Re: Shock level 4 (was Re: META SL4)

From: Lee Corbin (
Date: Sat Apr 26 2008 - 00:51:50 MDT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Mahoney" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Shock level 4 (was Re: META SL4)

> --- Thomas McCabe <> wrote:
>> > My abstract self concludes:
>> >
>> > - I am not a singularitarian. I want neither to speed up the
>> singularity nor
>> > delay it. In the same sense I am neutral about the possibility of
>> human
>> > extinction
>> Are you totally neutral about the possibility of getting shot? If no,
>> the former includes the latter. If yes, please seek psychological
>> help immediately.
> My abstract self is neutral about being shot, which my emotional self
> finds disturbing.
> My emotional self cannot think at SL4. (I hope I am using the terms
> correctly). Emotions are the axioms of beliefs. The ideal abstract
> self that I would use to think at SL4 would have no biases or emotions.
> It would think in a mathematics with no axioms, where everything is
> wrong, even the questions are wrong. I can plug in some assumptions
> and draw conclusions, but this does not make them right.
> At SL3 we want to avoid an AI that tiles the solar system with
> paperclips. That would be bad. At SL4, I imagine how a paperclip
> making nanobot would feel. Making paperclips has positive utility for
> them. There would be no other intelligences, so therefore it would be
> utopia.
> What about the humans? At SL3, humans would be extinct. That would be
> bad. We could upload, but the paperclip makers would kill us to take
> over our computing resources. That would also be bad.
> At SL4, an upload would produce an entity with your memories that
> claims to be you. That is all you can say about it. It is irrelevant
> whether you consciousness transfers because qualia is not an observable
> phenomena. Furthermore, if your memories were altered, you would not
> know the difference. Finally, if you found joy in moving atoms one at
> a time to make paperclips, you would be happy. Therefore, tiling the
> solar system with paperclips is a good outcome for some definitions of
> "you" and some definitions of "good".
> Sorry, there is no right answer because there are no axioms.
> -- Matt Mahoney,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT