Babel and Beyond: Can humanity unite? by Mark Avrum Gubrud

Mark,

I'm sure we must agree to disagree about the nature of reality: you say that reality/the universe is essentially deterministic and that consciousness somehow evolves out of complexity; but I say (e.g. in my essay) that reality/the universe is inherently creative, subjective and experiential. You think everything is a machine, but I don't.

These differing views about the nature of fundamental reality inevitably lead to differing views about the nature of living subjects and about the potential for "machine evolution".

Cheers,

Lorraine

Mark,

I wasn't quoting you, but the words "essentially deterministic" and "everything is a machine" seemed to me to be a good summary of the views you have expressed.

E.g. "But I do think we are unlikely to observe macroscopic...violations of physics that is by now well supported by tons of evidence." Presumably by "physics" you mean "the deterministic laws of physics". Granted, a macroscopic object like a chair or a ball or a computer will not ever violate the laws of physics e.g. when it comes to space and time parameters. But a living thing can and does creatively move freely in time and space, and I contend that these time and space outcomes are NOT 100% due to deterministic processes going on in the living thing, and not due to deterministic processes outside the living thing, and not due to deterministic processes plus "quantum randomness (as well as unaccountable classical noise)". One problem with any purported "randomness" and "noise" is that living things aren't showing random physical outcomes.

I contend that, unlike computers, the subjects that comprise the universe (particles, molecules, cells and other living things) are inherently creative, subjective and experiential. And as explained above (Apr. 29, 2014 @ 14:43 GMT), a computer or robot can never experience the information that their component parts represent.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Mark,

I am truly sorry if I have misrepresented your views. This was unintentional. I suppose it just goes to show that there is always some sort of information mismatch between what one person says, and what another person apprehends. It's not easy.

However, I don't have a clear picture of exactly how I've misrepresented your views. How would you define a machine?

Cheers,

Lorraine

But Mark,

to me, this definition/understanding of what is really going on in the 2 categories (living reality and machines), underneath the surface appearance and behaviour of things, is the essence of the question of whether machines are about to become conscious (and take over the world according to some people).

I hope you don't mind if I bow out of this discussion.

Best wishes,

Lorraine

Dear Dr. Gubrud,

Your essay was superbly written and I do hope that it does well in the competition. I do have one minor quibble about it that I hope you will not mind me mentioning.

Reality is unique, once. Language is not unique.

The IBM Watson machine that won the most amount in one session of Jeopardy ought to have alternated between being programmed to ask the questions besides only being programmed to providing the answers.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Not at all, it only means the rating system itself is worth precisely "4.2". Seriously, it's flawed. But I expect your score to improve, as I think many people (like myself) hold off voting till near the end. If it doesn't improve (and dramatically), then I hope someone will explain why it deserves such a middling score, because I can't. - Mike

Dear Mark,

You warmed us on the AI weapon system early on. The SAI system that is also control our war machine is putting the fate of humanity in the hands of unknown species that we would create. I agree that if we must debate this SAI extensively. No doubt SAI is both good and bad. However the self-aware and self autonomous being that control the weapon of mass destruction should be banned. If we are not careful, this SAI would take control eventually if we are careless. I am not against Self-aware AI, but we should not give it the logic to kill humans whatever good cause it might be. As you wrote : "The time to stop is now, when nations are beginning to contemplate the use of autonomous weapon systems and are debating whether to ban or restrict them (Gubrud 2014). Human control, responsibility, dignity and sovereignty are clear principles, and autonomous machine decision in the use of violent force is a clear red line. All humanity can recognize, and all nations can agree to respect these principles." I endorse this view. I rate your essay a ten(10).

Good Luck!

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

Marc,

Watson was one of the three contestants that only answered the questions. Watson had billions of pieces of information packed into its electronic memory banks, any one of which it could retrieve almost immediately. If Watson had had to ask the questions, it would have been a different matter. Watson would have only been able to ask a question that had already been asked on the show. Watson would have been unable to ask trick questions. Jennings and the other guy would have stood a better chance of answering the straight forward questions Watson was forced to ask.

Joe

Dear Leo KoGuan,

Thank you so much for your kind comments. I understand that you are a very successful businessman, and your own essay shows that you are a very broad and humane thinker.

I am very encouraged by your expression of support for the goal of banning machine control of the instruments of conflict and violence. There is a lot of resistance to thinking about this in the context of self-aware and willful artificial intelligence, which people scorn as "science fiction" even though it is increasingly well grounded in science fact.

Instead, most of the opposition to killer robots is framed in terms of their stupidity and consequent inability to fulfill the requirements of international law. This is certainly valid for the time being, but as time progresses people are less inclined to be certain that it will always be true. Hence there is an urgent need to address the issue also from the perspective that you express.

I like to say: Stupid robots are dangerous, and smart ones even more dangerous. Probably the most dangerous of all are the ones that are right in between stupid and smart.

A lot of people worry about what a superintelligent machine might do. I like to say, if you are worried about that, let's not start by arming them!

Thank you so much for the high rating. Since you may be able to help with the effort to stop killer robots, I hope that we will be in touch.

best reasonable wishes,

Mark

Hi Mark,

You've got me confused with the esteemed University of Oklahoma zoologist Thomas S. Ray (also known more commonly as Tom Ray), inventor of the TIERRA artificial life program. I have high regard for Dr. Ray's research -- and I sign my work T.H. Ray to try and avoid the confusion, though many do it anyway. :-) Our fields are pretty closely related, on the level of abstract modeling.

Best,

Tom

Mark,

Thank you for a very interesting essay.

I think you raise a lot of important points:

1. That if humanity is made of many communities with conflicting interests, it becomes very difficult to identify global future goals that humanity should steer towards.

2. That a lot of the evil in the world could arise through the pursuit of good, instead of purposeful evil action.

3. That, in any debate, reaching certainty and "closure" is a sign that you have become a "partisan", which is counterproductive.

4. That, for a debate to be fruitful, the receiver of the message must do some work, must take the time to receive the information and to understand it... which is, unfortunately, not often the case.

5. That ordinary citizens sometimes argue passionately about scientific issues (GMOs, energy policy), but that they often preselect the sources of their information through their personal motives and prejudices (even when they are not aware of the fact).

To address, among other things, the "problems" no. 4 and 5, I proposed in my essay that we try to identify collectively the most important basic knowledge that is useful to have a debate about the future, and that we refocus education (formal and lifelong) to ensure that the greatest number of citizens are made to participate in a worldwide "conversation" about the future: I call this endeavour the "Futurocentric Education Initiative".

The Futurocentric Education Initiative is a possible way to address the "Babel Problem": we could call it an "Augmented Intelligence" approach, which could complement the "Artificial Intelligence" approach that you tentatively suggest. While we wait for truly general artificial intelligence to appear (some people believe it is imminent, some think that it can never happen), maybe we can pool our human natural intelligence resources, augmented and coordinated through the Internet, to steer education, in order to eventually steer the future!

Your essay is one of the most on-topic that I have read, and I hope that it does well in the competition. Several essays in this contest emphasize that better communication and education is essential if we want humanity to successfully steer the future, and I hope your essay makes it to the finals so this point of view can be represented. (I have nothing against the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity, but I think that this year's question deserves other approaches than just "let's unify QM and GR so we can save the world"!)

Marc

Dear Mark,

Your Babel and Beyond article is fantastic and held my interest through out. I wish you an astounding reward in this competition.

I am particular happy for a new concept which allow fresh ideas. I will also employ you to read my article STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM For easy access considering the enormous entries it is here. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020

Your comments and rating will be appreciated.

However before I leave your wall, I wish to draw your attention to your end note where you make a reference to yourself as being an atheist. Are you not contradicting yourself because your great idea of babel was taken from the Bible as you rightly quoted? Expecting your reply here and on my article.

Regards

Gbenga

Dear Mark,

An excellent thesis, persuasively argued. Only at the conclusion...hopeful. And I think of itself inadequate. Consider already the problem of net neutrality.

Humanity has a common interest to preserve its habitat, this earth. Its survival, and comfort. Yet each person has a divisive reason to exploit it as much as he can. His own survival, and comfort. As you said, it is interest which divides.

I think this can be overcome only by leading by example, by living humbly and taking action against the degradation of the earth. Deeds speak louder than words, and deeds might have the power to overcome Babel. I believe it is only through the communication of and enabling of deeds that information technology may serve as you hope.

Living humbly yet in the comfort to which we have become accustomed may require a reorganization of our society into more efficient economic units.

Good luck in the competition.

Charles

Hi Mark,

I really enjoyed your essay from beginning to end. I think it is very intelligent and well crafted. I like the way you have taken the simple observation that people often fail to understand each other and built it into a consideration of the vast array of problems facing mankind, and disagreements about them, including AI and automated weapons systems. If I have a criticism it is that when you talk about Russia and the Ukraine you are giving a particular perspective which of course others will disagree with, the occupying Russians and the ethnic Russians who want Crimea to be a part of Russia again. I also wonder whether the peaceful occupation of Crimea has prevented a larger civil war in the region that would have left many dead. I suppose it highlights how easy it is to disagree about something even when one is trying to be open minded and tolerant.

Good luck, Georgina

Mark --

I'm glad to find another essay in the contest on communication, and yours is excellent. Both successes and failures of communication have always been central to the evolution of our species, and you give a very good overview of our situation as it stands today. I like your summary of the problem:

"Even the most lucid speech requires some effort of the listener... one cannot make stones understand merely by speaking very clearly. So I want to suggest a more general understanding of Babel as the failure of communication, or of community itself... entwined with conflict, anger, arrogance and impatience, as well as distance and cognitive limits."

My own essay tries to provide some historical and conceptual background on this issue. We very easily take it for granted that we know pretty much how human communication works -- after all, this is technology we all use all the time, even when we're just talking to ourselves. But it's only in the last century that we've begun to recognize the depth and many-layered complexity of human connection. I argue that this "rediscovery" of communication is related to the emergence of electronic media, and that the cultural impact of these media is only beginning to be felt today.

Your "tentatively hopeful conclusion" is very reasonable. If you haven't already, you might look at Ray Luechtefeld's essay, which is also very good, dealing with a kind of AI support for collective understanding. I see you've already commented on Sabine Hossenfelder's essay.

Unfortunately it seems almost inevitable that "super-intelligent systems" will be controlled by the only entities capable of creating such things, namely global corporations and (not to sound too cynical), the governments they also more or less control. On the other hand, I think it's possible that the decentralized kinds of communication we now see in a fairly trivial form in "social media" might turn out to play a powerful role in transforming global culture. Our future may possibly be less dependent on what large institutions and super-powerful computers can do for us, than on what we learn to do with and for each other, given these newly-emerging dimensions of connectivity.

Thanks for a fine piece of work -- Conrad

Dear Mark,

Glad to see your reply. Although your saying as "preserving the Nature from which we came" is beyond the scope of this forum otherwise I would demanded for a proof! Your name as "Mark" has its root from the Bible you claimed as the book of wisdom. Many atheists I know hardly make reference to Bible as their basis of philosophy but your theory and even the name revolve round that book of wisdom. Anyway back to business!

I wish to read your comments on my article. It will ever refresh minds even after this contest is all over. However comments without rating will not complete. I anticipate you. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020

Wishing you the very best in this competition.

Regards

Gbenga

Dear Mark,

Good analysis. Of course the same bible that tells of Babel does predict much later the emergence of what it calls an impostor. Now assume for a while that the LORD in the Babel story foresaw and was actually trying to prevent the emergence of an impostor/AGI. So now when it does finally come (as you hope and the bible predicts) then are we confronted with the real danger of an actual operational pseudo "LORD". This in my opinion is the moral of the Babel story; the Lord (authentic) which did scatter Babel must remain the Lord absolute. I see this as the reign of uncertainty principle as against the reign of an entity i.e. authority principle.

I see any authority principle (e.g. AGI) ultimately as a hidden variable theory and the "lord authentic" as the core uncertainty principle (of which we individuals must remain the prime example for it said somewhere "in the image of God made He man..." and in another place also speaking to man it says: "ye are gods".

The Lord at Babel does not pretend to be an ontology. Just as the today the uncertainty principle of quantum physics does not pretend (a la Copenhagen) to be an ontology. And I have actually tried to show that man is his own very uncertainty/quantum.

I agree with you that the fundamental question about AIG is, "Who will control it? If governments, corporations, and wealthy individuals determine the use of super-intelligent systems, they will likely use them as instruments of warfare and competition. Worse, if technological systems themselves are allowed to be in control, they may do things no human being would choose."

Of course they were made in the first place (even according to you) to do things no human being could do!

Really the question is: by what extent is this prospect avoidable anymore?

I will appreciate your candid critique of Between Uncertainty and Entity .

Regards,

Chidi

LOL! It's no insult, that's for sure.

Best,

Tom

P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

6 - slightly favorable indifference

5 - unfavorable indifference

4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

The following is a general observation:

Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

PS - I predicted correctly, though it's still underrated. I'll be rating it myself, Mark (and all the others on my review list) some time between now and May 30. Thanks again for reviewing my own essay. All the best, and bye for now, - Mike

Mark, very interesting, well researched essay. Very believable perspective on AI.

Thank you for writing your essay!

Brent Pfister

Happy Path

Mark,

The Babel problem stands out in solving the climate change problems, especially considering the different perspectives of developed and developing countries. Then as you point out, there is the technology and who controls it. For an advanced country, the US has not set a very good example regarding technology's use, choosing war and competition.

Like you I speak of the common good, serving interests of all. My essay speaks of monolithic corporations focusing on their own agendas rather than that of common good and a viable future. "Looking beyond" orthodox science and "within," using th e minds capabilities, a sort of neural universe, are my solutions.

I would like to see your comments on my essay.

Jim

Mark,

Great essay and important points, well made. I vastly agree that communication is horrendously poor. As an Englishman I also consider English an often poor and incomplete language for science. When we understand nature the vocabulary will surely be vastly different. But you rightly point out that even in the SAME language we rarely understand each other. I also think we're in danger of loosing different 'cultures' of thinking. The far eastern/african view is far less self-centric than the western so I think has greater potential.

I pointed out last year that not only are we but every 'thing' is different, so a fundamental error in understanding nature is forgetting that. I've also suggested that our disparity it at once our greatest strength as well as greatest weakness. Do you agree?

You deal well with AI, which I think may further entrench us in the scientific and academic dogma's which as you say; "are infamous for suppressing new thought." I agree Academia is a highly flawed cradle for advancement. (My own essay agrees and explores an escape from such thinking.) This competition shows you correct that;

"People disagree, often violently, about which way the good lies, what it looks like, and how to get there. the mother of all problems, the most difficult for humanity to tackle and the one that we must overcome if we are to have any hope of solving other problems." There is great reliance on maths as a language, which I think massively detracts from rational intelligent analysis and problem solving.

Very well done. Good score coming. My own essay addresses the issue in showing that with freer thinking methods the most confusing of science can be understood coherently by all. Fundamental advances in understanding nature have always driven our own route ahead. I suggest what holds us back is belief in dogma.

Very well done. I hope you may perhaps get to read and score mine, written as an allegorical tale, by the deadline.

Best wishes

Peter

Mark,

That was me, logged out without telling me again. Not much AI!

Peter

Dear Mark Gubrud

I have one association on your essay. Namely, I think that we speak different languages and we do not understand each other also because we do not have answers on fundamental questions of physics. We cannot explain consciousness, and this causes distinct ideologies and religions about life after death and about sense of life. Besides the physics, mathematics and logic known today could be bases of some more perfect language.

It is interesting to follow some discussions on internet, where laymans of physics wish to promote their ideas such as superluminal speed of light, perpetuum mobile, and similarly. It is evident that knowledge of physics could help to harmonize these disagreements. But, a lot of time is necessary to learn physics, to overcome prejudices and to harmonize this language. But, a physics is not presented so simple that it could be and this is a cause of lot of quarrels on internet forums.

On the other side, all physics is not yet explained and professional physicists are claimant for knowledge which they do not have. For instance, consciousness is not yet explained. Although its source are brains, this can means anything, my old essay. Probably also other questions of fundamental physics will maybe obtain different answers, as we expect.

But not only knowledge of physics directly, ethics is also important at internet forums ...

My essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

Mark,

Having had rating problems with my Firefox browser and with some 5 days remaining, I am revisiting essay I've read to see if rated. I find that I rated yours on 5/26.

Would like to see your comments on mine: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2008.

Jim

Hello Mr. M. A. Gubrud,

This is Margarita Iudin.

I just read your essay. It is O' K, except it is not my topic. You ask what is the greatest problem (there are so many of them - here I agree with you). Sorry, those problems are not that kind of the problems that if you know them you can solve them.

1. I did not understand why you have decided to speak about Babel. Babel symbolizes lots of the things at once. Do you know how many positive meanings and influences biblical Babel and historical Babel (Nineveh?) have ? Do you against the urban culture? If yes, what you do about it?

2. I recommend you to read Plato to find out what he thinks about the mob (read, the nature of human mob) of Athens.

3. O' K, it is not my topic. I read somewhere your comments. It appears that you are the person who knows the difference between the power distribution (law) and normal Gaussian distribution (law). Very well.

I have a serious problem to find the contest entrants that will be able to understand my essay (James A Putnam, Wesley Wayne Hansen, ??)..

May I ask you, when you have time, to read my essay

Imagining the future humanity

at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2096

Among other things it is about the analogous imagining and applications of the analogous imagining - in my essay I draw on analogies that you may find interesting.

Good luck,

M Iudin

By the way, I am a Jew and a meta-physicist.

Plato said that there were too much I oncewhetehr am very suscpicious about people and I like it even though I do not agree with your choice to apply statistical mechanics (basically, statistical mechanics is a branch of applied math; if you remember Ludwig Boltzmann lectured on applied math) and thermodynamics (thermodynamics is a kind of empirical physical science) to development of humanity.

As local control can be anything, the strong definition is required. And if you try to make the definition, you will find yourself in trouble.

I am curious about your usage of the high school and college physics - do you think people understood what they had learned (in school)?

I do not rank you essay (I think it should be 4 or 5) not to bring your current rank down. Still your essay is one of the best I read here. I like Mr. Putnam's (though I do not agree with him as well) and several more.

I have a serious problem to find those contest entrants that would be able to understand my essay (James A Putnam, Wesley Wayne Hansen, ??)..

If you have time, please read my essay Imagining the future humanity

at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2096

Among other things it is about the analogous imagining and applications of the analogous imagining - in my essay I draw on analogies that you may find interesting.

Good luck,

M Iudin

Actually, I have a working experience in the chip design, writing OS for stand alone processors, in thermodynamics (laboratory analysis of the thermodynamic parameters), and so on. As yourself, I am also a pro-system approach and like statistical mechanics and mathematical physics.

How Should Humanity Steer the Futre is certainly an intringuing question but I think there is another question which is really urgent to answer:

By what thing or principle is Humanity presently steered such that it produces the babel phenomenon so well described by Mark Gubrud?

In other words the urgent question is: What is the ultimate cause of all violent conflicts in human society?

Indentifying the ultimate cause of all violent conflicts will enable us to immediately identify the solution, which is precisely the logical negation of the ultimate cause of all conflicts.

Ion