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

    Wes Hansen,

    There are some questions people have asked for millennia, and tried to answer them. Just because we are more aware of our problems than of those with which people were confronted in the past, and because we are more advanced technologically, we tend sometimes to consider that their answers are not good enough for us, and that we are much smarter and we would not do the same mistakes they did. But people answered important questions over and over again from ancient times, and also made the same mistakes all over again. Technological progress just gives us more efficiency both in solving problems, and in making mistakes. I appreciate you took time to present some pieces of ancient wisdom, which always remain of actuality. The key to freedom is to search inside, but also to search outside, and try to understand those from other cultures and other times. We will see that, while the problems appear to be different because the historical and cultural contexts are different, at the root they are very similar. When we see this, we learn several things: to love those that are different, because they are not that different, to be more focused on important things, and not on fashionable problems whose importance is limited in time and space, to appreciate people from different places and epochs and learn from their wisdom, which they gathered with sacrifices and tried to pass to us, to make our lives easier. Thank you for the enlightening comments.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    Dear Cristi,

    Beautiful work, I really enjoyed reading it. I will write more comments on your essay later. Best, Leo KoGuan

      Dear Leo,

      Thank you for the feedback. I look forward for your comments.

      Best regards,

      Cristi

      Dear Cristi,

      With great interest I read your essay. Deep set of ideas that make us think about the future path of Humanity. Beautiful conclusion with which I fully agree:

      «We have to learn to be free, and to allow others to be free, because this is the only way our children will be happy and free. Then, they will be able to focus on any problems the future may reserve them.»

      In support, I send you greetings musical...

      Thank FQXi that brings together people for "brainstorming" on very important topics of modern Humanity!

      I wish you good luck!

      All the Best,

      Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir,

        Thank you for the nice comments and for the refreshing music clip. I did not have the chance to read your essay yet, but I look forward, since it seems very interesting to me. I wish you good luck too!

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        Hi, Cristi!

        Good to see you around, this year. I'll be sure to read your essay and come back here.

        Regards,

        Chidi

          Hi Chidi,

          Good to see you too. Look forward to discuss more about our essays.

          Best regards,

          Cristi

          Dear Author Cristinel Stoica

          An analysis and arguments very interesting for demand of freedom.

          10 points for freedom .

          Hải.CaoHoàng

            Dear Hải.CaoHoàng,

            Thank you for reading and commenting my essay.

            Best regards,

            Cristi

            Hi Cristinel,

            Very nice essay. I wish I had taken note of it earlier given how relevant it is to the themes of my own.

            http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2063

            I would ,however,take issue with two of your statements:

            "Often, ideologies trying to build an utopian world for mankind, failed really badly. When people didn't care about the ideals promoted by an ideology, they were considered enemies of the good intentions of that ideology, and were repressed. Ideologies fail because are based on idealization of man, a simplified model that is supposed to work, like a bed of Procrustes."

            "The origin of any ideology that pursues an utopian dream relies on some assumptions about what people need most. Since people are different, they may feel that they need different things. Ideologists of various utopias often see those not sharing their dreams as being evil.They are afraid that opposition and criticism are obstacles in their way to Utopia. This fear makes them try to be more and more in control, at any costs, so they end up building a

            dystopian, repressive world."

            In my own essay I try to break what I believe to be this artificial connection between ideology and Utopia. As just one example, I wouldn't accuse Nazism of an "idealization" of mankind, or rather, it wasn't the exhalation of mankind that was Nazisms' problem but that it demonized and treated like animals the bulk of humanity.

            Utopia is different than ideology in that it is often just an attempt to realize human ideals such as peace, equality or justice. Robert Owen was trying to reform the world not to reduce everyone to a cog in an ideological narrative of the end of history. A Utopian group like the Shakers were some of the world's first and most vocal abolitionists. Same goes on the issue of gender equality.

            Plato's much aligned Republic was actually a great improvement morally speaking on the violent world of the Greek polis.

            Utopia is just about ideals shared among human beings which is not a threat to diversity. We all want peace, justice, equality. If they can be accused of over-determining human social roles this is in part a consequence of designing society from scratch.

            In other words, we need to stop associating the desire for an ideal society with violence and dystopia otherwise we will have no star to guide and pull us as we lurch towards justice.

            Best of luck,

            Rick Searle

            Hi Cristinel,

            Very nice essay. I wish I had taken note of it earlier given how relevant it is to the themes of my own.

            http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2063

            I would ,however,take issue with two of your statements:

            "Often, ideologies trying to build an utopian world for mankind, failed really badly. When people didn't care about the ideals promoted by an ideology, they were considered enemies of the good intentions of that ideology, and were repressed. Ideologies fail because are based on idealization of man, a simplified model that is supposed to work, like a bed of Procrustes."

            "The origin of any ideology that pursues an utopian dream relies on some assumptions about what people need most. Since people are different, they may feel that they need different things. Ideologists of various utopias often see those not sharing their dreams as being evil.They are afraid that opposition and criticism are obstacles in their way to Utopia. This fear makes them try to be more and more in control, at any costs, so they end up building a

            dystopian, repressive world."

            In my own essay I try to break what I believe to be this artificial connection between ideology and Utopia. As just one example, I wouldn't accuse Nazism of an "idealization" of mankind, or rather, it wasn't the exhalation of mankind that was Nazisms' problem but that it demonized and treated like animals the bulk of humanity.

            Utopia is different than ideology in that it is often just an attempt to realize human ideals such as peace, equality or justice. Robert Owen was trying to reform the world not to reduce everyone to a cog in an ideological narrative of the end of history. A Utopian group like the Shakers were some of the world's first and most vocal abolitionists. Same goes on the issue of gender equality.

            Plato's much aligned Republic was actually a great improvement morally speaking on the violent world of the Greek polis.

            Utopia is just about ideals shared among human beings which is not a threat to diversity. We all want peace, justice, equality. If they can be accused of over-determining human social roles this is in part a consequence of designing society from scratch.

            In other words, we need to stop associating the desire for an ideal society with violence and dystopia otherwise we will have no star to guide and pull us as we lurch towards justice.

            Best of luck,

            Rick Searle

              Dear Rick,

              Thank you for the interest in my essay, and for defending so well the contrary of a viewpoint I raised. I think it is great that, if I forget to be balanced, the readers can help me with this.

              In the text you quoted, by "idealization of man" I meant "a simplified model that is supposed to work, like a bed of Procrustes". I hope this clarifies your issue.

              I haven't read yet your essay, but I see now from it and from your blog that you are interested so much precisely in utopia and dystopia, so definitely you are more at home with these topics than I am.

              I agree that utopian ideas have an important positive side. People need to trust their future, they need to try to improve the present, and this may require a belief or hope in a better state.

              This being said, my point is that it is in the human nature to try to explain the failure to reach an objective, especially a social one, by the fact that others don't care about it or even oppose it. I can see this in the discussions in politics, religion, human rights, global warming, etc. Would it be too strong the claim that at the root of any large scale act of repression or violence, there is the idea of the aggressors that the things ought to be in a certain ideal way, and the victims are to be blamed if the things are not like this or if they seem to endanger their ideal?

              Best regards,

              Cristi

              Cristi,

              "Would it be too strong the claim that at the root of any large scale act of repression or violence, there is the idea of the aggressors that the things ought to be in a certain ideal way, and the victims are to be blamed if the things are not like this or if they seem to endanger their ideal?"

              Very interesting question. I am not sure how to shake out how violence is used as the worst form of "tool" to create the future rather than being used as a means to reach some "ideal". The slave system of the 18th-19th century was extremely cruel and violent, but it had nothing to do with "ideals" just shaping the world to fit exploiter's interest by force. Again it was the dehumanization of the other that justified such violence. Ideal can't just mean some yet to be realized future state. Can it?

                Rick,

                You are right that "it was the dehumanization of the other that justified such violence".