73 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

And the general reply is: so what?

[Lazarus Long]

Remember Jaguar, you are not allowed by your definition to have any fun while pursuing your goal for his thread. So in accord with your wishes while I can't ask you to suffer I sincerely hope and must ask that you do not enjoy yourself one bit.

Now please don't smile at this suggestion for it undermines your pursuit.

[Kalepha]

Jaguar:

1. Verdantburst has clarified everything very nicely, so now what’s your point?
2. If you acquired “absolute truth,” you would be a perfect explainer and predictor, on the scale of eternity. What makes you think there won’t come a point when minds resist your course toward perfectly explaining and predicting, on the scale of eternity, their every process?

[th3hegem0n]

I have defined morality elsewhere (link below) on a technical level, and jaguar's assertions are entirely logical.

http://www.imminst.o...=60

I think it is clear what is most fundamentally necessary to do right now.

Donate to SIAI of course!

[jaguar]

Laz,

You asked.

Nate,

1. Yes, well clarified. But what response are you looking for? After reading all the replies, my theory still seems to remain the step beyond the ideas he has mentioned. I'll say this again. To what end? Groups of people living together in what they perceive as peace, fine. They can do most anything they like, fine. To what end?

More important questions. Is verdant pursuing peace only due to how often the society which has surrounded him since birth has protested it to be correct? More specifically, does existance urge us to act, do we have any say in what we do? If that question is not answered, can we righteously do anything? I say no. And thus the hypocrisy of morals outside pursuit.

2. I never said I didn't think that would happen.

Was there something you wanted Nate? You seem agitated?

[Kalepha]

No, not agitated at all. Just wanted you to clarify your points. Thanks for doing so. I for one appreciate these kinds of concerns and only want a full understanding.

You seem to be saying that if there presently isn’t any satisfactory answer to whether there’s freewill or not, then nothing can be done righteously, except (at least) discovering the answer to the freewill problem; otherwise it’s hypocritical to develop any sort of ethics.

Is this what you’re saying?

[Lazarus Long]

Laz,

You asked.

And you replied Jaguar but I am highly skeptical of the answer you provide. People claim all kinds of things what matters is objective evidence.

I would be interested in seeing an fMRI of your purported unemotional state as you could simply be in denial and unaware of your own motivation and attempting a *rationalization*.

The human mind creates substitutions all the time and I was presenting you a humorous paradox because I challenge you to pursue your goal with no frustration at failure and no satisfaction (fun) for success.

Oh you can claim you don't experience feeling and not even demonstrate it but still be either lying to yourself or us all. I suggest that if we actually scanned your neural function during these endeavors we would discover that you were still motivated by *feelings* that register as fun or its antithesis.

[Infernity]

Jaguar is just not exaggerating with his emotions, Laz. Obviously, his essence of being human- whom functions well, leaves him with no choice but being emotional among the others.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[th3hegem0n]

I'm the same way as jaguar, i can experience this state of 'unemotion' as well. Although I would more call it a state of 'logic'

it's a state at which judging importance or value is of no concern, only the truth

of course everybody does this at least a little bit, however maintaining a persistent state i think is less common

[Infernity]

Perhaps Heg, once you let yourself be satisfied and desire to- it will be done more motivated, and so much better.

That's good for ignoring stupidity rather than be depressed out of it.

Knowing you desire it and will get satisfaction from success is another motive. Failing- makes us a bit up set- but for a reason- to make us realize it was wrong, so we won't repeat neither forget.

The desire evolving hope, to finish good- - fight again for the wanted role...

Yours
~Infernity

Edited by infernity, 09 May 2005 - 01:46 PM.

[jaguar]

Nate,

More or less.

Laz,

Can you say that you've never been so focused on an objective that nothing else entered your mind?

[Kalepha]

Jaguar,

If it’s “more or less” what you’re saying, then I’ll assume for the moment that it is. Please tell me otherwise or how I could be more precise in my understanding of your position. Vagueness isn't helpful, unless you’re trying to be elusive. So, all I think I know of you then is that you’re pursuing absolute truth and that the perspective required for this journey denies the necessity of any ethical framework among minds. Whether you feel emotion or not, in my opinion, is irrelevant to this general fact about you.

However, I still sense a couple of problems with your outlook. One, reality consists of sentient aspects as well as non-sentient aspects. You seem to ignore that sentient aspects don’t have to answer to non-sentient aspects. Alternatively put, you’re too preoccupied with what’s objectively right and wrong, which is a mistake, especially if there’s a possibility for volitional participation that even you can’t yet deny. Such kind participation means co-creation, in which case “absolute truth” from a detached point of view would not be a “step beyond.” Two, minds-in-general (and perhaps even transsentience) are the most interesting aspects of reality, of what might be perfectly explained and predicted in a comprehensive theory of absolute truth. Yet you’re extremely unlikely ever to be allowed the privilege to achieve absolute truth of the most interesting aspects of reality. Self-enhancing minds won’t allow you to be a step ahead in knowing all their next moves.

Now what?

[jaguar]

It's my intention to further the sentient aspect by understanding our situation, I am aware that my chances of success are next to nothing, that bit about minds keeping to themselves... laughable.

This business about my ignoring what you've presented, is false. I've taken these things into consideration. You seem to constantly side-step my main point and dilute my meanings. Perhaps I've misrepresented my theories? If you want to know something, I suggest asking me a specific question. I'm not very good at guessing what people want to know and all your replies have shown me is that you don't understand what I'm trying to say. Perhaps we should end the discussion?

[verdantburst]

I think it is clear what is most fundamentally necessary to do right now.

Donate to SIAI of course!

I must point out, it seems counterproductive (not to mention annoying) to bring this up out of the blue and not include an accompanying justification. I would think that there is a time and place for saying these sorts of things.

[jaguar]

I second that.

[Kalepha]

jaguar| … that bit about minds keeping to themselves... laughable.

That could be. But it’s a legitimate philosophical decision. If agent A can predict every process of agent B before agent B itself becomes aware of them, this implies that agent B is completely deterministic. Ever smarter minds move in the direction of more freedom, not less.

jaguar| You seem to constantly side-step my main point and dilute my meanings.

I haven’t sidestepped your main point. I’ve clarified it for you. If the clarification seems diluted, that’s because it’s not a very inspiring outlook and founded on unevaluated assumptions.

jaguar| Perhaps we should end the discussion?

If that’s convenient for you.

[jaguar]

I'll have to end.

[th3hegem0n]

I must point out, it seems counterproductive (not to mention annoying) to bring this up out of the blue and not include an accompanying justification. I would think that there is a time and place for saying these sorts of things.

The justification was presented, and the comment had everything to do with this entire topic. If you didn't follow it, then either i did a poor job of explaining it, or you simply can't understand it.

I think it was probably a combination of both.

[1arcturus]

Verdantburst,

Yes, humans share a lot of similarities, physically, genetically, but many key elements of these similarities are open potentials, tendencies, abilities to take one form or another based on environment or development or circumstances.

Then there are some genuine differences which affect behavior - neural architecture (mental "disorders", discrete personality types, genetically-determined socializing tendencies, sex-linked differences, etc.). And I don't think it's a coincidence that humans diverge and differentiate based on environments (including human environments, i.e., local cultures). I think that's the way hominids evolved. We are fundamentally of such a nature as to take on different behavior patterns based on who we are exposed to as we grow up (languages, gestures, religions, moralities, etc.). This won't stop us from trying to create a harmonious society, but it should give us pause - what is Nature trying to do this for? Why have we evolved to be like this? Are there any good features of this open-endedness and the resulting diversity? What specifically are the drawbacks?

I'm not familiar with sociology, but I think there would be disagreement about the idea that behavior patterns that facilitate interaction with bands (20 or so folks, our putative aboriginal society size) would be similar to behavior patterns that would facilitate social harmony on vast scales (millions and billions...).

>>>"If we make up a new word to replace happiness, like "I-want-it-ness", then we can include everybody, I should think. No one wants what they don't want."

Maybe I need to find a new word. I am referring to the simultaneous, optimal satisfaction of all motivations/drives. "I-got-it-ness"?

>>>"Sometimes people all agree on something and simply move on. "Slavery is bad", "murder is wrong", "do as well as you can without making the lives of others miserable", etc., are general moral tendencies held by a significant percentage of the population throughout the developed world, and it would take a major economic or political collapse for us to ever backpedal on these tendencies."

I am afraid that future tech developments will create the possibility for new kinds of war, and new kinds of slavery, that have never existed before. I would like to believe that the humans who come into these powers will have evolved a superior "I-got-it-ness" by changing the nature of their minds by that time, but it is possible that that won't happen. "Developed" civilization has arisen very tenuously, and I believe it is rather shallow in its entrenchment in individual human beings. I am not pessimistic - I just think this calls for continually shoring up the basics, and the fundamentals, including fixing the human mind and revising the bases of human social behavior.

Individual humans already have vast powers to cause destruction and suffering, and some of them are using those powers in just that way. I don't believe selfishness is the answer, but altruism strikes me as wrong too. If everyone sacrifices themselves for all others, then who will live for anyone in particular? It's like -- in a perfectly altruistic society -- how would anyone ever get through a doorway? They'd all be waiting for the *others* to go first Or if everyone became a 'servant of all' -- who would they be serving?

I think of developed appreciation (a type of motivated intelligence) as an alternative to altruism. It is not perfectly selfish, because it cares about others, but it is not perfectly unselfish either, because it cares for some more or better or more easily than others (although it wants to care for all as much as possible). It can make the hard choices when there are decisions which must be made -- what to destroy for food or energy, which appreciation-abilities to foster at a time, how best to defend one's self and those one cares about if attacked, etc.

[jaguar]

I do believe I can continue, I apologize for the interruption. Would you like to go again Nate?

[Set]

I don't believe Jaguar explained this incorrectly.
The search for absolute truth is something I started at age 12.
Immortality is a tool I might choose to use, to attain this goal.
I also feel this board has over complicated and micromanaged Jaguars simple explanation.

Humans have no idea where they came from, why they are here, nor where they will go.
Humans aren't perfect. They are subject to sociological diseases and fundamental flaws in group dynamics,
which is part of Jaguars explanation.

Morals are part of those flaws.You cannot establish morals without absolute truth.
Otherwise, these morals are incorrect.

I, a disciple of absolute truth, pay little attention to morals: man's attempt to control another man,
as is every other sociological disease.
This and morals have little or nothing to do with absolute truth.

That being said, let me explain absolute truth.

Absolute truth is:
Absolute knowing of creation,
Absolute knowing of the meaning of creation,
Absolute knowing of the meaning of life,
and, Absolution with no acceptance of partial truth.


I don't believe we need to learn everything there is to know about the human race to understand this.
This is where some of you are confused.
I don't believe we need to know how many pieces of sand are on the beach to understand this.
In fact, I don't have to "like puppies" to know absolute truth.

The concept is comprehensible by 12 year olds;
or maybe its just me.

A disciple of absolute truth can look at the world from the outside; we see things that you do not.
I see humans for what they really are.
Its a feeling of enlightenment. Once you attain the understanding, there is no going back.
Your world is changed forever.

These things came to me along my journey. They simply made me search harder.
I would explain this enlightenment more as a burden than a gift.
I think Jaguar is sparing you part of this burden.
That part of the burden I will spare you.
It is horrific, and today I don't know that I want what I have.
However there is no going back to what I once was.


I have looked into the world and found it lacking:
A nightmare I wish to awaken from, I do not belong here.

[jaguar]

Beautifully put. Do the rest of you understand now?

[Infernity]

Howdy memysabu

Aye, immortality is the mean for achieving the goal.

1. Time.

2. Awareness, and memorizing.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[Kalepha]

jaguar Beautifully put. Do the rest of you understand now?

Yes, but I think we have different ideas about what "absolute truth" probably means and the nature of its intrinsic imperatives, causing us to diverge from a general agreement.

[jaguar]

Then let's discuss it Nate. If you have a sound opinion, let's hear it. You've seen most of mine, your turn to show =]

[jaydfox]

Can you say that you've never been so focused on an objective that nothing else entered your mind?

At times, yes, but I entered such a state with a goal in mind, a goal which, upon accomplishing, brought me satisfaction. Subconsciously, while not aware of the fun, I was driven by the fun, the anticipation of achieving my goal.

What's the driving force to follow such a logical path? If you're doing logic for logic's sake, then what's the point of being human? Why experience the pursuit of truth, or even the finding of truth, if you have no intention of enjoying it, of having an emotional response to it? Logic for logic's sake is best left to non-feeling computers.

That's not to say that pursuing truth isn't a worthy goal, but at least be honest with yourself and with us, that you do so with a hope to be satisfied, or to have your appetite for knowledge further whetted. Acknowledge that, even if only subconsciously, you are driven by the anticipation, the experience, the fun of pursuing truth. You're not pursuing truth for truth's sake, you're pursuing it for your own sake.

[Infernity]

Yes, but I think we have different ideas about what "absolute truth" probably means and the nature of its intrinsic imperatives, causing us to diverge from a general agreement.

Nate, what's hard to understand- the theory of EVERYTHING! everything, everything, everything!! Everything gathered as one- and totally understood and clear.
The whole truth.

At times, yes, but I entered such a state with a goal in mind, a goal which, upon accomplishing, brought me satisfaction. Subconsciously, while not aware of the fun, I was driven by the fun, the anticipation of achieving my goal.

What's the driving force to follow such a logical path? If you're doing logic for logic's sake, then what's the point of being human? Why experience the pursuit of truth, or even the finding of truth, if you have no intention of enjoying it, of having an emotional response to it? Logic for logic's sake is best left to non-feeling computers.

That's not to say that pursuing truth isn't a worthy goal, but at least be honest with yourself and with us, that you do so with a hope to be satisfied, or to have your appetite for knowledge further whetted. Acknowledge that, even if only subconsciously, you are driven by the anticipation, the experience, the fun of pursuing truth. You're not pursuing truth for truth's sake, you're pursuing it for your own sake.

Jay,
He is after all is motivated by feelings, if he wants it or not, he desire to know. He means, he never let any sociality to bother him, never get into situation when he feels bad- because he has no reason to, and apparent joy- seems to him as another possible thing to have in life, which he treats as a waste of time, and losing rationality... Just another element, which he feels he doesn't need.

He is motivated to find THE answer, and that's the only emotion he get led by.

Doesn't mean he has no.

Jaguar, um, will you agree with me?

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[Kalepha]

infernity| Nate, what's hard to understand- the theory of EVERYTHING! everything, everything, everything!! Everything gathered as one- and totally understood and clear.
The whole truth.

A “theory of everything” just means you have a static description. A static description can’t inform like a dynamic acquaintance of all that is real, which includes a meta-acquaintance of all that is possible within all that is real, which includes a meta-meta-acquaintance of such an awareness process, which includes a meta-meta-meta-acquaintance of the meta-meta-acquaintance, which includes a meta-meta-meta-meta-acquaintance of the meta-meta-meta-acquaintance…

If there is more than one awareness system converging on absolute truth (which there will be), in order for them not to extinguish each other along the way, there will need to be some ethical guidelines to facilitate advancing much further than would otherwise be possible – at least until each awareness system exists in its own focal-domain from where supra-domains of other awareness systems can’t be detected. But then you couldn’t achieve absolute truth (since you can’t analyze what you can’t detect), since that would be the only kind of arrangement that doesn’t require an ethical framework.

[Infernity]

Hehe, Nate, well you are correct, but that's not going to change my, nor his goal.

Once- it will be figured- I think everything will be destroyed, and something else- much less explainable and reasonable shall appear, with different logics etcetera.

However, I believe we won't find it, so it shall remain our goal, and that's the most superior thing we can do...

Live to learn.
Learn till you die.
Learn how to not die.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[jaguar]

Well Nate. Do you have your own theory on the matter?