Interaktionskategorien
Prologue. Though the interview bores most of the time in the fashion of the Socratic dialogues, making all his points while considering none besides, Yudkowsky puts his mission on hold for once to discuss consciousness, a.k.a. awareness, which, as I've stated before, is no prerequisite for self-assessment as evidenced by the speedometer in my car.
I think that Yudkowsky makes some, well, ridiculous categorical mistakes when he suggests that we have the awareness that we have because it is dear to us and an artificial intelligence would probably go for another. Anyway, I wondered whether I could approach the subject by baby steps by now, because my original argument goes straight to God, though the starting point remains the same: Awareness is a constant, it is impossible for our intellect to adjust to it, because we can only adjust our behaviour to parameters that vary, i,e, if so, then this, and else that.
So, I was thinking, what would a guy like that have said, had he said more? Probably that we treat aware entities differently from unaware ones. Maybe, in case an insight struck him, that we try to please or displease aware entities, whereas we don't do that with unaware ones.
Question: What is the difference between a nuanced approach to a responsive entity and one that considers the pleasure of an aware one?
Answer: In case of an unaware responsive entity, we would always take the action that causes us the least trouble.
In other words, awareness we consider something in whose experience we are interested as such, without experiencing ourselves any improvement.
Technically, we go through the world and assign awareness to entities without any hard evidence and that necessarily, because awareness expresses itself in no phenomenon observable by any other awareness. Well, the only exception is the intrusion of another awareness into ours, but most people don't experience that and those who do are called disturbed, Philip Kindred Dick talked about it and so did I, Muhammed of course as well.
Anyway, the exoteric observation is that awareness is a category that we are establishing in order to set up our interactions in a predefined way inherent to our awareness.
The latter it is by an inborn sense of what we should do, and this sense expresses itself by inborn notions, of which awareness is one and God another, i.e. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
I will prove that in the following. Of course, someone may accept that and call God and the other interactional categories inborn delusions designed to steer our interactions, and nothing more will be established here, but coming back to my original argument: Why should we actually be aware through this lens, what's the use of that, it's not a complicated program, its function could be achieved without awareness, its only possible conceivable use is to actually co-operate with something that we cannot see, because the co-operation isn't within the scope of our awareness, but rather through our experience and for us to consider that our experience could have such an effect, we must be aware of it.
Hauptteil. Die Seinslagen beinhalten implizit, mit wem oder was wir es zu tun haben und wie uns ihm gegenüber zu verhalten. Mir wurde das klar, als ich mir noch einmal Musikalben unter ihrem Aspekt angehört habe. Die Seinslagen der Lust sind vorpersönlich, jene der Achtung persönlich und jene der Sorge allgemein. Die vorpersönlichen bestehen immer dem Sein gegenüber, an welchem wir enthalten und betraut (hi, hi, hi) teilhaben.
Die persönlichen bestehen im Falle
Zusammenfassend verhalten wir uns also
I think that Yudkowsky makes some, well, ridiculous categorical mistakes when he suggests that we have the awareness that we have because it is dear to us and an artificial intelligence would probably go for another. Anyway, I wondered whether I could approach the subject by baby steps by now, because my original argument goes straight to God, though the starting point remains the same: Awareness is a constant, it is impossible for our intellect to adjust to it, because we can only adjust our behaviour to parameters that vary, i,e, if so, then this, and else that.
So, I was thinking, what would a guy like that have said, had he said more? Probably that we treat aware entities differently from unaware ones. Maybe, in case an insight struck him, that we try to please or displease aware entities, whereas we don't do that with unaware ones.
Question: What is the difference between a nuanced approach to a responsive entity and one that considers the pleasure of an aware one?
Answer: In case of an unaware responsive entity, we would always take the action that causes us the least trouble.
In other words, awareness we consider something in whose experience we are interested as such, without experiencing ourselves any improvement.
Technically, we go through the world and assign awareness to entities without any hard evidence and that necessarily, because awareness expresses itself in no phenomenon observable by any other awareness. Well, the only exception is the intrusion of another awareness into ours, but most people don't experience that and those who do are called disturbed, Philip Kindred Dick talked about it and so did I, Muhammed of course as well.
Anyway, the exoteric observation is that awareness is a category that we are establishing in order to set up our interactions in a predefined way inherent to our awareness.
The latter it is by an inborn sense of what we should do, and this sense expresses itself by inborn notions, of which awareness is one and God another, i.e. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
I will prove that in the following. Of course, someone may accept that and call God and the other interactional categories inborn delusions designed to steer our interactions, and nothing more will be established here, but coming back to my original argument: Why should we actually be aware through this lens, what's the use of that, it's not a complicated program, its function could be achieved without awareness, its only possible conceivable use is to actually co-operate with something that we cannot see, because the co-operation isn't within the scope of our awareness, but rather through our experience and for us to consider that our experience could have such an effect, we must be aware of it.
Hauptteil. Die Seinslagen beinhalten implizit, mit wem oder was wir es zu tun haben und wie uns ihm gegenüber zu verhalten. Mir wurde das klar, als ich mir noch einmal Musikalben unter ihrem Aspekt angehört habe. Die Seinslagen der Lust sind vorpersönlich, jene der Achtung persönlich und jene der Sorge allgemein. Die vorpersönlichen bestehen immer dem Sein gegenüber, an welchem wir enthalten und betraut (hi, hi, hi) teilhaben.
Die persönlichen bestehen im Falle
- der Angewiesenheit gegenüber der Welt, welche uns behilft,
- der Ausgeliefertheit gegenüber der Welt, welche uns bedrängt,
- der Gefordertheit gegenüber Gott, welcher uns belohnt,
- der Vertrautheit gegenüber unserer Phantasie, welche wir verfolgen,
- der Erhobenheit gegenüber unserem Bewußtsein, welches wir einlösend in Form bringen,
- dem Los gegenüber der Welt, welche wir wahrnehmen,
- der Bedingtheit gegenüber der Welt, in welcher wir wollen, und
- dem Ausstand gegenüber anderen Bewußtsein, für deren Wahrnehmung wir handeln,
- der Gelegenheit gegenüber Gott, dessen Geheiß wir geloben,
- der Gehießenheit gegenüber Gott, dessen Geheiß wir anerkennen,
- der Bestätigung gegenüber Gott, dessem Geheiß wir uns verpflichten, und
- der Erleuchtung gegenüber unserem Bewußtsein, welches wir reflektieren,
- unsere Gelegenheiten und Bestätigungen anderen sympathischen Bewußtsein mitteilen,
- unsere Gehießenheit in unserem Bewußtsein fixieren und
- uns in unserer Erleuchtung von der Welt lösen und unserer Phantasie zuwenden
Zusammenfassend verhalten wir uns also
- teilhabend gegenüber dem Sein,
- distanziert gegenüber der Welt,
- offen gegenüber unserer Phantasie,
- bildend gegenüber unserem und anderen Bewußtsein, sowie beschreibend gegenüber unserem und
- aufopfernd gegenüber Gott.
Labels: 40, formalisierung, formalismus, gesetze, institutionen, intelligenz, metaphysik, präsentation, sehhilfen, wahrnehmungen, ἰδέα, φιλοσοφία
Eingetragen Am/um
00:26
