Thanks for your reply Cristi, in particular for clarifying your ideas on the Einstein-Bohr controversy.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Cristi

I read your essay which I found very interesting, easy to read and well written. You touch a series of topics and ask many philosophical questions that are highly controversial and may lead to long discussions.

For instance, the idea of a simulated reality remind me of the philosopher Nick Bostrom who also put forward this idea about a decade ago. In my view this possibility leads to inconsistencies since we have to ask: who made the simulation and so on ad infinitum. 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. 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. At the end this the simulated reality does not make sense. The simulated reality is not justifiable.

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

After discussing the simulation you move on to other quite different topic where 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. In my essay, I also discuss that one of the ideals that should steer humanity is well-being.

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.

I hope you find some time to read my essay and leave some comments. I would appreciate any comments you may have.

Best Regards

Israel

    Dear Cristinel,

    What a well articulated, structured and scientific article! I wondered why I have not read your essay. It held my interest through out.

    I employ you to read my article STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM using this direct link http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020

    Your comments and rating will be anticipated!

    Wishing you the very best in this competition

    Regards

    Gbenga

      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 Cristi,

      "Why not simply follow our own dreams?" I answered this question in the affirmative in my essay. I proposed the Scientific Outlook Free-Lunch Economic System powered by KQID's engine. In this system, Buckminster Fuller's rationality becomes true and true: "We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living.... We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist." I proposed that we adopt Xuan Yuan Aanti-entropic Operating System 2.0 to bring about Da Tong or great harmony in this world.

      I enjoyed reading your wonderful essay. I rated it a full mark: ten (10).

      I wish you the best and good to exchange ideas with you,

      Leo KoGuan

        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

        Cristi,

        Thank you for a fascinating essay. You really cover a lot of ground... the importance of freedom, the elusive definition of "I", the philosophy of Artificial Intelligence, the ontological status of simulations, the origin of altruism, the fact that the well being of human beings is the ultimate value, the danger of ideology, the importance of education without manipulation, the role of religion, the impact of the Internet, the future of work, the coming of the cybercitizens...

        Concerning education, your write that

        "For people to be free, they have to be informed, and to understand what's going on, what choices they have, and what are their consequences. [...] But by education I don't mean manipulation. This is why education must include critical thinking."

        I wholeheartedly agree with you. In my essay, "To Steer Well We Need to See Clearly: the Need for a Worldwide Futurocentric Education Initiative", I propose that we should work hard to put together a "futurocentric curriculum" aimed at schools but also at lifelong education, in order to raise the level of public interest and knowledge about the topics that are the most relevant to the future of humanity. The risk of disinformation and manipulation is already high enough when we merely try to describe the current status of the world, so any discussion about the future is likely to be even more "ideologically loaded", with all the manipulating attempts that it entails. So, as you say, 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...

        If you have time to read my essay, rate it and comment on it, it would be quite appreciated. I am also interested in finding out the opinion of others concerning which are the most important topics that should be part of a futurocentric curriculum...

        Marc

          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

          Christinel,

          You did perhaps understand humanity not as mankind. Otherwise, you missed the topic. At least we might agree on that humanity is not a system that is waiting for a recommendation how to steer.

          Eckard

            Eckard,

            Interesting remark. Now, that you mention, I think that the meanings of the word "humanity' are interdependent, in the sense that I think humanity as mankind needs humanity as a virtue. In my opinion, my essay is concerned with the topic of the contest, which I understand to be the future of mankind, and how to make it better. One can object that I did not focus on political and social solutions applied to the entire mankind. Indeed, I focus on the individual, and empowering him or her with freedom, education and critical thinking. The reason is that I think that no viable solution can ignore the individuals, this would lead to intolerance and dictatorial regimes. So I think my essay is topical. I avoided discussing other things I find interesting, if they did not serve the topic as I understood it. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this.

            Best regards,

            Cristi

            Dear Cristi

            Thanks for your reply.

            You said: you seem to believe even that this occupy the first half of the essay.

            Not at all, I perfectly understand what you did. But you indeed discuss the topic of simulation.

            You: ..remind me of the philosopher Nick Bostrom". Did you already read some of my ideas in his works?

            In your essay you deal with the topic of a simulated reality and Bostrom also worked this topic. That's all. I'm not saying that you proposed the idea, just that while reading about the simulation reality, that reminds me Bostrom. :)

            You: but not discussing about it, this is a totally different story

            I agree, that's a good justification.

            You: I don't claim that the world is simulated, and I don't claim to have a proof that it can't be simulated.

            I understand this. I'm not saying that you are claiming anything about the simulated reality, do not misunderstand me.

            You: First, it is not clear to me what you mean by "soul".

            In you essay you asked: Where resides the soul of a human? I should be asking "what you mean by soul?", "soul" has different connotations. I'm just asking if you think humans have a soul; that's all.

            You: so I would not replace life, even in the narrow sense of duration which you are using, with health.

            Ok, perhaps it is just a matter of taste :)

            You: how can I be sure this is you, and not the government accessing your FQXi account?

            Who knows!

            BTW, thanks for reading my essay and leaving your comments. I just reply to them.

            Good luck in the contest!

            Regards

            Israel

            Hi Cristi,

            1. Excellent Essay

            2. Also liked your Q&A with Christian Corda, I am closer to Einstein than to Bohr.

            3. Do you think the myth of Procrustes, is evidence that the ancient Greeks had a sense of humor?

            Thanks,

            Don Limuti

              Hi Don,

              Thank you for reading and commenting the essay and also some comments, and for your kind words. I look forward to read your essay.

              > 3. Do you think the myth of Procrustes, is evidence that the ancient Greeks had a sense of humor?

              Ancient Greeks had a sense of humor - they coined the term "comedy". Although it seems that it is considered that they separated tragedy from comedy, I tend to agree with you that the myth of Procrustes has comic elements.

              Best regards,

              Cristi

              5 days later

              Cristi,

              I've saved your essay as I knew it'd influence my final moderation. I wasn't disappointed as again it was wide ranging and original with some interesting views. I did need that odd pinch of salt but as a debater you did a good job of covering the ground and raising the issues. We both tend to challenge conventional views with sound propositions, but in different ways.

              Here the fundamental challenge seemed to be to the topic's assumption that 'steering' is a good thing, or even possible, suggesting individual freedoms are more important. They can be mutually exclusive as you suggest but Is there not a limit? May it not be as dangerous to let everybody wander aimlessly in different directions when we may need to work together to advance understanding. I'm thinking of the planets ecology, where lack of understanding of nature and the common will to make the necessary sacrifices may consign us to extinction?

              I agree that a utopia or "The idea that humanity should drive its way toward a perfect society" can be dangerous, but suggest that's not the only 'aim setting' there is. What I'm 100% behind is Buckminster Fuller's thesis that we should learn better how to think critically and spend more time doing so. But there must be an aim for the better thinking, and what better aims are long term survival and improvement?

              You rightly identify; "by education I don't mean manipulation" which I agree is important. Almost all education is manipulation in terms of indoctrination. In fact it seems there are no facts beyond the less than '1,000th of 1%' (AE) we understand, so we should be teaching how to better use our brains to test and challenge, and to find more coherent answers to complex puzzles. I subtly weave in challenges to conventional Earth bound thinking to my own essay. I liked your trip away from Earth and indeed I take Bob even further from his loved one and test entanglement in multiple ways.

              Very well done for a well written and argued essay. I confess my own inclination is to find ways ahead to advantage mankind without the sacrifices, to improve our understanding of the I, but that's not to distract from the quality of your entry. We seem again perhaps destined to finish closely. I have a firm policy of commenting before marking and not 'marking down' close neighbours (few essays are nonsense!) and I wonder if you agree?

              I suggest my own essay is unique and ground breaking in self evidently deriving the predictions of QM classically with a mechanism which also allows SR to be interpreted in a compatible manner, unifying physics with vast implications. Perhaps the 1,000th of 1% may even be doubled! Science seems a little short of the right kind of thinking to allow the paradigm challenges needed so perhaps we should implement your proposals first to allow the greater vision required. I greatly look forward to and value your comments and opinion.

              Very best wishes and best of luck over the coming bumpy week.

              Peter

                Hi Peter,

                Thank you for reading the essay and for the nice comments.

                You ask very rightfully:

                "May it not be as dangerous to let everybody wander aimlessly in different directions when we may need to work together to advance understanding. I'm thinking of the planets ecology, where lack of understanding of nature and the common will to make the necessary sacrifices may consign us to extinction?"

                I agree that people can use their freedom to do bad things. On the one hand, I think that when they do this, they affect others' freedom in a negative way, so I don't think such a behavior would actually be in conformity with guaranteeing freedom for everyone. But here is a blurred line, since when people have to share the same resources, anything can be viewed as a violation of freedom for others. On the other hand, I also think that education (without manipulation) and critical thinking are important in defining freedom, so perhaps these may help people see better where are the limits you mention. What better antidote to the "lack of understanding of nature and the common will to make the necessary sacrifices" which you mention is, than education?

                Thank you for the comments, and for the brief summary of your essay, which I look forward to reading! Good luck with the contest!

                Best regards,

                Cristi

                • [deleted]

                • Post #80

                Dear Cristi,

                Thanks for submitting your thoughtful and wide-ranging essay.

                There seems to be a strong consensus in many essays that advanced computer systems will have a major impact. Having been involved with software all my life (including AI), I agree, though the claims in my essay for what they can do were a bit more muted ( Three Crucial Technologies - your critical comments and score are welcome!).

                Your axiom, "The most important things in life are life, consciousness, and happiness" is a great first step, especially when you later added our fundamental need of freedom.

                But isn't it more important to love and be loved? After all, it is the source of true joy (as opposed to the fleeting emotion of happiness). Also, Viktor Frankl showed that having a meaningful life is more important to survival than mere happiness.

                You wrote that the definition of humanity doesn't matter, as long as we always let humans be what they want. But what if some people want to be intolerant, ignorant, and domineering? What if they, like Ghengis Khan, think that it is good to drive your enemies before your, crush them into the dust, and hear the wailing of their women and children? Bad definitions of humanity and bad definitions of freedom will result--and has resulted--in the death of millions of innocent people.

                You seemed to define freedom as "anything people want to do." Do we have the freedom to sell ourselves into slavery, become addicted to drugs, porn, gambling, or greed? Physically, I suppose it's possible to do those things (we do them every day), but those things certainly do not make us free.

                You idea of writing a detailed description of God as a specification for a AI program was ...um... unique. If God was really God, could we really understand Him well enough to specify him? At any rate, it would be rather difficult to implement omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence even if we really knew what they were. AI is not magic.

                Have you seen the Arnold movie "The Sixth Day", about cloning and copying memories. There is a great scene in it that exposes the weakness of your claim that "observable difference" is all that matters. It would certainly matter to the person being copied or uploaded.

                You kept saying that God punishes those who do not worship Him. It doesn't work that way. If God really is God, and He really created us because he loves us, then doesn't it make sense that any adequate anthropology will conclude that worshiping our loving creator is natural and good for us? In this light, not worshiping God is like playing in traffic. There are always bad consequences for self-destructive behavior.

                Finally, if God really is God, then would He not also be Truth? It would be necessary for Him to be Truth in order to create such a fine-tuned universe. And wouldn't He also be Love? Otherwise why would He bother creating the universe in the first place? Now that would be God worth worshiping. And it would require us to amend your axiom to the four most important things to be Existence, Truth, and Love (and consciousnesses, because Love and awareness of Truth are impossible without it)?

                Sincerely,

                Tee

                  Hi Tee,

                  Thanks for your comments, but I think you misunderstood my words.

                  You said: "You kept saying that God punishes those who do not worship Him."

                  I don't understand why you claim I "kept saying" this. What I said is that there are people who claim this.

                  > But isn't it more important to love and be loved?

                  It would have been easy for me to say "love is the most important", many people say they love mankind, but when it comes to love a person, the things become more difficult. When we think others should be and think in a certain way, and if they are not, we tend to judge them, then how can we love them? Isn't then easy to say that we love them, but they deserve to be punished? We say we love them, but we would not do the tiniest effort to understand them, and we prefer to distort what they say to justify our hate. So I think that the best way to love people is to let them be free, and try figure out why they are different or have different opinions without judging them. Especially for someone who believes in God, let's let God do the judgement.

                  > You idea of writing a detailed description of God as a specification for a AI program was ...um... unique. If God was really God, could we really understand Him well enough to specify him?

                  Again, I did not discuss about simulating the "true" God, whatever this means. I discussed simulating God as imagined by people in their religions. Implementing God in a simulation, isn't this what religions descriptions of God do? It is true that theirs is not a computer simulation, but it is a model of the world and God, a "graven image". But since this is already a "graven image" in their minds, why this couldn't be implemented in a computer simulation? Software engineers often encounter clients who give informal specifications, but at the end, the software is done. Similarly, some religious people give a description of a God who has this or that attribute. Think at a computer game, and one player has all the powers. Of course it all comes about definition of "omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence". But this is the same in religion too, people debate for millennia what does it mean that God is omnipotent and the other attributes, and you know that these omni-* attributes come with contradictions, so there is no consensus. By the way, the omnipotence paradox is very similar to the problem of freedom you raised, that if you let people be free, they may become Genghis Khan. But doesn't this mean that they may break the freedom of others? So, do you really believe that freedom is the cause of violating the freedom, and hence is not desirable in the first place?

                  I will stop here, because it seems to me that your comments are based on misunderstandings of my words, and adding words would just add more opportunities for misunderstanding :)

                  Cristi

                  Dear Torsten,

                  Thank you for reading and commenting my essay. I also liked your essay. I wish you all the best!

                  Cristi