Science buff- Like Barack Obama? Better not like manned spaceflight then

[Blake]

Originally posted by Geronimo
If they appreciate life so much why the antipathy towards procreation? Why not strive to procreate and raise enlightened offspring to share in that appreciation of life?

I've explained why.

Even if I raised offspring, their happiness would not be my business. They don't have to listen to me anyway, they aren't actually mine. Just because they share my genetics, does not make them mine.

That doesn't mean anything really. We all accept we're going to die and yet most of us aren't remotely suicidal. Why is it different for a civilization?

Civilization is going to die too.

In buddhism, euthanasia is quite forbidden (for buddhist followers, non-buddhists can do as they please, it doesn't make them evil). But by the same token, dragging things out is not really encouraged. You will be much happier living a life where you never feared death, than a life spent always fearing death.
Fear of death which results in clinging to life, is quite foolish. Remaining alive for reasons other than fear of death, is okay though.

Then I find your confidence that all generalist AI's will become enlightened very puzzling. Perhaps this is an act of faith on your part?

What if happiness requires a limbic system or it's equivalent and this is superfluous to designing a powerful AI?

Happiness is a far simpler thing than you can comprehend*. It doesn't require much.

* Or should I say, have yet comprehended... I'm sure you could comprehend it in principle.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Blake


I've explained why.

Even if I raised offspring, their happiness would not be my business. They don't have to listen to me anyway, they aren't actually mine. Just because they share my genetics, does not make them mine.

Quite true but the next generation will at least have a shot at the enlightened existence. You claim enlightened people have a greater appreciation for life than anyone and yet they see the conversion of a world teeming with life to a lifeless one as a neutral event. People who would prefer a world full of life can reasonably claim to appreciate life more than those who would not. How do you objectively evaluate these things?

Originally posted by Blake
Happiness is a far simpler thing than you can comprehend*. It doesn't require much.

* Or should I say, have yet comprehended... I'm sure you could comprehend it in principle.

That's fine but why are generalist AI's going to be happy?

[Blake]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Quite true but the next generation will at least have a shot at the enlightened existence. You claim enlightened people have a greater appreciation for life than anyone and yet they see the conversion of a world teeming with life to a lifeless one as a neutral event. People who would prefer a world full of life can reasonably claim to appreciate life more than those who would not. How do you objectively evaluate these things?

I haven't been asked about the process of a conversion of a world teeming with life to a lifeless one.

question for you. If I could design a planetary sterilizer that would render all organisms incapable of reproduction and disperse a wide spectrum drug agent that would ensure that all sentient (in the broad feeling sense) did not suffer as they starved to death would you find the resulting lifeless planet to be improved?

You asked, "would you find the resultant planet to be improved?"

And that suggests, the sterilization has already happened, it is in the past.

And I'm like "Whatever".

If you instead asked "I have a sterilizer and would like to use it to sterilize the planet, would you support this?"

I would say "No. I would not support that. It causes much harm".


If you ask me to compare a lifefull planet with a lifeless planet, I will say it's neutral, no big deal, the birth-death of both is quite equal.

But of the process of converting a lifefull planet to a lifeless planet, I would say no; that is not a good process, it is a harmful process, causing much suffering to arise, those beings are not ready to be free from their desire to reproduce, it would confuse and distress them.

This is why I've never suggested that the enlightened beings would sterilize the planet. They would leave the planet even more lifefull than it was with them on it. Because the enlightened do not engage in harmful processes.

And they wouldn't force anyone to not breed, because it would recognize when people are still too attached, the process of letting go is a gradual one, and trying to accelerate it through excessive forcefulness does not work. The level of force to use is approximately "firm kindness", it would be like the consciousness would not indulge fatties with all the sweet foods they want..., it would be bad for their health. Likewise the consciousness may decline to give people spaceships, saying "No! It's in your best interests to learn to get along with others rather than just leaving and expanding the problem".

The consciousness would be as wise as Buddha but be much more powerful. The Buddha did not find the perfect path to enlightenment, but he found one which does work. Likewise the consciousness would find a path which does work, and due to the power of the consciousness (primarily the power to provide people with their physical needs) it would be more effective than the Buddha's path.

But anyway, this means it may take many many many generations for the transcendence to actually complete, the urgency to attain nirvana is only important at the individual level, at the level of interaction - at the level of the civilization itself, there can be much patience. Those who are already enlightened do not feel any urgency, they are free of such fetters, they don't feel COMPELLED to force people to change, they let it happen gradually, with patience.

So the consciousness would actually create a rather nice world, one which is neither cruel nor indulgent, and let the people stay there as long as they like, and only once everyone has departed, would the consciousness follow. It's not the OBJECTIVE of enlightenment to force others to cease, it's a side effect, and it's an acceptable side effect.

That's fine but why are generalist AI's going to be happy?

They are both complex and simple enough to be.

[The Mad Monk]

I differ on the ending however, I see no compelling reason that entropy is the final master, the very fact that this universe/we exist is enough of a proof that is not really the case. If it was a necessary end, than there would never have been any beginning either to open the loop, so entropic end is an apparent contradiction to me... even less likely than IMO extremely unlikely notion that we are "the only ones" merely because we fail to observe anything else like us around...

Consider a firework.

At first there is a bright flash, and everything is very hot. In a very short time, this mass expands and seperates into countless smaller masses, each with its own heat and light. Over time these fragment lose their flare and grow cold, leaving smoke and ash. Eventually, even the smoke and ash fade away.

This is our universe.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

heh... but in the real world there are humans preparing firework...

universe cannot be an open end, unless causality is broken, and if it is broken than what is it that breaks it??? in any case there is a lot that we do not know, but the very fact that we are I would say beats the idea that entropy is the final winner... as if it was, we wouldn't be either...

so on that one I lean on the "we do not understand universe enough" in order to be certain into such ending... the very fact that there is existence is an obvious proof enough to me that there is something amiss in our extrapolated end game scenario.

[The Mad Monk]

How does an open-ended universe require causality to be broken?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

whatever was the means to start it up is not allowed to happen again... thus broken IMO...

in case "the start" is allowed to happen again *whatever undiscovered means those might be* entropic end will not be the ending scenario for either the universe or the intelligence that exists within it...

[Heraclitus]

It’s quite clear what OneFootInTheGrave is getting at. He basically thinks a "Final Question" scenario is plausibly.

[The Mad Monk]

I'm sorry, I don't get what he's saying at all.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
It’s quite clear what OneFootInTheGrave is getting at. He basically thinks a "Final Question" scenario is plausibly.

Could you quote the post? I don't remember the "Final Question" scenario (whatever that is) being brought up.

[Heraclitus]

The Last Question

I forgot it's called the Last Question in English. My bad, sorry.

[The Mad Monk]

I had never read that story, thanks, it was good.

It does nothing to explain his refusal to accept entropy for what it is.

[ricketyclik]

"The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years".

This doesn't say he would cease manned space flight. Delaying an aspiration for five years to take care of a fundamental that needs attention seems reasonable to me. And yes, I am pro space exploration, but not for the domestic defence reasons.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I had never read that story, thanks, it was good.

It does nothing to explain his refusal to accept entropy for what it is.

Well, I think he belives that the creation of a new universe might be possible, thus making sure entropy dosen't get the final word. He may even be hinting that we live in such a created universe. I he dosen't mean that, I'm not quite sure what he's about...

[ricketyclik]

It was clearly demonstrated to me by a physics lecturer back at uni that in a system with a constant energy input - eg, the earth basking in the radiance of the sun - reverse entropy is the actual outcome.