Finding Our Way in the Cosmos.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Excerpt from: EPISODE 52 Finding Our Way in the Cosmos
Link to Source: www.samharris....
Creator: Sam Harris
Date of Publication: NOVEMBER 16, 2016
Big shoutout to Sam Harris, the host of the Making Sence Podcast, for the awesome content in this clip. Keep rocking it!
The synchronicity being discussed as a future possibility is already the case here. What's going on?
Starts at 5:55
Actually starts at 1:56. Sam's intro about the conversation is important
Can anyone help?
I have just spent an evening in conversation with a person in the comments section of a video on artificial intelligence and how soon we can expect to see the arrival of so-called 'superintelligence '. Needless to say, I'm sure, I attempted to advocate for the idea that the future of knowledge is unpredictable and so we cannot know. I also attempted to convey Deutsch's ideas about the impossibility of superintelligence, but in the process I realised that I do not understand the arguments well enough for me to convincingly refute the rival ideas! My exposition reached a point in which I found myself just invoking the authority of Deutsch's 1985 paper, along with references to Deutsch's work in general and the videos of Brett Hall. Not very Popperian at all!
I think I don't understand this concept of universality as well as I should. I get that the laws of physics mandate the possibility of an object, the repertoire of which consists of every physically possible system. I don't get why, hence the invocation of the 1985 paper's authority. And I can't seem to bridge the conceptual gap between a universal computer, which is not a person, and the universal explainer, which is a person. The laws of physics mandate the possibility of universal computers, but how then do we get from that to universal explainers?
Can any of my fellow Deutsch fanatics help me out here?
ah so there are two kinds of universality,
1. computational universality (in the form of classical and quantum computers that can compute anything computable) .This is the hardware setup needed. We know exactly how this works, and David proved its existence from the laws of QM in the 1985 paper.
2. explanatory universality (the consequence of our ability to create conjectures and criticisms and therfore progress). We dont know how it works fully, but our best theories of epistemology tell us that this is true.
A computer just has 1, a fish has neither, and humans have both.
There's a bit more left in point 2, I haven't taken you all the way there, but David covers it in a fantstic podcast ep in Chris Lovgren's "Do explain" podcast.
Thank you so much for your reply. I was expecting to be ignored!
Alas, I am no mathematician, nor am I a physicist. My interest in Deutsch's thought stems from my assumption that it is the currently best characterisation of the culture of modernity and the epistemological 'engine' that drives it. I am interested in that question as a person who is about to request ordination as a priest in the church of England, believe it or not!
I have been pretty much obsessed since my mid-teens with the question of how to properly characterise the nature of religious traditions and their relationship with modernity. My current 'hunch' is that (some) religious cultures are based on the epistemological 'engine' of mindfulness meditation (a.k.a. contemplative prayer), which is in fact an error correcting mechanism, like that of rational criticism, only operating on ideas that are ordinarily much deeper than those that normally occupy the conscious/linguistic 'surface' level of the mind that RC operates on. For this reason I intend to try to articulate a new kind of theological perspective (provisionally called 'unificationist theology') that stands in contrast to 'justificationist' (in the Deutschian/Popperian sense) theologies, as well as so-called postmodernist theologies, by advocating for a culture that values both RC and MM/CP equally, and regards the conceptual constructs/ mythologies of these religious traditions as being 'spiritually instrumental' rather than explanatory.
I would be interested in any reactions and/or critiques to these ideas from people who are familiar with Deutsch's thought. Most, if not all, of the people I have interacted with thus far are completely oblivious to all things Popperian, so it would be fruitful, I think, to interact with people who are as Popperian as I am!
Live long and prosper! 😉
Doesn't a fish's brain possess the first kind of universality? I thought computational universality was relatively easy for the physical world to produce, given the conformity of the laws of physics to the Turing Principle. I thought that all animal brains would be 'Turing complete'.
I will look up the podcast you recommended. I hope that it will help me to formulate a step-by-step argument that will take me from the Turing Principle through to the explanatory universality of people, because I'm still getting stuck at computational universality!
@@NeilEvans-xq8ik you could be right, maybe something more primitive then :) that is demonstrative
1:03:39
48 mins in, was surprised to hear David relinquish the importance of consent, when it's a criminal being reformed by some procedure.
1. The justice system is fallable the person sentenced may actually be innocent. So subjecting them to any rehabilitation procedures without consent is still not good ethics.
2. Consent must be preserved. If informed consent cannot be obtained because the person rejects it, it should be respected. In the case of a criminal this may mean they have to be walled of from society in some way. In a sophisticated future, when consent is saught - the argument will be so strong and benefits so good that most individuals will chose the procedure.
This is one of problems of alignment: did evolution make our brains corrigible? Will Ted Bundy (guy that liked to play with intestines) agree, that "alcoholic desire to play with intestines" it bad for him and will want to "reprogram"with brain (maybe using neurofeedback, more blood to areas that are responsible for empathy
@@srghma thats an interesting topic. If you are optimising for societal cohesion, then allowing the "alignment" of people "by force" (I.e without consent) is the quickest way to get there. If you are optimising "for truth" then consent is paramount because the arbiter of truth has to be ones own evaulation of the arguments - otherwise whats "true" can be imposed on you by another even if it's a lie.. Sure you would be "aligned" but conflict (between values, arguments etc) is where the opportunity for growth in understanding lies and error correction can surface and flow in any direction. I argue that aiming for societal cohesion as a priority is dangerous if it is at the cost of losing the ability for knowledge to grow (which requires error correction). David introduces the concept of "static" society's for example - like Sparta, they may have been very well aligned but at the cost of progress. Progress is the best way to make the lives of future humans better and so we we owe it to our future selves to ensure the ability to make progress is preserved above anything else - even societal cohesion.
So in the case of Ted Bundy, yes if he didn't consent then he shouldn't be aligned by force because that sets a dangerous precedent for prioritising alignment (societal cohesion) over pursuit of truth and we are giving this power to someone or some institution which is fallible or corruptable. However Ted Bundy is still subject to the law and as he was found guilty punitive measures of the day still apply. If he doesn't align by choice then his reasons must be compelling enough (to him) to brave the alternative measures. These alternatives evolve in a free thinking society and what we understand about justice, law, ethics etc.
Lastly, just to be clear, I am not saying that enforcing alignment in individual cases like "Ted Bundy" could not give objectively better outcomes for all concerned. I think I am saying that this is a dangerous power to trust to any fallible entity as its potential to inhibit error correction and the growth of knowledge. Not to mention other hazards of this technology.. you could see how this tech could be abused by those with power to "align" world leaders etc. The only safe mechanism for alignment I could endorse is "self alignment".
you are assuming that the convict can rationally decide if rehabilitation is desirable, which is obviously not true, for they wouldn't have done the crime in the first place.
Did he just say a majority of heroin addicts stop using because they get bore😮, is he high?
Time until superintelligence: 1-2 years, or 20? Something doesn't add up.
This was the video.
the answer is: any prediction is worthless.