0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts, such as taxes, in a particular country or socio-economic context.[1][2][3] The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value and sometimes, a standard of deferred payment.[4][5] Any item or verifiable record that fulfils these functions can be considered as money.
The concept in cardinal utility theory that marginal utilities diminish across the ranges relevant to decision-making is called the "law of diminishing marginal utility" (and is also known as Gossen's First Law). This refers to the increase in utility an individual gains from increasing their consumption of a particular good. "The law of diminishing marginal utility is at the heart of the explanation of numerous economic phenomena, including time preference and the value of goods ... The law says, first, that the marginal utility of each homogenous unit decreases as the supply of units increases (and vice versa); second, that the marginal utility of a larger-sized unit is greater than the marginal utility of a smaller-sized unit (and vice versa). The first law denotes the law of diminishing marginal utility, the second law denotes the law of increasing total utility."[14]
EtymologyThe word "money" is believed to originate from a temple of Juno, on Capitoline, one of Rome's seven hills. In the ancient world Juno was often associated with money. The temple of Juno Moneta at Rome was the place where the mint of Ancient Rome was located.[10] The name "Juno" may derive from the Etruscan goddess Uni (which means "the one", "unique", "unit", "union", "united") and "Moneta" either from the Latin word "monere" (remind, warn, or instruct) or the Greek word "moneres" (alone, unique).
With the rise of AI, especially potential advancement to AGI, many people worry about unemployment and growing income inequality. But let's not forget that getting a job is just an instrumental goal to have income, which in turn is an instrumental goal to get services from other people as economic agents, which in turn is an instrumental goal to get resources required to survive, such as food, clothing, housing, medical assistance, etc. There should be no obligation to fulfill those instrumental goals as long as the terminal goal is achieved. Some alternative instrumental goals I can think of e.g. Self sustained housings / artificial biosphere which recycle its resources such as water, carbon and oxygen using renewable energy. Tools can be made using 3D printing technology.
Five whys (or 5 whys) is an iterative interrogative technique used to explore the cause-and-effect relationships underlying a particular problem.[1] The primary goal of the technique is to determine the root cause of a defect or problem by repeating the question "Why?". Each answer forms the basis of the next question. The "five" in the name derives from an anecdotal observation on the number of iterations needed to resolve the problem.
Level 1 -- Why are you in business?Efforts and courage are not enough without purpose and direction. -- John F. Kennedy
Level 2 -- Why do I work?Choose a job you love and never work a day in your life. - Confucius
The ultimate goal can be found by starting from an important thing that we think we must do, and then answer the question why we have to do it. Keep asking why to the answer iteratively until we run out of excuse. Often times it's helpful to also try to answer why not in each iteration, just to give us a more complete picture to the issue at hand.
Decartes demonstrated by reductio ad absurdum, that if a thinker rejects its own existence, it leads to contradiction.QuoteAt the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt—his argument from the existence of a deceiving god—Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17[v])There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he claims only the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he does not say that his existence is necessary; he says that if he thinks, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition "I am, I exist" is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) or on empirical induction but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition. Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to discover further truths.[35] As he puts it:Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable. (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum#Interpretation
At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt—his argument from the existence of a deceiving god—Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17[v])There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he claims only the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he does not say that his existence is necessary; he says that if he thinks, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition "I am, I exist" is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) or on empirical induction but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition. Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to discover further truths.[35] As he puts it:Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable. (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/02/2020 03:40:08For any true statement, there are infinitely many alternatives that are false.Since the existence of the thinker is the only thing that can't be doubted, it must be defended at all cost. Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/11/2018 23:48:22Finally we get to the last question: how. There are some basic strategies to preserve information which I borrow from IT business:Choosing robust media. Creating multilayer protection. Creating backups. Create diversity to avoid common mode failures. The existence of a thinker is subject to natural selection. Thinkers who has backups tend to be better at survival than those who don't. Thinkers who reproduce backups to replace the destroyed copies tend to survive better, otherwise, all of the copies will eventually break down. Thinkers who actively protect their copies tend to survive better than those who don't.Thinkers who produce better version of themselves at survival tend to survive better than who don't.
For any true statement, there are infinitely many alternatives that are false.Since the existence of the thinker is the only thing that can't be doubted, it must be defended at all cost. Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/11/2018 23:48:22Finally we get to the last question: how. There are some basic strategies to preserve information which I borrow from IT business:Choosing robust media. Creating multilayer protection. Creating backups. Create diversity to avoid common mode failures. The existence of a thinker is subject to natural selection. Thinkers who has backups tend to be better at survival than those who don't. Thinkers who reproduce backups to replace the destroyed copies tend to survive better, otherwise, all of the copies will eventually break down. Thinkers who actively protect their copies tend to survive better than those who don't.Thinkers who produce better version of themselves at survival tend to survive better than who don't.
Finally we get to the last question: how. There are some basic strategies to preserve information which I borrow from IT business:Choosing robust media. Creating multilayer protection. Creating backups. Create diversity to avoid common mode failures.
BILL (AN ENVIRONMENTALIST): On this human body version 2.0 stuff, aren't you throwing the baby out—quite literally—with the bathwater? You're suggesting replacing the entire human body and brain with machines. There's no human being left.RAY: We don't agree on the definition of human, but just where do you suggest drawing the line? Augmenting the human body and brain with biological or nonbiological interventions is hardly a new concept. There's still a lot of human suffering.BILL: I have no objection to alleviating human suffering. But replacing a human body with a machine to exceed human performance leaves you with, well, a machine. We have cars that can travel on the ground faster than a human, but we don't consider them to be human.RAY: The problem here has a lot to do with the word "machine." Your conception of a machine is of something that is much less valued—less complex, less creative, less intelligent, less knowledgeable, less subtle and supple—than a human. That's reasonable for today's machines because all the machines we've ever met—like cars—are like this. The whole point of my thesis, of the coming Singularity revolution, is that this notion of a machine—of nonbiological intelligence—will fundamentally change.BILL: Well, that's exactly my problem. Part of our humanness is our limitations. We don't claim to be the fastest entity possible, to have memories with the biggest capacity possible, and so on. But there is an indefinable, spiritual quality to being human that a machine inherently doesn't possess.RAY: Again, where do you draw the line? Humans are already replacing parts of their bodies and brains with non biological replacements that work better at performing their "human" functions.BILL: Better only in the sense of replacing diseased or disabled organs and systems. But you're replacing essentially all of our humanness to enhance human ability, and that's inherently inhuman.RAY: Then perhaps our basic disagreement is over the nature of being human. To me, the essence of being human is not our limitations—although we do have many—it's our ability to reach beyond our limitations. We didn't stay on the ground. We didn't even stay on the planet. And we are already not settling for the limitations of our biology.BILL: We have to use these technological powers with great discretion. Past a certain point, we're losing some ineffable quality that gives life meaning.RAY: I think we're in agreement that we need to recognize what's important in our humanity. But there is no reason to celebrate our limitations.. .
Will robots inherit the earth? Yes, but they will be our children.—MARVIN MINSKY, 1995
FRIEND OF FUTURIST BACTERIUM, 2 BILLION B.C. So tell me again about these ideas you have about the future.FUTURIST BACTERIUM, 2 BILLION B.C.: Well, I see bacteria getting together into societies, with the whole band of cells basically acting like one big complicated organism with greatly enhanced capabilities.FRIEND OF FUTURIST BACTERIUM: What gives you that idea?FUTURIST BACTERIUM: Well already, some of our fellow Daptobacters have gone inside other larger bacteria to form a little duo.221 It's inevitable that our fellow cells will band together so that each cell can specialize its function. As it is now, we each have to do everything by ourselves: find food, digest it, excrete by-products.FRIEND OF FUTURIST BACTERIUM: And then what?FUTURIST BACTERIUM: All these cells will develop ways of communicating with one another that go beyond just the swapping of chemical gradients that you and I can do.FRIEND OF FUTURIST BACTERIUM: Okay, now tell me again the part about that future superassembly of ten trillion cells.FUTURIST BACTERIUM: Yes, well, according to my models, in about two billion years a big society of ten trillion cells will make up a single organism and include tens of billions of special cells that can communicate with one another in very complicated patterns.FRIEND OF FUTURIST BACTERIUM: What sort of patterns?FUTURIST BACTERIUM: Well, "music," for one thing. These huge bands of cells will create musical patterns and communicate them to all the other bands of cells.FRIEND OF FUTURIST BACTERIUM: Music?FUTURIST BACTERIUM: Yes, patterns of sound.FRIEND OF FUTURIST BACTERIUM: Sound?FUTURIST BACTERIUM: Okay, look at it this way. These supercell societies will be complicated enough to understand their own organization. They will be able to improve their own design, getting better and better, faster and faster. They will reshape the rest of the world in their image.FRIEND OF FUTURIST BACTERIUM: Now, wait a second. Sounds like we'll lose our basic bacteriumity.FUTURIST BACTERIUM: Oh, but there will be no loss.FRIEND OF FUTURIST BACTERIUM: I know you keep saying that, but ...FUTURIST BACTERIUM: It will be a great step forward. It's our destiny as bacteria. And, anyway, there will still be little bacteria like us floating around.FRIEND OF FUTURIST BACTERIUM: Okay, but what about the downside? I mean, how much harm can our fellow Daptobacter and Bdellovibrio bacteria do? But these future cell associations with their vast reach may destroy everything.FUTURIST BACTERIUM: It's not certain, but I think we'll make it through.FRIEND OF FUTURIST BACTERIUM: You always were an optimist.FUTURIST BACTERIUM: Look, we won't have to worry about the downside for a couple billion years.FRIEND OF FUTURIST BACTERIUM: Okay, then, let's get lunch.MEANWHILE, TWO BILLION YEARS LATER . . .NED LUDD: These future intelligences will be worse than the textile machines I fought back in 1812. Back then we had to worry about only one man with a machine doing the work of twelve. But you're talking about a marble-size machine outperforming all of humanity.RAY: It will only outperform the biological part of humanity. In any event, that marble is still human, even if not biological.NED: These superintelligences won't eat food. They won't breathe air. They won't reproduce through sex....So just how are they human?RAY: We're going to merge with our technology. We're already starting to do that in 2004, even if most of the machines are not yet inside our bodies and brains. Our machines nonetheless extend the reach of our intelligence. Extending our reach has always been the nature of being human.NED: Look, saying that these superintelligent nonbiological entities are human is like saying that we're basically bacteria. After all, we're evolved from them also.RAY: It's true that a contemporary human is a collection of cells, and that we are a product of evolution, indeed its cutting edge. But extending our intelligence by reverse engineering it, modeling it, simulating it, reinstantiating it on more capable substrates, and modifying and extending it is the next step in its evolution. It was the fate of bacteria to evolve into a technology-creating species. And it's our destiny now to evolve into the vast intelligence of the Singularity.
I've read a quote saying that science is not about knowing how things may be, but knowing how things may not be otherwise.I can't recall who said that, and google search doesn't seem to help.
A terminal value (also known as an intrinsic value) is an ultimate goal, an end-in-itself.Terminal values stand in contrast to instrumental values (also known as extrinsic values), which are means-to-an-end, mere tools in achieving terminal values. For example, if a given university student studies merely as a professional qualification, his terminal value is getting a job, while getting good grades is an instrument to that end. If a (simple) chess program tries to maximize piece value three turns into the future, that is an instrumental value to its implicit terminal value of winning the game.Some values may be called "terminal" merely in relation to an instrumental goal, yet themselves serve instrumentally towards a higher goal. However, in considering future artificial general intelligence, the phrase "terminal value" is generally used only for the top level of the goal hierarchy of the AGI itself: the true ultimate goals of the system; but excluding goals inside the AGI in service of other goals, and excluding the purpose of the AGI's makers, the goal for which they built the system.
Here is the truth table for universal terminal goal.1 in the left column means that there is something called a goal, while 0 means denial of it.The middle column classifies the goals in time domain. 1 means there are terminal goals, while 0 means all goals are temporary/instrumental.The right column classifies the goals in spatial domain. 1 means there are universal goals, while 0 means all goals are partial.x in the bottom row means that their values are meaningless, since the existence of goals have already been denied.
What I mean with multidimensionality of consciousness is analogous to multidensionality of intelligence, which can be broken down to several parameters, such as verbal, numerical, spatial, and memory strength. Some people with similar intelligence level may have different strength and weakness in those parameters. The final assessment thus depends on the formula or algorithm used to combine those parameters into a single value useful to compare intelligence, at least in relative scale.
The measure of general consciousness of an agent is its effectiveness to achieve long term goals. Many ways can be used, including increasing the input resolution, additional sensing methods, increasing memory capacity and data processing speed, having self error correcting mechanism, influencing other agents to help the cause, manipulating its environments, etc. Since the measure will contain a lot of uncertainty, then the result will be statistical in nature, instead of deterministic one.So the key parameter for consciousness is the accuracy of internal model of the agent in representing parts objective reality which have significant impact to the achievement of the agent's goal in the long term.The result of the general consciousness assessment of an agent is not used to justify right or priviledge of that agent, but instead to select appropriate set of moral rules which they can follow/obey effectively and efficiently to achieve desired results in the long term. Simply put, with great power comes great responsibility.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/201902/what-actually-is-thought-and-how-is-information-physicalQuoteGoogle the word “thought” and you will find this uninformative, circular definition: “an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind.” The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “think” in a similarly unhelpful way: “to form or have in the mind.” But what actually is a thought?A thought is a representation of something. A representation is a likeness—a thing that depicts another thing by having characteristics that correspond to that other thing. For example, a picture, image, imprint or mold of an object is a representation of that object.QuoteModern information theory has taught us that information is a physical entity. Rolf Landauer, an IBM physicist, stated the case:"Information is not an abstract entity but exists only through a physical representation, thus tying it to all the restrictions and possibilities of our real physical universe” “Information is inevitably inscribed in a physical medium."2Elsewhere, Landauer explained further:"Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation. It is represented by engraving on a stone tablet, a spin, a charge [i.e. of elementary particles such as electrons], a hole in a punched card, a mark on paper, or some other equivalent."3So too, no thought can occur without its neural substrate.QuoteA map is an analog of the environment it is depicting—it corresponds to it. An analog is something that is similar to, or comparable to, something else either in general or in some specific detail. Maps can be regarded as a form of analogy-making (‘A’ is to ‘B’ as ‘X’ is to ‘Y’).Cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter and psychologist Emmanuel Sander suggest that all thoughts are built from analogy-making. They propose that categorization through analogy-making is “the driving force behind all thought.”4 Our brains detect similarities or correspondences between newly and previously encountered situations, enabling the application of previously learned information to the new situation. “The very essence of an analogy is that it maps some mental structure onto another mental structure.”5QuoteThe sense of self begins with the nervous system’s map of its own bodyThe neuroscientist Antonio Damasio proposed a model for how the self emerges in gradations, in organisms of increasing evolutionary complexity. According to this model, a simple organism develops a rudimentary form of ‘self-awareness’ by forming a map of its body and its position in the physical space it occupies. Damasio calls the most basic representation of self the protoself—a nonconscious state that many species may have. It’s a very basic level of awareness comprised of neural patterns representing or mapping the body's physical structure.11QuoteIn summary: Information is physical and relational, and we are networks of informationThoughts are not ethereal. They are representations of matter and are encoded in matter. They have shape and weight. Abstract ideas are analogically built from more concrete sensory representations. The sense of self is built from self-representations. Thoughts are forms of information, and all information is physical and relational. It ‘feels’ like something to ‘have’ a thought and to ‘be’ a self because we are that information, recursively reflecting on itself in an infinite regress.11
Google the word “thought” and you will find this uninformative, circular definition: “an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind.” The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “think” in a similarly unhelpful way: “to form or have in the mind.” But what actually is a thought?A thought is a representation of something. A representation is a likeness—a thing that depicts another thing by having characteristics that correspond to that other thing. For example, a picture, image, imprint or mold of an object is a representation of that object.
Modern information theory has taught us that information is a physical entity. Rolf Landauer, an IBM physicist, stated the case:"Information is not an abstract entity but exists only through a physical representation, thus tying it to all the restrictions and possibilities of our real physical universe” “Information is inevitably inscribed in a physical medium."2Elsewhere, Landauer explained further:"Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation. It is represented by engraving on a stone tablet, a spin, a charge [i.e. of elementary particles such as electrons], a hole in a punched card, a mark on paper, or some other equivalent."3So too, no thought can occur without its neural substrate.
A map is an analog of the environment it is depicting—it corresponds to it. An analog is something that is similar to, or comparable to, something else either in general or in some specific detail. Maps can be regarded as a form of analogy-making (‘A’ is to ‘B’ as ‘X’ is to ‘Y’).Cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter and psychologist Emmanuel Sander suggest that all thoughts are built from analogy-making. They propose that categorization through analogy-making is “the driving force behind all thought.”4 Our brains detect similarities or correspondences between newly and previously encountered situations, enabling the application of previously learned information to the new situation. “The very essence of an analogy is that it maps some mental structure onto another mental structure.”5
The sense of self begins with the nervous system’s map of its own bodyThe neuroscientist Antonio Damasio proposed a model for how the self emerges in gradations, in organisms of increasing evolutionary complexity. According to this model, a simple organism develops a rudimentary form of ‘self-awareness’ by forming a map of its body and its position in the physical space it occupies. Damasio calls the most basic representation of self the protoself—a nonconscious state that many species may have. It’s a very basic level of awareness comprised of neural patterns representing or mapping the body's physical structure.11
In summary: Information is physical and relational, and we are networks of informationThoughts are not ethereal. They are representations of matter and are encoded in matter. They have shape and weight. Abstract ideas are analogically built from more concrete sensory representations. The sense of self is built from self-representations. Thoughts are forms of information, and all information is physical and relational. It ‘feels’ like something to ‘have’ a thought and to ‘be’ a self because we are that information, recursively reflecting on itself in an infinite regress.11
To demonstrate that consiousness is a continuous parameter, we can use a thought experiment. Take a human subject which we can all agree that he/she is a conscious being. Destroy one neuron out of billions that exist in the brain, and then ask if he/she is still conscious. Repeat the experiment until we all agree that he/she is not conscious. The experiment will most likely give different result for different researchers, depending on their assumed threshold of consciousness level. It may also depend on the order of the neuron destruction.We can find a similar situation in determining adulthood. At which point in your life you change from a kid into an adult? Humans grow from a zygote into an embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, kid, adult, elderly. At which point it turns from non-conscious thing into a conscious being?
In this thread I'd like to discuss if there is a goal or desired condition which is applicable for any organisms who have adequate time to evolve or develop until they are basically independent from condition of their natural environments.