John,

Thank you for the visit, and for the comments.

Best regards,

Cristi

Cristi,

Thank you. It's not the usual FQXI sort of question and it will likely be interesting to watch this discussion develop.

Regards,

John M

John,

This question is different, indeed, but it has something in common with the previous ones: they all are the kind of questions one would debate with intellectual friends at a beer (in my case, a pepsi)! I will probably be more silent than usual, preferring to watch, because I expect this time the discussions will (and should) be less about physics and more subjective. But I think it will be fun!

Best regards,

Cristi

  • [deleted]

  • Post #6

Cristinel,

Your essay is interesting. I address a part of what you write with regards to this world being a simulation . The prospect the world is some extremely elaborate simulation is small, for beings in any universe have a limit on the amount of information and energy they can access. This includes us of course.

At the end you make some speculations about our minds being down loaded into computers. I tend to think the future may be largely a matter of interfacing the human with the cybernet. Immortality, or a sort of immortality, may come with the ability to clone up bodies, in fact a replacement body with our genome etc, and with clever cybernetic and neuro-cyber systems that permit a transfer from one body to another. I suspect that cerebral-cybernetic links will be commonplace in another 50 years. In effect the major nodes on the internet will be digital processor augmented brains.

That will change everything of course. A world where minds can literally meld together is one where concepts like national boundaries will dissolve away. Many of the ways that we currently organize ourselves will simply fade away.

Cheers LC

    Cristi,

    I actually got into physics as a way to help make sense of humanity and human behavior. So I tend to filter one through the other. Physics through its expression in us and our actions as defined in terms of physics. It informs how I organized my entry.

    Regards,

    John M

    Hey Stoica,

    I do not get why judgment is a bad thing, can you please extrapolate? I think that being able to discern whether a being is capable of something or able to help you is very important, and don't think a person should have to give up that selection right. I also think that the job sap is one of those broad sweeping ideas that just sounds to good or easy. Could you flesh out some details on that point, so I get a better idea of what you mean? Other than those two points, I tended to agree or not get hung up about a sometimes lack of clearness, like what exactly you meant as freedom, because you seemed to be going down a sensible track.

    Best,

    Amos

      Lawrence,

      Thank you for reading and commenting my essay. I look forward to reading yours, which I hope will be as good as your previous ones.

      Assuming it is possible, maybe we will someday be able to download our minds into a computer. But before actually being able to actually do it, many will believe we can already do it, and this alone will change everything, as I sketched in my essay. I think that if we will really be able to copy our minds and paste them into computers, robots or clones, or merge with technology, the things will be even more surprising than we can imagine know (in better and perhaps in worse).

      Best regards,

      Cristi

      Hi Amos,

      > I do not get why judgment is a bad thing, can you please extrapolate? I think that being able to discern whether a being is capable of something or able to help you is very important, and don't think a person should have to give up that selection right.

      Me too. I would elaborate more, if I would know to what part of the essay you refer. Perhaps the context of that phrase will answer you.

      > I also think that the job sap is one of those broad sweeping ideas that just sounds to good or easy. Could you flesh out some details on that point, so I get a better idea of what you mean?

      Again, it would be helpful if you say exactly what paragraph you refer to, because otherwise I may detail something else than you want to know.

      I will assume you disagree with the idea about downshifting and outsourcing. There are people who have more than enough money and things, but don't have enough time, and there are people who hane enough time, but can't use it to make a living, because there are no good jobs there. What I say is that they can solve each other's problem. Those who want more time can downshift and give some things to do to the others that don't have the opportunity to make a living. And this is already happening (not at large scale), so it is not impossible. And it is not as bad as taking from the rich to give to the poor. Everything sounds too good or too easy, until you do it. I could downshift for many years while living in a relatively expensive capital of a not-so-rich Eastern European country, with a huge mortgage and two kids, without winning the lottery or having a self-sustained business. I did this to have time for (unpaid and self-financed) research, until one month ago when I finished PhD and got a job as physicist. This proves that it is possible to downshift even if you don't live in a well developed country.

      Best regards,

      Cristi

      We are already in an age where the distinction between reality and fiction is blurred. I think Kurt Corbain had something with his song lyric "Here we are now, entertain us." We now have large industries set up to manufacture apparent reality, not quite the same thing yet as virtual reality, but one which does successfully influence the minds of people. News is given in slick formats with panels that include women who display cleavage and provocative dress. It could well be that in a few more decades the level of confusion about what is real and what is manufactured to appear real will come to form the biggest part of most of our lives. This development could well be far along before we ever have the cyber-neural interface.

      LC

      My Dear Doctor Stoica,

      As in prior contests, you have again written an extremely erudite essay that held my attention all the way through my reading of it. I do hope that it does well in the competition.

      Please do not take this as a criticism, I merely wish to make a point. You wrote: "It is amazing how the universe works, as governed by laws which ultimately are simple, yet combined give such complex phenomena as those we observe."

      Based only on my own observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. All material surfaces must travel at the constant "speed" of light. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent "speed" that is less than the "speed" of light. Einstein was completely wrong. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface. Abstract theory cannot ever have unification. Only reality is unified because there is only one reality.

      It is physically impossible for anyone to observe complex phenomena at any time; anywhere. The artificial intelligence builders have no idea what real reality is, and know even less about simplicity.

      With warm regards,

      Joe Fisher

        Dear Joe Fisher,

        Thank you for the comments. About your criticism to the theory of relativity, I think it is great that there are people willing to challenge the accepted theories. I wish you good luck in making an alternative theory, and propose experiments whose results will contradict any accepted theories, including Einstein's. If Einstein would be disproved, some will suffer, including me, but hopefully the joy of finding out how things really are will exceed any pain coming from realizing you're wrong.

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        Dear Doctor Stoica,

        Reality is not experimental. The only thing that has ever occurred in a laboratory is unusual activity performed by unrealistic people unnecessarily. I do thank you for your extremely gracious comment.

        With warm regards,

        Joe Fisher

        Christinel,

        The specter of cybercitizen seems hopeful if it in fact provides opportunity for other pursuits. I can't quite visualize the interrelationship of cybercitizen and biological citizen. The corporate push for cyber connections is profit-based, not exactly geared toward our freedom. How do we uncouple profit motives and where it takes us from our own interests? How do we get government to provide a "healthy planet, access to education [for all] and freedom"?

        Dealing with the future is difficult. Our own visions sometimes pose more questions than answers. I know my vision is probably too "what should be" and not enough specifics of how it can be accomplished.

        Jim

          Jim,

          > The specter of cybercitizen seems hopeful if it in fact provides opportunity for other pursuits.

          Perhaps yes. My concern was that cybercitizens will appear and be acknowledge as citizens before actually existing as real persons, assuming this will ever be possible.

          > I can't quite visualize the interrelationship of cybercitizen and biological citizen.

          People have interrelations with memories they have about other people, with their pictures, with posters of Elvis, with imagined entities or deities, with cats, dogs, with their Poh, their diary etc. Many still reject interracial or intercultural relations, but they existed forever. If cybercitizens will have the slightest resemblance with biocitizens, or even if they will just have some similar goals, it is not inconceivable that they will have various types of relations.

          > The corporate push for cyber connections is profit-based, not exactly geared toward our freedom.

          I think so. They want to make people adopt what they push.

          > How do we uncouple profit motives and where it takes us from our own interests? How do we get government to provide a "healthy planet, access to education [for all] and freedom"?

          One cannot deny that there is progress in the social sector, even though the corporations and the governments may not necessarily want this. This is because there is a request, a pressure from the population: to sell them your products, to make them elect you, you have to offer something. While politicians and salespersons promise more than they actually give, if the population continues to ask, little steps are made toward their direction. So the "push" from people actually matters, in time.

          > Dealing with the future is difficult. Our own visions sometimes pose more questions than answers. I know my vision is probably too "what should be" and not enough specifics of how it can be accomplished.

          Humans are autonomous beings, capable of setting goals and of trying to accomplish them by various means. The exact future situations are difficult to anticipate. Yet, if people have some goals in mind and try to reach them, then they will find what should be done in specific situations. So I think it is important first to have the goal. But, if you don't find your goal, others will make you follow their goals. For instance, if someone's goal is to become rich by selling you something, it will make you want that thing first. So people should take care to know what their goals are, rather than allowing others to decide for them. And those trying to tell you what your goals should be are many: corporations, politicians, religions, any kind of groups will try to sell you their own goals. This is why I think that introducing critical thinking as early as possible in schools is so important. This will allow people to decide what their goals are. This is of course not enough, but when you know what you want, you get closer and closer to your goal. I think this is the way toward freedom.

          Best regards,

          Cristi

          The future of mankind is open. One cannot anticipate what will they be confronted with well enough to give them prescriptions. Any rule we would give now, later may become inadequate and even oppressive. Therefore, in my essay I avoided to give universal rules, and I emphasized that the best we can do is to make sure people will have the tools and know how to use them, as they will freely decide based on their specific situations. The tools I proposed are critical thinking, education, and the ability to be free and allow others to be free.

          Your essay outlines many of the issues we face. There are more.

          Your statement in the comment section is correct. Was this an alternate abstract? "The future of mankind is open. One cannot anticipate ... allow other to be free."

          "Often, ideologies trying to build an utopian world for mankind, failed really badly." Very good. Too bad the true believers still exist is ever greater numbers.

          "Otherwise, experiments can't prove the hypothesis, they only can corroborate it." I would say they can only not reject it.

          "If two things present the same observable effects, then they should be the same, because there is no visible difference. Should we care about differences that can't be observed?"

          This is one of the things I've disliked about Liebniz. Unless we have understanding of everything, we may be unable to detect a difference. Therefore, we should care and try to find differences for that leads to greater understanding.

          Suppose our conscious can be loaded into a robot's "brain". Is that you in there? Is your conscious you? The movie shows this. But wait a minute. A robot is metal technology. Isn't biological technology more advanced and complicated? Biologic technology with the properties of carbon and/or silicon seems more capable to maintain more complex conscious. Isn't that us? Why would we want to download into an inferior structure? The real problem is how do we make our current structure work even with our limited understanding.

          We don't have to create rules about the environment, about interaction, about society, about science, about religion." We need only create the system that tolerates different views. Nature will take care of the judgment.

          "Axiom 1.

          The most important things in the world are life, consciousness, happiness." What about fullfilment? Perhaps "survival is the most important".

          Your point of what humans need most is tolerance.

          Your correct about what education is today - it's indoctrination.

          I'm retired yet I like to think I contribute and work. Downshifting to me is reprehensible. Nature's climate change is forcing the movement in Africa and elsewhere. The people there could be better off. But their beliefs and social structure prevents it. Even when the US gives them food, the society buys guns and kills. Downshift will not cure this. It is not a zero sum game. Technology and greater numbers of people result from a positive sum game.

          "We have to embrace change and diversity...". Total agreement.

          Your hoped-for legacy still lacks a "how"? I think there are a few more problems and limitations. Does my essay have an adequate "how".

            Thank you for your comments. I appreciate you took time to read it carefully and answered with arguments, some supporting, some completing, and some opposing my own arguments. I agree with your most comments, particularly that "we should care and try to find differences for that leads to greater understanding."

            > "Why would we want to download into an inferior structure?"

            When one is dying, he will want to survive by any technology will be available at that time. An "inferior structure" will be preferable to a superior, but dead body. I mentioned that the download will be made in a robot or a clone. I suspect that artificial intelligence will be claimed first to be obtained in computers, so this is why this is the dominant scenario I discussed.

            > "Perhaps 'survival is the most important'."

            Yes, this is what I thought when I included life as the first most important things in the world.

            > "What about fullfilment?

            I agree with you again. I kind of see fulfillment as a necessary condition for happiness.

            > "I'm retired yet I like to think I contribute and work. Downshifting to me is reprehensible."

            By downshifting I don't mean retirement or laziness. I mean that people are forced to spend the majority of their lives working for their bosses's dreams, neglecting their own personal life and personal dreams. If you don't have time for spouse, children, friends, work less. If you don't have time to work at what you really love, work less at your job, and use the time to do what you want. Society doesn't offer to everyone their dream jobs. I had to work as computer programmer for many years, but I really wanted to do physics. I reduced the full-time job as programmer to a part time job, and used the remaining time to study physics, and do research, without being paid (and being paid at half as programmer, and missing the possibility of a career which full-time employment offers). So it is not about "not contributing". We contribute also by spending time with family and friends. We contribute also by working at our own dreams, even if we are not paid.

            I did not say that my "downshifting and outsourcing" proposal will solve all third's world problems, or at least the majority of them. It is an example of doing something which people will willingly do, if they are made aware. As opposed to other solutions, which involve forcing rich to give to the poor, this is voluntary. I try to always have in mind that all measures have to be made without violating people's freedom. Donations are also voluntary, but we can donate fish, and also help people be fisherman.

            Best regards,

            Cristi

            Hi Cristi,

            I enjoyed your essay, and I hope you do well. I think perhaps you have been a bit optimistic about how some transitions will be handled, or could be integrated into society, though I appreciate that this does not arise out of consideration to a particular ideology - in your view. The notion of how machine consciousness might accommodate a human awareness is predicated on a level of sophistication modern computers do not have, and may require more time to develop. Once we can build R2D2 and C3PO, this might be possible.

            I do have some promising ideas on how a more subtle computing machine could be built, and I think that most of the core technologies already exist in sufficient measure to construct a self-aware machine, but what most folks are doing in this area is rather naive - in my opinion. I'll offer that FQXi selected my grant proposal for a detailed review, but did not end up funding my project - which would have allowed me to research this area more aggressively. Perhaps details could be discussed off-line.

            But overall, you presented your case well, and you offer some hope for humanity. That is good.

            All the Best,

            Jonathan

              Hi Jonathan,

              I am happy to hear from you. Thank you for the comments. While, as you said, modern computers do not have yet the required level of sophistication to allow machine consciousness accommodate a human awareness, my point is not that we will obtain it. One may obtain it or not. My point is that the strong AI supporters don't care about human awareness, but only about behavior, about mimicking human consciousness, including the appearances of awareness. This is easier to be done, so it will be done sooner, and then, it will trigger some important changes in out society. Of course, more radical changes will appear if real AI, with genuine awareness, will be created, but such kind of speculations are well covered in the literature.

              Best regards,

              Cristi

              9 days later

              Cristi,

              Yes, critical thinking is paramount; if critical thinking were more prevalent there would probably be significantly fewer individuals willing to risk life and limb fighting in some emotionally justified war, wars generally designed to enrich the already overflowing bank accounts of the oligarchs. Organizations such as Al Queda would most likely cease to exist as well. This is something that the historical Buddha taught. At his very first dharma talk he stated (and I paraphrase), "Don't accept anything as the truth, don't even accept what I say to be true, until you examine it for yourself and decide for yourself whether it is true or not."

              Just to clarify, in your section, "Who is experiencing the illusion?," you state: "In Eastern philosophy, the idea that we live in a simulation (Maya), and the only real thing is the self, appeared thousands of years before, being a fundamental element in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism." Buddhism actually embraces Anatman, the no-self doctrine. This is based on the historical Buddha's understanding of dependent origination which follows logically from his negation of the four possible types of origination: from itself; from other; from both self and other; from neither self nor other. Dependent origination leads directly to emptiness, an expression of the realization that nothing in existence has intrinsic existence, nothing exists unto itself, including the self: Anatman!

              What's interesting is that Buddhist philosophers use an argument similar to that you present in your section, "Does science explain you?" They say if you search for the intrinsic existence of "self" you will find that this "self" cannot be isolated to the body nor to the mind, in fact, it can't be isolated at all, hence, it only exists in the conventional sense - it's illusory. And to Buddhists, this is the key to true cessation.

              Emptiness is greatly expounded upon in the Mahayana canon within a very short sutra called the Heart of Wisdom which is itself subsumed by the collection known as Perfection of Wisdom. So you can safely conclude that it forms the heart of the dharma, so to speak. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has written a very accessible commentary on the Heart of Wisdom titled, "Essence of the Heart Sutra," from which I quote:

              "If we closely examine feelings of strong desire or strong anger, we will find that at the root of these emotions lies our grasping at the object of these emotions. And, if we take it still further, we discover that at the root of all of this lies our grasping at a sense of self or ego. Not recognizing the emptiness of self and other, we mistakenly grasp at both as autonomous, objectively real, and independently existent. [...] First you have a sense of "I," then you grasp at things as "mine." By looking into our own minds, we can see that the stronger our grasping is, the more forcefully it generates negative and destructive emotions. There is a very intimate causal connection between our grasping at a sense of self and the arising of destructive emotions within us. As long as we remain under the dominion of this erroneous belief (in intrinsic existence), we have no room for lasting joy - this is what it means to be imprisoned in the cycle of existence. Suffering is nothing but existence enslaved to ignorance."

              And, of course, it is precisely critical thinking which leads from ignorance to illumination. So very good, I give you five stars . . . I also appreciated your latest blog post on no-go theorems, by the way . . .

              With regards,

              Wes Hansen