erikerikson

I see as agreement with you adding embellishment. 

A realistic imagining of a counterintuitive case, extreme in the hidden direction might be useful...  For example, a psychopath that lacks empathy but understands that hurting others reduces their productivity, affect, and other factors that thereby reduce their value and production for the psychopath and the society in which the psychopath is embedded.  Given this understanding the psychopath pursues the betterment of their fellow person even while finding manner by which to benefit themselves.

The question eventually becomes whether the label is about the underlying attribute propensity or reacting to that propensity in a way the consensus judges to badly far from maximizing.

I appreciate that.  I think it's good to have better access to reality.  What I'm saying is that I would suggest prioritizing enhanced awareness of other dimension of reality.  Before establishing my monogamous marriage I'd have happily have dated someone considered ugly with deformities who nonetheless had high compatibility emotionally, intellectually, and socially.  My happiness and smoothness in doing so would probably have served as one of the compatibility bars that they would have employed to evaluate my fitness.  There is a large societal focus on attractiveness but I don't expect it to be the best predictor of optimal relational outcomes.  You already to want to privilege and protect focus on that attribute.  Do I misunderstand?

This feels like it would really reinforce focus on the easily accessible attribute of external appearance.  For long term value/return/satisfaction in relationships I would expect attributes that matter more to include emotional and social skill level; compatible social schemas or ability to negotiate and agree across social schemas; lived lifestyle adjusted to remove base context determinants; or similarity in desire to introspect, express, and connect.  Ignoring privacy related fears that tend to be strongest around centralized repositories, if we would invest systemically in pairing (or more generally, grouping), I would expect is to use a more effective process than the unimaginative and intentionally anti-effective tinder-like approach?

Regarding pieces of oneself, consider the ideas of IFS (internal family systems). "Parts" can be said to attenuate to different concerns and if one can distract from others then an opportunity to maximize utility across dimensions may be missed. One might also suggest that attenuation to only one concern over time can result in a slight movement towards disintegration as a result of increasingly strong feelings about "ignored" concerns. Integration or alignment, with every part joining a cooperative council is often considered a goal and personification can assist some in more peaceably achieving that. I personally found the suggestion to personify felt weird and false.

Of course, Loqi's suggestion could contingently be less optimal than the less easy to accept presentation.

While the approach you suggest could provide a more subjectively negative experience, the cognitive dissonance could cause the utterance to gain more attention with the brain as a more aberrant occurrence in its stimuli and as a result be worthy of further analysis and consideration.

I am generally in favor of delivering notions I believe to be helpful in a manner which can/will be accepted. In some cases however, others are able and more likely to accept a less than pleasant delivery mechanism. This is contingent upon the audience, of course, as well as the level of knowledge you have about your audience. In the absence of such knowledge, the more gentle approach seems advisable.

I'd take this differently.

I would at least hope that you are claiming that there is, in fact, a choice, whether the subjective experience of the moment provides indication of the choice or not.

Maybe stated differently you could be claiming that there is the possibility of choice for all people whether a person is aware or capable of taking advantage of that fact. That a person can alter his or her self in order to provide his or her self with the opportunity to choose in such situations.

Loqi's feedback seems to me to be suggesting that individuals who do not have a belief that they have such a "possibility of choice" could have a more positive phenomenological experience of your assertion and as a result be more likely to integrate the belief into their own belief set and [presumably] gain advantage by encountering it.

That is me asserting that Loqi does not appear to be rejecting your assertion but only suggesting a manner by which it can be improved.

The simplest reason to care about Friendly AI is that we are going to be coexisting with AI, and so we should want it to be something we can live with.

I'd like to suggest that it is important that the friendly AGI would hopefully also want to live with us. I'd further suggest that this is part of why efforts such as LW are important.

As wedrifid appeared to intone in the original reply, the actually discovered "there is cognitive activity present" from the given link is the key knowledge of pertinence to open the exploration of what is self.

Thanks for the further context.

I was originally impressed (and continue to be) by diegocaleiro's open self presentation (awesome!) and hoped to merely provide, in its greatest hope, a possible sense of dependable enough structure for accelerated progression beyond pitfalls that I had previously slowed within.

While the analytical ideation is pleasant, relevant, and useful, the emotive or experiential consequences seem relevant and vital as catalyst that can either grow or inhibit the evolution we are attempting to partake in for the artifact of sentience. We can chose our preferential modes or aspects but it does not deny that our persons are more broad or that each has strengths to provide and weaknesses to avoid.