law of physics. And probably the Three Laws of Robotics. It would imply the photon knows I care about it and knows exactly when to disappear.
1) The Second Law is a non-sequitur. It simply isn't relevant. The loss of a photon due to universal expansion does not violate that principle at all.
2) The First Law was formulated when we found that, in our attempts to examine situations where it was asserted substance was created or destroyed, substance was always conserved. It exists on empirical grounds; it's not some sacred revelation that cannot be questioned or even discarded if necessary. Citing the First Law against the idea that a bit of mass-energy *could* be destroyed is simply invalid, because if that substance could be destroyed, we'd have to abandon the Law.
3) The idea that "the photon knows when to disappear" is based on a mistaken understanding of existence. It is not an inherent property of a thing, but a relationship between two or more things. The photon doesn't keep track of how far it's gotten from Eliezer and then lose the "existence" property when it's distant enough. Its existence relative to Eliezer ends when it passes forever out of the universe in which things interact with Eliezer.
There is no difference between saying that a photon that travels far enough away from Eliezer is destroyed, and saying that a photon that travels far enough from Eliezer is no longer part of the set closed under interaction that includes him. Knowing the properties of the photon would no longer be necessary to completely represent Eliezer and the things that interact with him.
The photon is no more. It has ceased to be! Relative to Eliezer, at least. Whether it exists relative to other things is undefined - and utterly irrelevant.
3) The idea that "the photon knows when to disappear" is based on a mistaken understanding of existence. It is not an inherent property of a thing, but a relationship between two or more things. The photon doesn't keep track of how far it's gotten from Eliezer and then lose the "existence" property when it's distant enough. Its existence relative to Eliezer ends when it passes forever out of the universe in which things interact with Eliezer.
Awesome! If exist = matter plus location and photon equals particle (implying matter) and travel (or motion) = matter + 2 or more locations and location is the set of static distances to all other objects, then hurrah! for rationality.
Where this looses me is "passes forever out of the universe in which things interact with Eliezer." How can anything pass out of 'the universe' ? Unless you mean into another universe then how can distance traveled translate into moves into another universe?
A question about conceptspace. Are all things possible in conceptspace, therefore I can postulate anything I like? If not, I can't do the thought experiment when the assumptions are not rational.
For instance: if universe = matter + space, where matter is every'thing' and space is no'thing' then how does space itself expand? If space is some'thing' then what does space itself expand into...more space? Again I can see moving numbers or concepts around in conceptspace but having trouble with objects.
At any rate, whatever key terms that we use in our hypothesis must be precise, unambiguous, non circular, non-contradictory and used consistently throughout our presentation.
I'm personally okay with circular definition when used appropriately. For instance, there's the Haskell definition
naturalNumbers = 1 : (map (+ 1) naturalNumbers)
which tells you how to build the natural numbers in terms of the natural numbers.
Thanx! but, sorry, I don't know what that means. I do understand that numbers can 'do things' that physical objects can't. All words are concepts, but they resolve down to either concepts or objects. We have got to understand the difference between the two. Numbers are for conceptspace.
If I define "exist"- to be. It is circular. It tells us nothing. If a physicist says something exists in his hypothesis, he can not be circular in defining that term. He would have to define exist something like exist = matter + location.
If I choose to define consciousness as "self-aware" and everyone understands that to mean aware and aware of being aware, then I can proceed with my presentation. As long as I use the term consistently, everyone can see if my hypothesis is rational or not, then we can move on to the theory. If the theory explains the hypothesis then we can come to the conclusion that it is possible. We understand a better explanation may come along.
Anyways, I think probably the issue is that consciousness is what something does and not what something has.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
That is an interesting analysis. I think I might view "just" and "wonderful" more like physically null words, so as to say they do not have any meaning beyond interpretation.
I guess I am just getting too rational for interacting with normal people psychology purely by typical-mindedness.
From the OP"
“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” -Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," Scientific American (November, 1995).
"Am I posting that quote to disagree with it? No. Every jot and tittle of it is correct."
While I think this: "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." Albert Einstein
I also think this:
"Always look on the bright side of life." Monty Python
Why not quickly swallow the bitter pill without any sugar coating, and then just as quickly, get on with one's life and enjoy the rainbows without 'getting all wrapped around one's own axle' or this sort of heavy thinking that ultimately leads to analysis paralysis?