Broccoli Cat posted:

Are you saying that an ape taking antidepressants is better than a simulated perfect mind with the ability to choose whichever levels of depression keep life spicy?

Pretend you are a simulated consciousness in a solid-state universe right now, and you have simply programmed yourself not to be aware of it for a certain amount of time...there, you are now experiencing exactly how different things would feel...

Ytlaya posted:

My argument is only against mind simulation/uploading that involves giving the resulting person abilities dramatically departing from what humans are normally capable of. For example, the human mind/experience isn't really equipped to deal with things like thinking as fast as a modern computer or having 4 arms or whatever. It's sorta like how if you took a straight man/woman and made them gay it would fundamentally change who they are, only far more exaggerated.

So this specific argument doesn't really apply to Matrix-esque simulation of humans-as-humans (or giving people immortality). The main point is that human brains evolved specifically to function with a certain type of body, so you can't just digitize a human brain and then give it a bunch of abilities humans can't normally experience. It's like saying you'll digitize a dog brain and give it human intelligence; it doesn't make sense unless you're willing to create what is effectively a new individual.

Ytlaya posted:

My argument is only against mind simulation/uploading that involves giving the resulting person abilities dramatically departing from what humans are normally capable of. For example, the human mind/experience isn't really equipped to deal with things like thinking as fast as a modern computer or having 4 arms or whatever. It's sorta like how if you took a straight man/woman and made them gay it would fundamentally change who they are, only far more exaggerated.

So this specific argument doesn't really apply to Matrix-esque simulation of humans-as-humans (or giving people immortality). The main point is that human brains evolved specifically to function with a certain type of body, so you can't just digitize a human brain and then give it a bunch of abilities humans can't normally experience. It's like saying you'll digitize a dog brain and give it human intelligence; it doesn't make sense unless you're willing to create what is effectively a new individual.

quote:

Catching crumbs from the table
Ted Chiang

No doubt many of our subscribers remember reading papers whose authors were the first individuals ever to obtain the results they described. But as metahumans began to dominate experimental research, they increasingly made their findings available only via DNT (digital neural transfer), leaving journals to publish second-hand accounts translated into human language.

Without DNT, humans could not fully grasp earlier developments nor effectively utilize the new tools needed to conduct research, while metahumans continued to improve DNT and rely on it even more. Journals for human audiences were reduced to vehicles of popularization, and poor ones at that, as even the most brilliant humans found themselves puzzled by translations of the latest findings.

No one denies the many benefits of metahuman science, but one of its costs to human researchers was the realization that they would probably never make an original contribution to science again. Some left the field altogether, but those who stayed shifted their attentions away from original research and toward hermeneutics: interpreting the scientific work of metahumans.

Textual hermeneutics became popular first, since there were already terabytes of metahuman publications whose translations, although cryptic, were presumably not entirely inaccurate. Deciphering these texts bears little resemblance to the task performed by traditional palaeographers, but progress continues: recent experiments have validated the Humphries decipherment of decade-old publications on histocompatibility genetics.

The availability of devices based on metahuman science gave rise to artefact hermeneutics. Scientists began attempting to 'reverse engineer' these artefacts, their goal being not to manufacture competing products, but simply to understand the physical principles underlying their operation. The most common technique is the crystallographic analysis of nanoware appliances, which frequently provides us with new insights into mechanosynthesis.

The newest and by far the most speculative mode of inquiry is remote sensing of metahuman research facilities. A recent target of investigation is the ExaCollider recently installed beneath the Gobi Desert, whose puzzling neutrino signature has been the subject of much controversy. (The portable neutrino detector is, of course, another metahuman artefact whose operating principles remain elusive.)

The question is, are these worthwhile undertakings for scientists? Some call them a waste of time, likening them to a Native American research effort into bronze smelting when steel tools of European manufacture are readily available. This comparison might be more apt if humans were in competition with metahumans, but in today's economy of abundance there is no evidence of such competition. In fact, it is important to recognize that — unlike most previous low-technology cultures confronted with a high-technology one — humans are in no danger of assimilation or extinction.

There is still no way to augment a human brain into a metahuman one; the Sugimoto gene therapy must be performed before the embryo begins neurogenesis in order for a brain to be compatible with DNT. This lack of an assimilation mechanism means that human parents of a metahuman child face a difficult choice: to allow their child DNT interaction with metahuman culture, and watch him or her grow incomprehensible to them; or else restrict access to DNT during the child's formative years, which to a metahuman is deprivation like that suffered by Kaspar Hauser. It is not surprising that the percentage of human parents choosing the Sugimoto gene therapy for their children has dropped almost to zero in recent years.

As a result, human culture is likely to survive well into the future, and the scientific tradition is a vital part of that culture. Hermeneutics is a legitimate method of scientific inquiry and increases the body of human knowledge just as original research did. Moreover, human researchers may discern applications overlooked by metahumans, whose advantages tend to make them unaware of our concerns.

For example, imagine if research offered hope of a different intelligence-enhancing therapy, one that would allow individuals to gradually 'upgrade' their minds to a level equivalent to that of a metahuman. Such a therapy would offer a bridge across what has become the greatest cultural divide in our species' history, yet it might not even occur to metahumans to explore it; that possibility alone justifies the continuation of human research.

We need not be intimidated by the accomplishments of metahuman science. We should always remember that the technologies that made metahumans possible were originally invented by humans, and they were no smarter than we.

WrenP-Complete posted:

Yeah, I was speaking about the psychological definition.

So hmmm.... do roads have intelligence? Other tools?

Who What Now posted:

If we define intelligence as "the ability for something to be what it is" then when you think about it everything is equally intelligent! But then you have to ask, "how is this definition useful?"

So how is your definition useful, Eripsa?

quote:

"I would like to remind us all once again that this table is a sacred piece of furniture that should be treated with respect. As a matter of principle, we should not place glasses and bottles of wine on it.”

This was not the first time that Council members have expressed respect for their table...

Eripsa posted:

My view is that intelligence is judged relative to goal acquisition. Something is more intelligent as it is better able to accomplish its goals. A thing is not its goals, WWN.

Let's say that a road has the following simple goal: "to efficiently and safely move drivers between destinations". An "intelligent" (Aristotle would say "good") road will accomplish this this well: it will be well constructed, well marked, no potholes, etc. A stupid or bad road would be lovely and would not accomplish that goal well. On these very straightforward definitions, I can say things like "It is smarter to take Central Ave than 8th Street, because that road is stupid and confusing" etc.

Roads don't have many goals beyond these. Maybe some aesthetic goals. And you can apply similar metrics to hammers and chairs and tables.




But no one expects a road to write a sonnet. No one expects a cat to write a sonnet either. AI challenges our conception of intelligence partly because it is whomping us at what we thought to be our exclusive domain.

stone cold posted:

so by your metric is trump intelligent af then

Eripsa posted:

My view is that intelligence is judged relative to goal acquisition. Something is more intelligent as it is better able to accomplish its goals. A thing is not its goals, WWN.

Eripsa posted:

so what you're saying is that you still have respect for the office of the presidency

Eripsa posted:

so what you're saying is that you still have respect for the office of the presidency

WrenP-Complete posted:

Yeah, I'm with you and Eripsa on this one. The mind experiences the world through the body because the mind is part of the body. Thoughts in your brain exist in space - in your body! It's not like you can remove facts/data from lived experience.

Eripsa posted:

I was trying to say that Trump was only successful if you had respect for the office, but apparently my sarcasm is too dark for this thread.

Trump was mostly in the right place and time to be the fall guy for America. He might appear to be "successful" now by some eyes, but I don't think history will judge him so kindly.

Eripsa posted:

but I don't think history will judge him so kindly.

Broccoli Cat posted:

the mind is not "part" of anything, as saliva and farts are not "part" of anything

the mind is the by-product of chemical reactions, locked into the determinism of supraquantum-scale physical moments.

Huzanko posted:

I wonder if you could break the Ship of Theseus if you slowly swapped out pieces of your brain for cybernetic SSDs or whatever whenever that's possible, so that your consciousness can migrate and expand into the electronic brain slowly. Just have to work out that pesky problem of where your consciousness actually lives in the brain.

Mister Adequate posted:

A book I've written and I'm almost finished editing has exactly that notion; they are of the belief that a wholesale transfer of consciousness, while possible, would kill the original. So they have a very slow and complicated process of replacing brain cells, as they die, with a machine equivalent rather than allowing a new natural one to grow.

Mister Adequate posted:

A book I've written and I'm almost finished editing has exactly that notion; they are of the belief that a wholesale transfer of consciousness, while possible, would kill the original. So they have a very slow and complicated process of replacing brain cells, as they die, with a machine equivalent rather than allowing a new natural one to grow.

Who What Now posted:

Why does it matter how history judges him? If his goal was "become president" then was he intelligent in regards to that specific goal, yes or no?

Mulva posted:

Not really. He made a lot of unforced errors and arguably had it as a tighter race than it needed to be. Didn't even win the popular vote in the end. Considering the nature of the conflict, he wins because Hillary Clinton was worse at the goal than he was, not because he was particularly good at it.

Mister Adequate posted:

A book I've written and I'm almost finished editing has exactly that notion; they are of the belief that a wholesale transfer of consciousness, while possible, would kill the original. So they have a very slow and complicated process of replacing brain cells, as they die, with a machine equivalent rather than allowing a new natural one to grow.

Mister Adequate posted:

A book I've written and I'm almost finished editing has exactly that notion; they are of the belief that a wholesale transfer of consciousness, while possible, would kill the original. So they have a very slow and complicated process of replacing brain cells, as they die, with a machine equivalent rather than allowing a new natural one to grow.

Broccoli Cat posted:

The illusion of time has us believing in our own continuity, but we are truly not even the same us from a moment passed.

Broccoli Cat posted:

the mind is not "part" of anything, as saliva and farts are not "part" of anything

the mind is the by-product of chemical reactions, locked into the determinism of supraquantum-scale physical moments.

Eripsa posted:

What do you think is the point of living, if not swirling in chaotic poo poo?

Like, what will you finally be free to do, once freed from this chaotic poo poo? If freed from these restrictions, what becomes possible? Because a god trapped in a tupperware container around some dim star doesn't sound so amazing tbh

Mister Adequate posted:

A book I've written and I'm almost finished editing has exactly that notion; they are of the belief that a wholesale transfer of consciousness, while possible, would kill the original. So they have a very slow and complicated process of replacing brain cells, as they die, with a machine equivalent rather than allowing a new natural one to grow.

Who What Now posted:

At the end of this process wouldn't the person look so different from when they started that the "original" is still effectively dead anyway?

Mister Adequate posted:

One of my other books (only one that's out lol) also has a brief segment on future Christianity trying to come to grips with how clinical immortality, suicide being a sin, and the inability to reach heaven if you don't die all interact. I'm no theologian and it's again not the focus of the novel, but I like thinking about how schools other than my own might approach this stuff.

Broccoli Cat posted:

we also know that "the haves" are the only driving force civilization has ever had, even when "the haves" are disguised as an inefficient corrupt political aristocracy and addressed as "comrade"

rudatron posted:

The haves don't actually generate their own wealth, they expropriate it from the have nots. Its why they have not.

Technology will eventually make the existence of haves superfluous, and then we'll get socialism the great purging.

rudatron posted:

The haves don't actually generate their own wealth, they expropriate it from the have nots. Its why they have not.

Technology will eventually make the existence of haves superfluous, and then we'll get socialism.

Kerning Chameleon posted:

the term haves will have become irrelevant and their society will be socialist.

Eripsa posted:

Would appreciate an answer here BC. What part of this chemical reaction network do you think "you" are, which parts of it do you want preserved for posterity, and why?

A big flaming stink posted:

i'm not sure if you asking a question or just trying to figure out what their position is, but the best way I've heard it described is that consciousness is a process, like a flame.

Who What Now posted:

Eripsa, have you finalized the list of requirements a goal needs to meet to be valid in your eyes?

Eripsa posted: