The "I" and the Robot by Cristinel Stoica

Many thanks, Cristi, for your crisp observation at my end. It helps the lonely wanderer to find he still could be located somewhere on the map.

Wishing you the best,

Chidi

Hello Cristinel

Your philosophical essay would benefit by considering utilitarianism. (The greatest good for the greatest number.) You would also be a good person to consider the limits of utilitarianism.

You see humanity as the measure of all things, perhaps even if replicated. If humans are good, aren 't more better? (Until we hit limits. ) Consider two poles of future projections: existential risk, and singularity. Actualization of existential risk (i.e. extinction of humanity) reduces utility to zero. Some singularities do not increase human numbers, but some versions increase them immensely. For example, Lewis [1] estimates that there is enough material in the asteroid belt to build habitats for 10,000,000,000,000,000 people. (10,000 x 1 trillion) - - probably an overestimate. If we assume that every human life has its share of good, that is a lot of utility. Meltzer et al [2] shows a possible method for construction of these habitats. Armstrong and Sandberg [3] show a possible method for settling, not only the asteroid belt or even the galaxy, but thousands of galaxies.

These all are forms of singularity and require exponential growth. Exponential growth sometimes hits limits. Nevertheless, even if we assign these a fairly low probability, they still have a humongous expected value (probability times value) specifically in terms of human lives. That suggests that they are worth at least some attempt to make them happen.

However, how much attempt? It seems wrong to put all of our eggs in the basket of settlement of the universe so that there is nothing left if that doesn 't work, even if the expected utility for that branch calculates as greater. What do you think? How should we configure our portfolio of investments in our future? This is the next step in my thoughts, so I could use help.

I deliberately stop with Armstrong in my essay, to avoid the issue of whether artificial humans should count in utilitarian calculations. Anderberg's essay in this contest [4] does not hesitate to go there, so his utilitarian calculations are potentially higher than mine. I like his cute formula, integrating utility to result in a smiley face.

[1] John Lewis, Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from the Asteroids, Comets, and Planets, Perseus Publishing, 1997, pg. 194.

[2] Philip Metzer et al, "Affordable, Rapid Bootstrapping of Space Industry and Solar System Civilization," Journal of Aerospace Engineering, April 2012.

[3] Stuart Armstrong & Anders Sandberg, "Eternity in six hours: Intergalactic spreading of intelligent life and sharpening the Fermi paradox," Acta Astronautica, Aug-Sept 2013.

[4] Tommy Anderberg, A Future Brighter than 100 Trillion Suns, FQXi essay contest.

Dear Cristinel (Christian?)

I have just read your essay, and my initial suspicion that we had a lot in common (not only similar names) was confirmed. Yours is in my opinion one of the best essays in this contest.

The reasons I find this are: (1) the essay is well-written and adds value and material for thought; (2) the fundamental points are clear and highly relevant: the connection of freedom with education through critical thought (and why this is by far much more relevant than steering-- specially when imposed ideologies come to mind); and the notion that consciousness probably transcends our current reductionistic views, needing therefore some other methodology or way of thinking in order to address it more properly.

Indeed, as much as I use the scientific method in my daily work and highly appreciate how far we were able to understand the universe through it (and how far we can still reach), it is not at all obvious to me that everything can ultimately be intelligible through that single method. It has been proven powerful, but it might be not "enough". Also, it is not clear that the universe is indeed made of simple constituents to begin with. The reductionist worldview might be an artifact of how our current brains process information, or just an assumption that seem to work for the moment.

When it comes to life, and consciousness in particular, reductionism does not seem satisfactory to me, that is, to draw a one to one correspondence between the "I"--- as this "mystery that I feel" ("I think therefore I am") in one side --- and an "illusion" produced by a set of neurons by the other side. Evidently, the understanding of how set of neurons produce all they seem to do inside our brains and bodies, as shown up to this point through the scientific method, does give me a huge sense of awe and fascination, but it clearly does not saturate all possible explanations: they are but a fine description of what is "going on", but the "why" is completely missed.

I have rated your essay highly and wish you good luck.

Regards,

Christine

I've trouble getting my meaning across, Cristi. I agree you shouldn't be "amused" by the possibility that you might be wrong, but instead take it seriously. I speak plainly:

Your essay has two inconsistencies. First, you claim that utopian ideologies are bad. (Okay, let's assume that.) Then you offer a utopian ideology. (Whoops, that's now a bad thing.) So there's the first inconsistency. You see?

Second, you offer an ideology based on freedom while simultaneously warning the reader that other ideologies (never yours!) are behind every "large scale act of repression or violence" and lead to "horrific oppression measures including genocides". Wow, that's a frightening message! And frightened people become angry, and angry people do terrible things to the people they fear. By stoking fear, you incite violence. But violence and freedom are incompatible, right? So there's the second inconsistency. *

I repeat my recommendation on how to correct both inconsistencies. Simply drop the claim that utopian ideologies etc. are generally bad, generally to be feared.

Mike

* Please don't offer the claim that angst-ridden, freedom-loving people are gentle and peaceful, as I'd cite horrific examples to the contrary.

I agree with Rick, Cristi, your claim is too strong. The slave traders who descended on Africa didn't think, "[Our] victims are to be blamed". Nor were their actions motivated by ideals. They were motivated by greed, plain and simple.

Likewise for the Vikings who terrorized the dark ages. They weren't chasing ideals, but material interests. - Mike

Dear Christi,

Congratulations with your high score and admission to the finalists pool.

I hope that the discussions continue so I have the pleasure to sent you the link to my essay : "STEERING THE FUTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS" and hope that you will place a comment on my thread.

Good luch with the "final judgement" and

best regards

Wilhelmus

Hello Cristi,

I posted an article giving some publicity to your piece:

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/searle20140705

Congrats on being a finalist!

Rick Searle