70 replies to this topic

[rwoodin]

When you have children, you may answer this quetion a bit differently.

Ha Ha, Ha Ha and another...Ha.

I have two teenagers, a boy 14 and a girl 16, who are 18 months apart in age. They alternate between driving me crazy with the absolute selfishness of the young and providing me with a feeling of reward that only a parent that worries and works to raise their children could know. They are much better kids than I deserve and they have helped me to define myself. They are priceless gifts.

My life includes my children now but it is not limited by them. They are part of who I am. I'm a father. I was also a son and I'm also a husband. I'm a worker, a music maker, a learner and a teacher and many other things besides. Who I am is always more than the the sum of these many parts. The main point I was making, that I have found 'doing what's good for others' is 'usually good for me' was in part taught to me by my children. But really it was something I finally learned from interacting with the world at large, for most of my life, from a point of ego. In that I mean caring much more about myself and what mattered to me rather than what mattered to anyone or anything else. I found that without a doubt, in the long run, this type of 'being' or exsistance did not work to make me happy, healthy or sound in mind. Actually, in my experience, my complete ego caused my complete isolation from humanity and filled me with frustration, loneliness and profound sadness. I only interacted at a shallow, selfish, 'phony' level with other people because I thought I was much better or smarter than them or that I was completely beneath them. I either needed them or they needed me. Deflation of my ego has resulted in my awareness that I'm just about like everyone else, no better, no worse. My relationships are based on me interacting with, whomever I like and sharing myself with them, while not being afraid that they are any better or worse than me. The people and things I have to interact with as part of my day to day business life are always a little easier to take when I try to understand where the other side/person is coming from. Not that I'm perfect at that. Far from it!! It's just that now, as opposed to the past, I'm willing to keep trying to be less selfish. Progress as opposed to perfection. A life based only on self will or 'ego' did not work for me. Some people are no doubt much better in directing their ego's than I. I'm glad to have found what makes being human so very rewarding in the first place. Heck, that's what immortailty is all about for me. I'm a slow learner and would like a looooooooong time cause the more I learn, the better it be.

[struct]

rwoodin,
when you see or interact with your children you are seeing and interacting with over 90% of your DNA display. But this is not really what makes you egoist (and let's drop the 'rational' part for now). What makes you egoist and all the others is that you are attached to your brain/mind/ideas and you spend most of the time with yourself (actually you hardly leave yourself, you have no choice unless you end your life). Every breath you take you do it to keep your cells alive. In theory you could not dedicate every second of your life to somebody else because you need some seconds to maintain yourself but if for some reason you maintain yourself because you want to dedicate more soconds to somebody else then why are you doing that dedication? I have feeling that the answer has a capital 'I' in it, which is you.

[DJS]

eirenicon: In my morphology, Juche super AIs, if you pardon the narrowing semantic drift, is a class of self-reliant super AIs.

Hehe, you bastard. Here I am plugging "Juche AI" into my google prosthesis and getting back listings in Serbian. [tung]

[DJS]

eirenicon: Techno, not that my naming is any less arbitrary, but validity and soundness have distinct meanings to me. Soundness is a so-called stricter principle. A group of sentences can be valid and yet not sound, but a group of sentences cannot be sound and also invalid. It doesn't really matter, except I didn't want to give the impression of intending soundness. Virtually all that's consistent being hypothetical, soundness is for the cognitive ordinary, like theism for instance.

Mea culpa. As usual, you're spot on. Soundness definitely should not apply to our discussion.

The earlier suggestions of dilemma between thought and action is modifiable from my own scope. It is not a dilemma so much as it poses the most interesting challenge of all, one probably always to apprehend whenever unsure about what to do next (though a doubtful predicament here): converge pure ontologics (a pure mathematics successor), psychological acts, and reality. (I have indicated this much before, having successively aimed for better precision, at least to reduce triviality.) If reality turns out to be always as relatively stubborn as insulated homemakers expect to revel in, then 1 point for Exuberant Drones Observatory.

But, really, it's not too much of stretch if the plan already is to live forever and in more than one machine state; and with respect to perceived urgencies, not under every circumstance is it too radical if you don't expect immortality to unfold entirely in a polling station.

If only one could get paid to be an exuberant drone observatory!

Unfortunately, but perhaps unavoidably, my current perceived level of clarity on a self interested evaluation of "thought versus action" is beholden to the school of hard knocks. To be sure, a rather recent state of affairs, but one that has also lent itself to a fruitful retrospective analysis.

As a rational egoist, minor transgressions into the philanthropic (and here I think we understand one another implicitly) aren't all that staggering, at least not when compared to the mundane multitude of rituals that constitute everyday life. Casting aside such endeavors, even those with substantial personal relevance, what one is left with is the unadulterated pursuit of one's self interest.

Not having lowered expectations, of course, is for teenage boys circa 1996 who fancy themselves a future POTUS. ) Still, being grandiosely hopeful doesn't, per se, preclude rationality. The key is an honest appraisal of one's capabilities (a task which is often easier said than done), plus an awareness that there is an inherent cost in forestalling the current quest for uber-rationality, replete with its primitive tool set. As economic agents, not all of us are cut out to be systems builders. The lifestyle requires dedicated focus that can sap away intellectual free time. Yet the potentially drastic difference in “financial positioning” between working in a system and creating a system that works for you can’t be overstated. I do see all of this as being quite the dilemma.

From a kind of rationalism standpoint, I think we have a pretheoretical ability to choose one of at least two types of relations between the objects, systems theory and mathematics. Eventually, the choice can (and should, if compelling) be changed, but different epistemological biases will be a prior influence. To a first approximation, and disregarding how wrong either probably are with their realism, the extrema of old-school science deferentialists and new-school science cynics are likely to quarantine the object of mathematics in systems theory and vice versa, respectively. The likelihoods should approach chance with realism intact.

Interesting, I wasn’t aware that systems theory and mathematics were contrasting. Then again, I am not at all well versed in systems theory, and only beginning to explore the vastness of mathematics. Just based on my unrefined cogitating, I’ve always assumed that systems theory could be stated in mathematical language…

In regards to realism, I’ve recently begun reading David Lewis’ On the Plurality of Worlds, which I selected based on a desire to add some analytic vigor to my philosophizing while still entertaining myself with “big picture” questions. Anyway, it’s always a pleasure to get a sampling of your thought. If you have any opinions on Lewis’ modal realism or Tegmark’s Ultimate Ensemble I’d be interested to hear what they are.

[Kalepha]

In a want to establish a view from light considerations, "quarantine" must've been used too ambiguously. It more meant a sort of strict confinement than an expulsion. In turn, the view was to show, if nothing else, that thought is a subclass of action. They are distinctive but not exclusively disjunctive; and that might refine scopes, though the concept, or primitive reality, of brain-computer interfacing would already tend to do that, but perhaps only superficially. Lewis, presumably not a cognitive transidentity like us, is inclined to fantasize that thought-acts and non-thought-act events are isomorphic. If only we could reproduce any item as easily as, if not easier than, any that we currently do in our symbol repertoires. Nevertheless, the intentions, along with Tegmark's, seem importantly accurate. My opinions anyway.

[DJS]

In a want to establish a view from light considerations, "quarantine" must've been used too ambiguously. It more meant a sort of strict confinement than an expulsion. In turn, the view was to show, if nothing else, that thought is a subclass of action. They are distinctive but not exclusively disjunctive

Although I didn't express as much in this thread, I actually had the same idea, ie, that thinking is an activity.

My original contention was, admittedly, garbled, but included the position that a great deal of philosophizing is defined as a meta-activity (thinking about thinking). If one desires being a conceptual framework that corresponds accurately with reality, then such higher level activities should assume primary importance. (I'm stating this for other readers of the thread more so than for you) My ranking of intellectual pursuits is conditional, and a product of the limitations imposed on us by our neuro-biological substrate. With radically augmented capabilities, it might very well be feasible to assimilate the contents of the library of congress while still running recursive algorithms that optimize functionality.

An intellectual that embraces rational egoism will naturally view the conduct of most other intellectuals as a frivolous waste of time. For example, militant naturalists who focus on biblical criticism - their intellect is serving a particular, specialized, function within the social/cultural movement they are a part of. This type of subsumption of personal identity with group identity is anathema to the rational egoist.

[Kalepha]

My ranking of intellectual pursuits is conditional, and a product of the limitations imposed on us by our neuro-biological substrate.

It should be possible to rank it unconditionally, as long as there's a mind to do any ranking. 'In present conditions, holding out A for better conditions' is suboptimal, generally, if the action type being held out is appliable in both so-called worse and better conditions: if the expectation for better conditions is expected to be always present, and A is held out for better conditions, then A will always be held out.

For an analogy in the present, self-selecting alarmists, or territory and influence maximizers, promising Heaven or Hell, or promising A Nice Life or Your Stupidity Plus Certain Death, would deny it but they are logically self-selecting aggregators of various infinities. (Lovely.) Thus, the future or its superior-feeling knowledge agents do not undermine the present or its constituents, and nor should you do this to yourself voluntarily.

As a gamer, optimal action can't always be ideal action, unless ideal action is optimal action. It should be easier to avoid being torn apart or feeling the need to justify "non-academic activity" (as if that meant non-cognitive activity) if action in general is intuitively at a higher level than thinking action (e.g., sometimes instructions that embody creative intellectual effort actually have to be carried out).

Edited by eirenicon, 25 April 2007 - 02:03 PM.

[DJS]

I believe you are misconstruing me to a certain extent. Committing to creative action, or the novel juxtaposition of objects, is part of the overall process I was referring to. Taking intuitive leaps into design space (trial and error) are necessary if one hopes to advance and avoid stagnation. This much seems obvious to me...

Perhaps what you had in mind was the outward projection of creativity. This type of activity could be justified in any number of ways. Say, if one desires to refine inter-agent communications (for superior "critiques"), or needs to externalize data storage to facilitate organization and problem solving, or if one wishes to maintain a pristine archive of hir perspective and its evolution, or if one simply embraces aesthetic values. All except the latter are, again, provisional justifications.

So, to be clear, I am not arguing against the creative process, or even external manifestations of this process in the form of various sorts of artifacts. I would however evaluate such activity based on utility.** This is a personal preference, and perhaps partially indicative of the fact that I have always been introverted and never overly "aesthetic" or endowed with artistic talent. As I've mentioned before, I subscribe to the opinion that values (such as aestheticism) are ultimately without justification. I'd argue that I can possess an aesthetic appreciation without fully relating to individuals that feel compelled to create works of art "for their own sake".

One of the members here has as his signature the Woody Allen quote: "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying." In some sense I agree with these sentiments. There may be valid reasons (as stated above) to externalize my creativity, but concerns over "legacy" shouldn't be one of them, IMO.

**This line of reasoning can be transposed onto any activity involving external projection. As per your comments on cellular automaton frameworks, one could consider the act of child rearing to be an artistic/creative enterprise. Personal utility may be served (via insights into developmental psychology, etc) however I doubt this is the primary motivating factor for most individuals when it comes to parenthood.

[Kalepha]

So, to be clear, I am not arguing against the creative process, or even external manifestations of this process in the form of various sorts of artifacts.

I'm sorry but I didn't think you were. Quite the contrary. All I thought was that you were thinking that I was maybe thinking that you were misdirecting your potential thoughtfulness, and so I wanted to make clear that I already think that you're thoughtful in all the thoughtful respects of the word.

. . . [g:)] . . .

And I have nothing against legacy. We would simply notice that we have a future that is potentially greater than our past, and that's a factor for our models.

[DJS]

hehe...

All I meant by conditional is that it would nice, but impractical, to extensively collect the specifics...such as the demographics of Sialkot, Pakistan. With our current capacities, we are forced to be selective in our focus and generally reductive in our methods.

All I thought was that you were thinking that I was maybe thinking that you were misdirecting your potential thoughtfulness, and so I wanted to make clear that I already think that you're thoughtful in all the thoughtful respects of the word.

Nah, sometimes I just talk to myself, which leads to confusion...

[Kalepha]

All I meant by conditional is that it would nice, but impractical, to extensively collect the specifics...such as the demographics of Sialkot, Pakistan. With our current capacities, we are forced to be selective in our focus and generally reductive in our methods.

Right, it's about impossible to imagine with our current brains how we could make sense of being, for example, planet Earth. However, perhaps we actually don't need to believe that somehow it would be better if we could at least elicit a rudimentary sensibility of being planet Earth while we have our thoughts about its current geology and ecosystem and the notion of many simultaneous events, etc. Simply – and to respect earthlings we can refer to Mearth – you are Mearth if everything that can be accounted for as being part of Mearth is part of you, however which way those parts are being used to generate your psychology or keep you durable. This seems to harmonize a couple of intuitions: being present-day Mearth would be senseless (e.g., being a table would be senseless); abstractly or in some compressed form of information (at arbitrarily fast rates) are the only ways to think. If all that was Mearth is now you and it's radically different than present-day Mearth, you wouldn't say that you weren't Mearth (except, of course, if you preferred a different name).

This might already be obvious or dead wrong, but it wasn't always obvious and doesn't yet seem dead wrong to me. Thus far, and at the least, it helps me make sense of our various notions of beingness.