3 ms·

> You need way more than mere primitives to get upto any useful level of knowledge in a given lifetime. That is just because "useful level of knowledge" is req

> You need way more than mere primitives to get upto any useful level of knowledge in a given lifetime. That is just because "useful level of knowledge" is required to participate in society as I want to - most low-hanging fruit has already been collected. If you're at the frontier, you're immediately productive. > In other words: Sorry, I phrased a little incorrectly. It's more like Filter(Mutate(AmbientCulture)), that is, I selectively copy or mutate everything I see into stuff that gets accepted by the audit, after which it is my knowledge. (Mutate creates some modifications of memes as I am able, and Filter removes unsuitable ones; but computationally it is probably a one-stage directed process.) I would call it knowledge state, not "identity state", my identity is immutable too. Yes, preferences are immutable; preferences = identity. > You argue that if ... If I understand you well, your criticism is that I use momentary artifacts created in dependency on a given environment to establish identity independent of environment. > the following will not remain true ("create functionally similar designs") due to changes/updates in the common good Culture changes continuously. A given distributed identity would create a needed design over time, at each moment relying only on the current state of its own work. (It follows that identities can be nested: an identity may create a meme that will be owned by any identities that contain that identity.) If the work is not synchronized across space, work may fork and diverge, but the differences would not be functionally significant in the end. If something suppresses your work, you should defend against this, or you will be screwed too.

atomicnature 3y ago
> If I understand you well, your criticism is that I use momentary artifacts created in dependency on a given environment to establish identity independent of environment. Yes. Also, from a philosophical angle, consider this: It is possible to get an "immutable-looking" entity out of mutable substance; the reverse is not possible - getting mutable stuff out of immutable stuff. Therefore, I still think it is more sensible to avoid the idea of "immutable" preferences. What looks "immutable" (identity) may just be a short-lived illusion (or maybe a long-lived illusion - depending on the perspective; either way an illusion). The sense of self could be seen as a temporary, mutable "clustering" of pieces of thought within the larger system of thought. I like the idea of "nesting" you mentioned though. However, I'd still bet on "mutable preferences" over "immutable preferences" -- that "I" is a temporary illusion. Accepting this would remove the problematic dualism... The buddhist texts present the idea of a solid-looking rainbow; go inspect it, and poof, it really wasn't there in the first place.
- chromoblob 3y ago
  I as a physical agent may very well be short-lived myself. Identity is simply a preferences code that is implemented by every one of a set of possible physical agents, one of which is my body. An executable identity is maintained as the code of the physical system as long as it can as that. This seems to me only a matter of engineering or biology (based on physics) and the minimal influx of free energy to store the code without errors, as well as resource expenditure for my actions that you need to see if you want to register / keep registering me. (That is, if you disregard the astronomically unlikely quantum events.) The preceding applies to any kind of identity, human or otherwise. > get an "immutable-looking" entity out of mutable substance That substance, though having a changing state, is governed by immutable (as we notice so far) laws of physics (more directly, emergence of life, evolution, human biology and any natural laws that technology depends on). That's how I feel that this immutability is valid. If you want, you can regard my identity as a little "physical/natural law" generated around my body. So the law will be there as long as the body works. And, I think, in principle any body housing any identity can be maintained indefinitely given minimal free energy and mass influx (this requires technologies not yet available today) if you again set a target probability of random quantum changes. This applies to "distributed" identities equally. > the reverse is not possible - getting mutable stuff out of immutable stuff If one depends on arbitrary data from environment and there is not enough experimentation done by either one or the producers of the data, one becomes mutable. Mutate or be mutated.
- atomicnature 3y ago
  > I as a physical agent may very well be short-lived myself... You are explaining potential implementation methods, but I think implementation method is a secondary consideration. The more interesting question is what is the simpler and more likely explanation. I think envisoning thought as a sprawling system (through space/time), creating temporary localized identities, through clustering & evolving preferences is simpler than the one with non-mutating preferences. It is non-dualistic, doesn't require multiple layers, etc. > That substance, though having a changing state, is governed by immutable (as we notice so far) laws of physics You are mixing layers - substance & laws it seems to be governed by (law is a "meta" substance if you will, or properties derived from a given set of observations). To create immutability out of mutability, you need to build sophisticated layers... That makes it a more complex explanation (and less likely explanation). Moreover, having a mutable/evolving identity doesn't preclude it from being governed by immutable laws. Just a matter of applying occam's razor.

atomicnature 3y ago

> If I understand you well, your criticism is that I use momentary artifacts created in dependency on a given environment to establish identity independent of environment. Yes. Also, from a philosophical angle, consider this: It is possible to get an "immutable-looking" entity out of mutable substance; the reverse is not possible - getting mutable stuff out of immutable stuff. Therefore, I still think it is more sensible to avoid the idea of "immutable" preferences. What looks "immutable" (identity) may just be a short-lived illusion (or maybe a long-lived illusion - depending on the perspective; either way an illusion). The sense of self could be seen as a temporary, mutable "clustering" of pieces of thought within the larger system of thought. I like the idea of "nesting" you mentioned though. However, I'd still bet on "mutable preferences" over "immutable preferences" -- that "I" is a temporary illusion. Accepting this would remove the problematic dualism... The buddhist texts present the idea of a solid-looking rainbow; go inspect it, and poof, it really wasn't there in the first place.

chromoblob 3y ago
I as a physical agent may very well be short-lived myself. Identity is simply a preferences code that is implemented by every one of a set of possible physical agents, one of which is my body. An executable identity is maintained as the code of the physical system as long as it can as that. This seems to me only a matter of engineering or biology (based on physics) and the minimal influx of free energy to store the code without errors, as well as resource expenditure for my actions that you need to see if you want to register / keep registering me. (That is, if you disregard the astronomically unlikely quantum events.) The preceding applies to any kind of identity, human or otherwise. > get an "immutable-looking" entity out of mutable substance That substance, though having a changing state, is governed by immutable (as we notice so far) laws of physics (more directly, emergence of life, evolution, human biology and any natural laws that technology depends on). That's how I feel that this immutability is valid. If you want, you can regard my identity as a little "physical/natural law" generated around my body. So the law will be there as long as the body works. And, I think, in principle any body housing any identity can be maintained indefinitely given minimal free energy and mass influx (this requires technologies not yet available today) if you again set a target probability of random quantum changes. This applies to "distributed" identities equally. > the reverse is not possible - getting mutable stuff out of immutable stuff If one depends on arbitrary data from environment and there is not enough experimentation done by either one or the producers of the data, one becomes mutable. Mutate or be mutated.
atomicnature 3y ago
> I as a physical agent may very well be short-lived myself... You are explaining potential implementation methods, but I think implementation method is a secondary consideration. The more interesting question is what is the simpler and more likely explanation. I think envisoning thought as a sprawling system (through space/time), creating temporary localized identities, through clustering & evolving preferences is simpler than the one with non-mutating preferences. It is non-dualistic, doesn't require multiple layers, etc. > That substance, though having a changing state, is governed by immutable (as we notice so far) laws of physics You are mixing layers - substance & laws it seems to be governed by (law is a "meta" substance if you will, or properties derived from a given set of observations). To create immutability out of mutability, you need to build sophisticated layers... That makes it a more complex explanation (and less likely explanation). Moreover, having a mutable/evolving identity doesn't preclude it from being governed by immutable laws. Just a matter of applying occam's razor.