The "I" and the Robot by Cristinel Stoica

Hi Georgina. It is true that there are people with mutually incompatible lifestyles and ideologies, and this is rather the rule, than the exception. But I don't get the argument that tolerance is useless, because there is intolerance in the world. You mentioned "neighbors at war", isn't the reason they are at war precisely the lack of understanding or at least of trying to understand one another? Intolerance causes more intolerance, so fighting it back doesn't solve the problem, it amplifies it. In the history, there are examples of "neighbors", at larger scales, who were at war for generations, and neither of them know how it started, both sides only know some of their side who were killed, and just want to avenge them. Now, I don't claim that if someone attacks you, you should stay "tolerant" and wait it to pass, to avoid amplifying the conflict. I never said to tolerate intolerance, and tolerance doesn't mean to accept others as they are even if they are intolerant.

You asked "how to attain or maintain tolerance". The answer is "simple", by promoting tolerance. I mentioned education, critical thinking (even its introduction in schools), promoting acceptance of those different so that we can understand them and they can understand us, and see that we are not a threat to one another. A large number of conflicts, perhaps most of them, are due to misunderstanding.

There are indeed violent actions done with the purpose of gaining or conquering. In general, even people doing such violent acts invent justifications for them, such as "I will rob this guy, rich guys deserve to be robbed, they rob us all the time", or "I will rape this b***h, she asked for it", or "they are a threat to our traditions/way of life/etc". Most of these justifications can be washed away by a real understanding of the other person/side, and by critical thinking. But this requires a specific form of education, which is based on tolerance. The possibility that they will go to prison/be bombarded is not enough to stop them, the best way is to reach their mind and heart. But first, let's make ourselves non-violent and able to understand others, otherwise this will not work.

Some may thing that life is a jungle, and you have to be aggressive in order to survive and do something good for yourself and the loved ones. It is precisely this way of thinking that creates violence in the world. It is true that in some critical situations this may be needed, but on long term, other kind of action is needed. Think at some martial arts like Aikido, in which violence is the last resort, and is allowed only after trying all non-violent ways.

Each one has his/her lifestyle or ideology. By adopting it, you also spread it in the world. You adopted it from somewhere, in turn, others will inherit it from you. So, be a member of the society you want to live in. This doesn't ensure that you will change the entire world by this, but this will spread slowly to your family, friends, coworkers. Lifestyle is viral.

Tom,

Thank you for the comments, you are too kind. Your essay is on my list and I look forward to read it soon, especially since you lean to rational idealism.

Best regards,

Cristi

Hi Aaron. Noted. Good luck!

Cristi

Dear Christian,

Thank you for reading and commenting my essay. I like your comments, and I will address those that are questions, or those where I feel the need to comment.

> 4) The idea that machine feels like the human is fascination on one hand. On the other hand, it put fear in me.

I have the same feeling. This may remain forever a mystery: even if we will have evidence that a machine is like a human from behavioral viewpoint, we will never know if it really feels the same. Probably here is the distinction between subjective and objective science.

> 5) I like your distinction between subjective science and objective science. What do you think about deterministic science and probabilistic science (Einstein versus Bohr)?

I think that, on the one hand, science in general is not about certainty, but also not probabilities, I mean, even the probabilities are uncertain. Because we don't know the space of all theories which are candidates to describe our universe, and we don't know a measure on this space.

But related to Bohr vs. Einstein, I agree with both of them, and I don't think there is an actual contradiction here. While their debate involved determinism vs. indeterminism, perhaps the most striking problem was that of reality.

I agree with Bohr that we can't go beyond the probabilities in predicting the outcomes of measurements. We can't really beat the Born rule and Heisenberg's uncertainty. Even of there are hidden variables predicting the outcomes, they seem to stay hidden. But I also think that hidden variables are not needed, in the sense de Broglie and Bohm and even Einstein wanted. Moreover, reality seems to be manifest only when you look, as Bohr said.

But I also agree with Einstein, in the sense that I think that there is an order, there is reality, and determinism is not in conflict with the observations.

Now, where I disagree with both Einstein and Bohr is in the way they choose to implement their ideas. Einstein hoped that there is a more complete description of QM, and the main or perhaps only candidate he considered are hidden variable theories. Bohr considered that we should not ask more questions about reality, the probabilities of the outcomes are everything.

I think that their positions can be reconciled if we reject the solutions they proposed. Briefly: I think that the wavefunction is real (even if it lives in the Hilbert space), and is governed by the Schrodinger equations, which is not only linear, but also deterministic. I don't think that the wavefunction collapse violates the Schrodinger equation, more precisely, I think that it takes place unitarily. Here is a brief explanation of this idea video. I also wrote a bit about this possibility in 1, 2, 3.

If I am right, then Einstein is right that the laws are deterministic, but Bohr is right about probabilities too, but in the sense that they are due to the initial conditions. Einstein is right about the reality of the world, but Bohr is right too, in the sense that this reality depends on the observations we make. More details can be found in the links I gave.

But, to make them both right, I think we should reject Einstein's idea that QM is incomplete 4, and Bohr's idea that clicks are all there is 5.

> 6) I find intriguing your idea that "God is the one who serves us " and the explanation your give on this issue.

Thanks. Some may regard is as blasphemy. I don't want to mean that humans are mightier than God, but that if there is an almighty God, He would serve juniors like the humans, rather than asking them to praise Him. He would be more humble than us, because He would not have an inferiority complex to compensate.

> 7) The issue that "seeing those not sharing their ideas as being evil" sadly works also in science. Critical thinking must be introduced also in physics and in science in general.

I agree, this is the place to start with introducing critical thinking.

> 9) I had in mind to read some book of Asimov before reading your Essay. Now, my desire of such a reading is increased.

I had that book in mind when I wrote the essay :)

Thanks for the comments. I loved your essay very much when I read it. Good luck in the contest!

Cristi

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for the comments, and for the too generous words. I am happy to see how much we agree. Your essay is on my to do list.

Best regards,

Cristi

Dear Israel,

Thank you for your comments, which I find interesting but surprising, giving me the feeling that you misunderstood my essay.

You say that I discuss the idea of simulated reality, and you seem to believe even that this occupy the first half of the essay: "After discussing the simulation you move on to other quite different topic ... " and you refer to something in page 5. Of course to you it appears that I move to other quite different topic, because you thought that I discussed about simulated reality, which I wasn't. In the essay, I refer to simulation as part of various arguments, which are not for or against the idea of simulation, but about totally different ideas. You say "...remind me of the philosopher Nick Bostrom". Did you already read some of my ideas in his works? If so, you could tell me which, so that I can give the proper references. Otherwise your statement is misleading. Also, although he proposed the idea of simulated reality a decade ago, I did not claim to propose it. Moreover, I say that Descartes, and before him, there were others, especially in Eastern philosophy, who discussed this idea.

Now I will reply to the discussion about simulated reality, which you opened. You say "In my view this possibility leads to inconsistencies since we have to ask: who made the simulation and so on ad infinitum." It is true that the idea of simulated reality leads to infinite regress, but this doesn't mean it is inconsistent. It would be inconsistent if it would lead to a contradiction, and this is not the case.

> On the other hand, if we humans are not able to discover that we are simulated, then that would be our reality and there is no reason to speak of simulation.

This is partially correct. I agree that odds are that "humans are not able to discover that we are simulated". But there may be plenty of reasons to speak of simulations. I agree that we can't use it as an explanation for our world, but not discussing about it, this is a totally different story. For instance, why are you discussing it here? You may say that because half of my essay is about it, but this would not be true. I discussed it to prove other points, and not as an explanation of how the world is. Just like you are discussing it here trying to prove a point.

> On the other hand, if we are able to discover that we are simulated, then we would be more intelligent than the designer and we may be able to create a simulation of a designer who thinks he created a simulation of reality.

No. If "are able to discover that we are simulated", this doesn't mean that "we would be more intelligent than the designer". And it doesn't mean that "we may be able to create a simulation of a designer who thinks he created a simulation of reality".

To clear the air: I don't claim that the world is simulated, and I don't claim to have a proof that it can't be simulated. In the essay I discussed other issues, and the idea of simulation came handy in some arguments. One of these points is whether the sense of "I" can be simulated.

> Something that also drew my attention is that it appears that you believe that humans have soul. Is this correct?

First, it is not clear to me what you mean by "soul". Second, for some reasons, some people tend to focus, instead of arguments, on what those bringing the arguments may believe, what hidden agendas they have etc. In my experience, when somebody asks me if I believe in God or in the immortality of soul etc, sometimes that person holds such a belief in the existence or nonexistence of that thing, and tends to judge others for their belief. In many cases the tendency of judgment becomes evident, because in problems where I declare myself neutral or agnostic, such people conclude that I am on the "wrong" side, or at least I have to make a choice. Now, I don't imply that you are such a person, but you realize that if I give an answer, I put myself in the position to be judged for my belief, rather than for my argument, by such persons. And while I don't think they will burn me for my beliefs, my worry is that they will misunderstand what I say :)

However, I think I made clear my position about this in my essay. I am discussing about the sense I have, that "I" exist, that "I" am here writing this message etc. I have this sense of "I", and this may be the only thing I am sure of. Now, this "I" may be real, as I feel, in which case I don't know what is it. Or it may be an illusion, that our mind is like a computer program programmed to believe it exists, as some philosophers, including Dan Dennet, claim. But again, there is no known program that would do this. So, no matter what the answer would be, we don't know it. This is why in my essay I propose a science of the subjective. And many of the arguments presented there are about this problem. But I don't have an irrefutable proof for the reality of "I", neither for it being an illusion.

> you state that the most important things in the world are: life, consciousness and happiness. I agree although I would replace life for healthiness, because, it is assumed that we already have life; otherwise we would not be discussing here.

I only used these three words, but in broader sense. I think increasing health increases happiness too. But I don't think that being healthy and dying at 20 is the same as being healthy and dying at 90, so I would not replace life, even in the narrow sense of duration which you are using, with health. And we could be discussing here, even if one of us would have 20 and the other 90 :)

> You also discuss about freedom and information. I agree that internet should not be controlled, but, unfortunately, the government has access to our facebook accounts, cellphones, computers, etc. The government can control what is allowed in the internet and what is not. This already occurs in many countries.

Shush, they may be reading this ... and you are asking me about my personal beliefs here... how can I be sure this is you, and not the government accessing your FQXi account? You may very well be simulated by "them" ... :)

Best regards,

Cristi

Dear Gbenga,

Thank you for the kind words, and for making me aware of your essay, which I look forward to read.

Best regards,

Cristi

Dear Leo KoGuan,

I think many people would do great things, given the means and opportunity. But the majority have to struggle for survival and for having a roof and a bed, and if lucky, access to minimum health care and education. While Fuller may have been overly optimistic, it is clear that there is plenty of room for better. Thank you for the kind comments, and for letting me know about your essay. I look forward to read it.

Best regards,

Cristi

Dear Marc,

I am happy you visited my page and read my essay, and I thank you for the comments. I agree with your comments, and I you said so well that "education must focus on critical thinking... but for most people, critical thinking is what other people should have in order to see that it is their own point of view that is correct! So we have a lot of job to do...". You know, just like pseudoscience contains elements of science, one can speak of "pseudo critical thinking", which uses elements of critical thinking as just other tools for manipulation. About a futurocentric curriculum, this seems important to me. I look forward to read more about it in your essay.

Best regards,

Cristi