Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: madhatter 16 March 2017 11:58:32AM 0 points [-]

Well, suppose it increases awareness of the threat of AGI, if we can prove that consciousness is not some mystical, supernatural phenomenon. Because it would be more clear that intelligence is just about information processing.

Furthermore, the ethical debate about creating artificial consciousness in a computer (mindcrime issues, etc.) would very shortly become a mainstream issue, I would imagine.

Comment author: ingive 17 March 2017 08:44:35AM *  0 points [-]

I'm not sure if intelligence and consciousness are one and the same thing, and with your words, consciousness/intelligence is information processing. If you conclude that intelligence is information processing, then this might be an aspect of the body, an attribute, in roughly the same way as consciousness. Then that aspect of the body is evolving in machines, called artificial intelligence, independent of conscious experience.

Consciousness has such a wide variety of states, whether it be mystical, religious experiences, persistent non-symbolic experiences, nonduality or even ordinary states and so forth. It's fine that these states are seen from the perspective of neurons firing in the brain, but from the state of the beholder, it's well, you know... maybe unsatisfactory to conclude the source is the brain? William A. Richards[1], for example, have the view that the 'hard problem of consciousness' is a philosophical question, and I don't doubt many others who have experienced these states have a more open appreciation for this idea. [4]

But as a philosophical question, even with the assertion that consciousness is information processing, it could be this 'brain being a receiver or reducing valve' philosophical idea. Hence, creating conscious machines means inducing a reduction valve of Mind-At-Large or receiver, however you want to look at it.

Recent neuroimaging studies have sparked the light of Aldous Huxley's philosophical idea[2] that the brain is a reducing valve for Mind-At-Large, consciousness, by showing that reductions in blood flow to certain regions of the brain with for example psychedelics lead to a more intense experience.

"As you can see here, there was a negative correlation between the blood flow to these areas and the intensity of the subjective experience by the subjects, so the lower the blood flow, the more intense the subjective experience. " [3]

Probably the most efficient way to accelerate neuroscience research is with AGI and I wouldn't be surprised if DeepMind's coming AGI will be utilized for this purpose as for example Hassabis is a neuroscientist and been a strong proponent for AGI scientists.

1] [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/07/william-a-richards-psychedlics-entheogens-book

2] [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/327452-aldous-huxley-compared-the-brain-to-a-reducing-valve-in

3] [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/this-is-your-brain-on-psilocybin/

4] [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201604/psychedelic-drugs-and-the-nature-personality-change

Comment author: ingive 14 March 2017 01:11:23AM 0 points [-]

Important insight which LessWrong can comment on: link

To me, it's a very concise summary of what we all know yet stupidly enough, ignore because of irrational societies and educational systems. I'm not saying that I am taking it in. That would be the equal excuse as of any other. What do you think?

Comment author: ingive 12 March 2017 08:04:34PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: ChristianKl 07 March 2017 05:09:58PM 1 point [-]

The other stuff, including the clicking stuff, was thereby deemed history, it wasn't that effective.

What kind of evidence did convince them that the clicking stuff isn't effective? How did the decision process look like?

Comment author: ingive 08 March 2017 01:22:30AM *  0 points [-]

As an intervention, I suppose by the number of applicants. It's was mostly about changing one's essence or awareness rather than it changing itself by taking action, being responsible and not making excuses. Of course, 'clickers' can still apply but this is the new stuff, regarding non-clickers.

Bachir is taking application calls publicly and it's pretty fun (Here's a Scientology mention). https://www.twitch.tv/videos/127066455?t=01h07m10s

I'm thinking about applying in the future. First I am going to read the Sequences, deepen my practice of meditation, etc.

Comment author: ingive 06 March 2017 08:01:44PM 1 point [-]

MrMind now 'the singularity group' has changed focus, rather than making people change their awareness and thus do EA actions, they instead ask to do the right EA action in every single moment. So people who are interested can apply and go over, meditate, exercise work etc according to a schedule until the right action disciplined has transitioned to the EA awareness. I think 12 hours of work a day (of course not physical labor).

The other stuff, including the clicking stuff, was thereby deemed history, it wasn't that effective. They are also going to go around universities and try and grow the movement. To be honest this seems exciting and the impact you were speculating of. Here you can see the application form: http://pastebin.com/PLc1r0J9

So the problem about our current day society seems like it's centered around, for example, entertainment and intellectual masturbation (hobbies) even though we know we can be fulfilled and in a state of flow doing, for example, the right action every single moment. There won't even be a future or a past then.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 March 2017 11:15:40PM 1 point [-]

if someone gives the probability of 20% that B will win, and 80% that A will win, why do they say 'polls were wrong' 'predictions were wrong' if it turns out that B won?

If that's a single someone, saying "he was wrong" is not quite correct.

However if a hundred someones gave these probabilities, it would be reasonable to say "forecasts were wrong" (note the plural).

Comment author: ingive 05 March 2017 02:49:56PM 0 points [-]

Yes, you are right on the point. I wanted to ask:

"If many forecasts say the probability is 80% that A will win, 20% that B will win, why do they say the forecasts were wrong if B wins?"

Wrong implies bivalence, binary thinking, duality: it implies right. A probability cannot be binary, it's infinite. My brain has a hard time understanding why it's reasonable... Kind of Orwellian.

So to my point. Forecasts were only wrong if they say A will win, but B wins. Is this not correct? Stating 80% in hindsight is equal to stating 0%, and even before that it's 0% or 100% or it's void, nothing, of no substance...

Comment author: ingive 04 March 2017 10:40:39PM *  0 points [-]

This is a stupid question, but if someone gives the probability of 20% that B will win, and 80% that A will win, why do they say 'polls were wrong' 'predictions were wrong' if it turns out that B won?

Would an accurate prediction be "100% that B will win"? If they say 99% they are losers either way. I really do not understand. Maybe I have a tumor and it's impacting my cognition, haha.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 March 2017 03:56:51PM 2 points [-]

eat at a specific calorie target every day, the weight loss will be linear to your target weight

This is not true.

Comment author: ingive 03 March 2017 11:36:31AM 0 points [-]

Yes, you are right. I'm sorry. The weight loss per day slows down over time. I wish I knew math so I could say what that curve is.

Comment author: MrMind 01 March 2017 10:45:28AM *  3 points [-]

This comment is just to vent some frustration at how hard it is to get thinner, a.k.a. steering system 1.
I was there, looking at the just finished, empty dish. The pasta was delicious, but I didn't need a second serving. Yet, like in a horror B-movie, I watched myself from the inside as I got up and loaded a second serving.


Comment author: ingive 02 March 2017 03:51:48PM *  0 points [-]

If you want to be serious, buy a food scale and measure all of your food and eat at a specific calorie target every day, the weight loss will be linear to your target weight and then maintain. This means you'll have to keep it up forever. You can eat whatever you want as long as you hit the target. Processed food that has nutrition labels are also applicable to this method. In regards to not eat more, it depends where you eat. At home, you cook the amount you need, in processed restaurants with nutrition labels you order as much as you need.

Forget buffets and fancy restaurants. Unless if you maybe fast for 24 hours after or have a well-kept habit to keep this up. That means for example approximating how much you overate and subtract it from next days calories, you'll learn as you train by measuring food.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 27 February 2017 08:44:01PM 0 points [-]

Your first sentence, for example, has a lot of parts, and uses terms in unusual ways, and there are multiple possible interpretations of several parts. The end effect is that we don't know what you're saying.

I suspect that what you're saying could make sense if presented more clearly, and it would not seem deep or mysterious. This would be a feature, not a bug.

Comment author: ingive 28 February 2017 12:51:44AM *  0 points [-]

My wishing for the world is intellectual masturbation, so my practical actions in this consensus reality matter the most (instrumental rationality). But if thinking stops (epistemic rationality by persistent non-symbolic experiences) I do not care in a sense, I go insane in relation to the consensus reality but sane to the non-symbolic way of being.

So the way to solve this is to have a good system to remember me of my chores, goals, and choices which we would call rationality in the consensus reality. Otherwise, I might simply no longer be efficient from what I learn of the consensus reality. My memory might even be impaired.

Some think that the way for us to return to these states is by AGI and simply overcoming the limits of the human brain, but humans have done it for thousands of years, possibly with more ease.

See this article, Ben Goertzel is doing the interview: http://hplusmagazine.com/2012/08/08/engineering-enlightenment-part-one/

So what I think that I want is a persistent non-symbolic state, symbols make no sense, it's a bit Orwellian. But empirical feeling, indiscriminate love and so on makes a lot of sense. Of course, everything will function as it used to be ('I'-thought have never existed in the first place), but it will still be different. But from the place I am, I need (and I think humanity) need some system in which the computer keeps a track of what my goals and so on were before the persistent non-symbolic state.

This beautifully falls into a nice merging with machines, I think, let that which is unconscious, and always will be (machines), be our thinking, for we are non-symbolic I think. :)

View more: Next