Search Ideas
75 ideas match your query.:
And again, not convinced any external world or feedback is required for open-endedness (per Deutsch). It might merely be very helpful.
Yes, and perhaps this helpfulness is underestimated? One guess is therefore that the plateaus that have occurred is due to the difficulty of escaping the hardware case of the computer. Our vehicles (bodies) allow for much easier physical instantiation of replicators, compared to replicators inside computers.
I also picture a primordial soup often. Maybe including these autonomous regions or layers I'm grasping at. Soups and "Turing gases" have been programmed and so far always plateau in complexity, even with no predefined criterion, so there's something else going on.
Couldn't it be that there still are limitations of the simulated environment that act as selection criteria? Such as the available memory. The "soup" definitely seems more open to the entire world, which presumably would allow for more open ended evolution (even though that still took a couple of billion years after universality was achieved).
Great, that makes sense. True statements should ofc be criticisable depending on the problem situation.
This sounds true but does it add anything new to saying that "AGI is an attempt to program Darwins theory of evolution"? 🤔
Hmm, I'll try to formulate in another way what I was getting at, not sure if you still disagree with this:
- My guess is that the selection mechanism can't be specified at all in the evolutionary algorithm, because every such specification is a restriction of universality. Reality has to do the selection.
Do you think my comment shouldn't count as a criticism? The content of Martin's comment doesn't contain any errors, but it can be criticised as an attempt to solve problems towards AGI
This sounds true but does it add anything new to saying that "AGI is an attempt to program Darwins theory of evolution"? 🤔
Could you say more about those regions? :)
I agree that creativity still could occur in total isolation, but I don't think they would generate much knowledge due to the lack of external feedback.
Even in isolation, the real world applies constraints/selection mechanisms. Mainly in the form of hardware constraints (scarcity of memory/working memory).
I imagine the mind sort of like the "primordial soup", where the first replicators began replicating. To simulate that, I don't think there's any room for a specific "selection algorithm".
Hmm, I'll try to formulate in another way what I was getting at, not sure if you still disagree with this:
- My guess is that the selection mechanism can't be specified at all in the evolutionary algorithm, because every such specification is a restriction of universality. Reality has to do the selection.
In biological evolution, the landscape itself never changes directly. It only happens as a consequence of evolving genes.
Guess: The same is true in the "landscape" of the mind: Individual ideas mutate and evolve in relation to problems, and that's what constitutes the landscape.
Sure, but those cash flows are still downstream of what consumers subjectively value though?
So the estimation of "intrinsic value" is ultimately a guess of what people will subjectively value in the future?
Yeah potatoes are a decent source of fibre, though the satiation is mostly through their high water content :)
The easiest lever to pull when trying to lose weight is satiation. That can be done artificially through GLP1-agonists, but in the case of nutrition, that's best accomplished by an increased protein and fibre intake.
I was careful to say "It is important to buy assets for significantly less than you think they are worth". Value is certainly subjective (in the sense that things are valued differently by different people).
It can't only be about what I think an asset is worth though right?🤔 Isn't the important thing to buy assets that people will value higher in the future? And in the process try to explain what people will subjectively value?
It is important to buy assets for significantly less than you think they are worth. The cheaper you buy something, the more margin you have for things to go worse than anticipated.
According to Austrian economics, all value is subjective. How can we then know what an asset is intrinsically worth?
Hmm could you give examples of such addictions between implicit and explicit short-term preferences?
Always, because of the underlying uncertainty about the future. Please criticise!
Elaboration:
The conflict in addiction is between short-term and long-term solutions.
The preference for short-term in addiction is caused by uncertainty/an inability to make predictions based on explanations.
This uncertainty can be real (e.g. increased heroin addiction during the Vietnam War) or learned from insecurity during one's early years.
Yes, here's a new version:
Some minds with one coercive memeplex are more like dictatorships.
In practice, yeah, but the end goal is decentralised ownership and control. According to the Britannica dictionary:
"Like most writers of the 19th century, Marx tended to use the terms communism and socialism interchangeably. In his Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), however, Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism: the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked, and the second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marx’s followers, especially the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, took up this distinction.""
Just as nations can have different forms of governance, minds can too.
For example: Most probably have that CEO-sense of self.
Some minds with lots of coercive memes are more like dictatorships.
People with "smaller egos" (less anti-rational memes) are more like libertarian societies.
But people with set preferences for less self are more like communist societies. That's a kind of coerced decentralisation.
Split personalities would be akin to a highly polarised society that switches governance back and forth.
Cool, would you say then that it is only in empirical fields we can deduce facts/truth?
If so: In what way is this different from Wittgenstein saying we can't reach any truths in philosophy (which makes it meaningless)?
I see, interesting. If only empirical fields can correspond to facts/truth, isn't that a form of empiricism?
No worries :-). Yeah, this is the part that confuses me about correspondence:
Which fields (apart from science) have "facts", and which consist merely of useful/adapted knowledge?
For instance, are there musical facts, economic facts, aesthetic facts, etc?