[FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

Some counter examples:

1) You do not have the potential to fully informed.  The governments of China or Iran would never give you access to their classified data, for example.   Heck, the US government probably wouldn't either with all your discussion of psychedelics and what not!

2) You cannot assert autonomy.   You are a part of a physical, economic, and social fabric that is largely out of your control.
Further, you are a biological system that follows the laws of physics.   What you are at t+1 comes from what you were at time t and you are entangled in everything, much of which is outside of the membrane that can be called `you'.  

3) There does not exist the technology yet to change your own DNA (in predictable and reliable ways) or to direct edit neural constructs, or to extend neural constructs with open-ended compute resources.   Even if you were fully informed you couldn't do anything with much of the information you would have access to, because it is just to complicated to understand or to use for predictions.    Even if this were possible, the agents with the most compute and the best models will win and that too will be a historical accident.

In summary, your life means nothing and neither does mine.

Have fun,

Marcus

On 1/12/19, 2:28 PM, "Friam on behalf of Prof David West" <friam-bounces at redfish.com on behalf of profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:

    "Responsible Action" is one that is fully informed, that takes into account all available input; which in the case of a gem in Indra's Net, means the entire universe. Only possible for those who are enlightened.
    
    When I state that I am an individual, I am asserting a degree of autonomy along with an obligation to act responsibly. To act responsibly each action must be conscious, deliberative, and fully informed. As a 'gem' in Indra's Net, I have the potential to be absolutely informed and my humanity is determined by the extent to which I avail myself of that potential.
    
    The possibility of and the means of achieving things like group structures, cultures, social compacts, governments, etc. from a presumption of individualism as depicted above it an entirely different realm to explore.
    
    All of the above feels at least orthogonal to, if not contradictory, of  your graph explanation. But please explain why  and how I might be wrong.