"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > I don't really do a "God of the Gaps". But experentially,
> > philosophically and even intellectually I have experienced and
> > believe there exist big-M Mind that we can sometimes experience
> > linkage with. One way to "get there from here" is to imagine
> > what happens a bit after you get a Singularity and the SI
> > continuously expands and integrates beyond what even we might
> > believe possible. That Mind very well might do some things that
> > create these additional strange loops like travel backward and
> > forward in its own timeline influencing and permeating its own
> > becoming, or creating complete new Universes and new sentients
> > in such a way that it can and does provide some nudges along the
> > way and can in some circumstances be partially accessed.
>
> There's no reason why closed timelike curve technology would be just
> powerful enough to implant little hints into our day-to-day minds, and not
> vastly more powerful or vastly weaker. On the other hand, the theory that
> says "It's just your imagination" does predict, very precisely, that the
> proponents of this meme will assert a level of influence which is great
> enough to have alleged moral impact, but not great enough to be
> falsifiable. In other words, hint-dropping. If there really is a future
> Mind with technology capable of supervening on present-day reality to the
> extent of influencing human cognition, and that Mind cares enough to
> intervene, I would expect the effects to be large, blatant, and
> noticeable. For that matter, the degree of physical supervenience needed
> to drop hints is probably sufficient to construct nanobot servos. If you
> can tweak a neuron firing you can probably tweak a protein folding.
>
There is "no reason" true enough except that it might simply be
how the post-SI Mind decides to do things here for now. If I on
this side of the Singularity can come up with plausible reasons
for a choice of limited involvement then I see no way to dismiss
the possibility out of hand. On reason is to actually expand
the number of sentient aspects without having them engineered
completely but grown in a different milieu slowly. Perhaps this
is seen as a way to acheive a leading edge that is not so
predictable. Just a guess, of necessity.
Spirituality is quite falsifiable. Try it on. If it doesn't
improve your life and open up your options in a way that is
worth something to you then discard it. Don't expect to weight
something that rich and intricately part of life with
rationality and logic alone though. Not if you really want to
know.
Why should the effects be blatant? Perhaps part of whatever
this sim is set up for, or especially if it is the Mind's own
past, will be harmed by anything too blatant. This especially
works well with the time-travel model. Improve slightly but not
so drastically as to jeopardize the timeline. Sufficent to do X
and X being advisable within the constraints of the situation
are quite different things.
> But anyway, this hypothesis about reality - that spirituality represents
> drawing on a real, external source of knowledge, where this knowledge is
> more accessible to humans who place themselves in particular emotional
> states - is a straightforward one, and one to which I can
> straightforwardly reply "You're wrong." And you can reply "You're
> wrong." And there, I think, things rest, unless you'd like me to try and
> unlace your faith.
>
>
The states are not simply emotional. They are not easy to
acheive although some of us seem wired naturally to get some
partial success. Your simple reply is unworthy of you imho.
How can you know if you haven't tried for yourself? If you have
an airtight argument that justifies your "You're wrong" then
please give it. I will bet it is one I have used on myself to
talk myself out of spirituality at least once. But who knows, I
might be surprised. I don't think my "faith" will be easy to
"unlace" just now. I've done so myself many times. Yet it
relaces itself more elegantly and unanswerably in my life over
and over again. At some point I must go with something that is
so much a part of me.
> One
> > way to look at spirituality is the search for and acheiving of
> > some bit of such access. Another way to look at it is as
> > projection of the greatest dreams, hopes and determination of
> > humanity projected as already existent and of help. That
> > projection can greatly help us focus and move forward even if
> > you only believe it is a projection. It is timeless by
> > construction.
>
> In what way is a "projection of the greatest dreams, hopes, and
> determination of humanity" mystical? We have dreams, we have hopes, we
> have determination. I try to nurture it in myself and others. I don't
> need to break the laws of physics in order to do so.
>
"Mystical" is a word. The projection I speak of is not just
what you can intellectualize about, plus dream about some
aspects of it. It is a weaving of the hearts as well as the
minds of humanity. It is the creation of a sustaining and
deeply enrolling and even ennobling vision but made deeply
personal. Where did I break any laws of physics in noting the
power of that? You seem to be responding here to something
somewhat different than what I spoke of.
> As you know, Samantha, I'm not as violent a critic of all that seems or
> can be labeled "spiritual" as most of those on the Extropian list. I
> think it's legitimate to say, for example, that the Singularity is
> intended "to heal the darkness in the human spirit", because I can, if
> necessary, define exactly what I mean by 'darkness' and why I expect the
> Singularity to heal it. In other words, the "spiritual" statement is here
> a legitimate approximation to a more specific and technical argument.
> Since the vague images invoked by "heal the darkness in the human spirit"
> are actually in good accord with these specifics, and since the emotions
> invoked center on goals which I myself share, I judge it ethical to use
> that phrase in explaining the Singularity to a nontechnical audience. As
> a matter of pragmatism, I wouldn't use that phrase in front of an
> Extropian conference, or even a computer conference, because I know that a
> majority or sizeable minority (respectively) will be very strongly
> allergic to any argument that uses a spiritual phrasing, and also that
> academic audiences view spiritual argument as a special case with specific
> connotations.
>
But how much do we rob ourselves by couching our words and what
moves us deeply in terms of other people's limitations or
cumfort zones? I have held my own heart back many times because
I could not express what I was deeply called to in a way that
would reach this or that community I was in or some group of
friends that I deeply esteem. Is it our ethics keeping us from
possibly afronting someone or is it protecting ourselves from
being judged and possibly misunderstood and/or rejected?
Speaking for myself there are tinges of both in such
deliberations.
I would also point out that if you wish to move much of the
population of the world in a more positive direction the
language of spirituality is quite important. And it is
spirituality that gives rise to most living ethical systems
today. We have yet to acheive a strong ethical system using
reason alone. Creating a world that is viable and forward
moving requires ethical, political, psychological and
sociological aspects as well as technological/scientific ones.
I don't believe the necessary work can be done with
reason/rationality as usually understood alone. If you know how
it can be I would very much like to hear it.
> Spiritual shorthand is ethical where it arrives at a correct conclusion
> *for correct reasons*, where any emotional appeal is based on shared
> goals, and where more specific arguments can't be used due to constraints
> on time or audience. But I don't think the shorthand is more powerful. I
> think it's shorter.
>
It is your construction that spritual speaking is "shorthand".
There are spiritual images, concepts, experiences, teachings
that simply do not translate into the language of
rationality/logic/reason no matter how long you speak and how
patiently intellectual you assume your audience is.
> Mystical argument, though, is always incorrect - it invokes causes and
> effects which do not exist in reality. Only someone who genuinely
> believes in those causes and effects can ethically use a mystical
> argument.
>
I am unclear what you believe constitutes a mystical argument.
However, it seems there is a hint of a question as to what I do
and do not believe in this statement.
I believe in a transcendent Mind not limited to what we
currently understand through science and that that Mind is
immanent as well and is interested and under certain conditions,
at least somewhat accessible. I have little choice but to
believe this as I have experienced it firsthand. Yes, I could
come up with rationalizations to "debunk" each such experience
and the ones that I could possibly have in the future. But at
some point the effort to "debunk" them becomes less believable
and more contrived than accepting such as also valid. That is
the point I have reached and passed in my own life.
Also, I understand how to weave all the elements of what I care
about in life and how I envision the future and how we might get
from here to there onto the framework of my acceptance of these
spiritual things. I never succeeeded in weaving all of it onto
a strictly rational framework. It wasn't from lack of many
years of trying.
And finally, this "sings my heart". You may dismiss that as
emotionalism if you wish. But it is important to me as I do not
operate at my best, much less enjoy life much without it.
So there you have it.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:27 MDT