RE: qualia and orgasmium

From: Ben Goertzel (
Date: Sun Feb 15 2004 - 13:00:25 MST

> > I think this relates to what you said by "the way to maximize happiness
> may
> > be to have a lot of complex minds doing complex things." I'm not sure
> that
> > is true. The original orgasmium may have been just as happy as the
> > dialectical-synthesis orgasmium toward which we are tending.
> But the new
> > one has growth and choice along with happiness -- and doesn't
> need to have
> > any LESS happiness than its predecessor.... However, the
> current phase of
> > passing through a painful separation-of-parts period is a necessary evil
> > (and is in fact the essence of "evil") in order to pass from the
> > undifferentiated orgasmium to the dialectical-synthesis orgasmium.
> This whole paragraph assumes some prior state that is different than the
> current state. This is grounded in the basic delusion decribed earlier.
> NOTE:I'm just as deluded as the next guy ;)

Sure -- well -- I stated above that I didn't mean "prior" in a traditional
temporal sense.

However, I didn't really make an effort to explain the sense in which I do
mean it ;-) ....

More like "X is prior to Y" if "X is simpler and more fundamental than Y,
and naturally gives rise to Y"

> > The human Transcension/Singularity should be understood as part of this
> > process of the void reconnecting with itself,
> undoing-without-undoing what
> > it did by separating itself from itself in the first place...
> No separation ever occurred and it is utterly impossible to do.

I would rather say that the separation occurred and did not occur, exists
and does not exist

We run up against the limitations of the notion of "existence" here

> An AGI, if
> successful, will understand this and only then can it be called "Wise" and
> be said to have achieved the "Perfection of Wisdom" All the moral/ethical
> questions are resolved perfectly to such a being..human or AGI...

I'm not sure I agree that all ethical questions will be resolved perfectly
to any being. Some problems are fundamentally unsolvable. However, it's
possible for a mind to make peace with the unsolvability of certain problems
at a fundamental level...

> I think if you keep looking for a universally acceptable,
> definable ethical
> system, a million-billion years will pass and you still will fail..

Yeah, I agree that a universally acceptable, clearly definable ethical
system does not exist -- and such a thing is not a goal of mine.

But -- as I'm sure you'll agree -- this doesn't mean there is no value in
seeking to improve our ethical systems or give AI's good ethical systems.

-- Ben G

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:45 MDT