From: Kevin (maitrikaruna@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Feb 15 2004 - 12:39:31 MST
> Firstly I don't think that seeking "happiness" in itself is a good goal,
> because I think that instances of human happiness come in many different
> kinds. There are moments of happiness that center on sense-gratification,
> and then there are moments of happiness that center on a feeling of
> connectedness, which bridges the division between the individual and the
> cosmos. These latter moments of happiness are the ones I think are
> valuable, and should be maximized. (I stress that I don't know how to
> quantify this any more than you know how to quantify your more generic
> notion of "happiness.")
This is the first thing in this whole ethics discussion that rings quite
true with me..
>
> Next, about orgasmium. My perspective is that the universe "began" in a
> state of pure undifferentiated orgasmic bliss. (Note, my use of "began"
> here is not temporal in the normal sense; it's more in the sense of
Peirce's
> cosmogony ... in terms of what is logically or metaphysically prior.)
Then
> differentiation came about -- separate objects and separate minds
emerged...
This should be rephrased to "Then "seeming" differentiation came about --
with *apparently* separate objects and separate minds emerging..."
You should posit the possiblity that the idea that the universe and
ourselves are already identical. In other words, You are not God, but there
is nothing in you that is not of God.
> leading to US among other things ... but also leading to negative qualia,
> which are entirely consequent from the separation of the parts from the
> whole, the subdivision of the original formless void.
Indeed..the idea "I am" is the root of all difficulties. This base duality
leads to fundamental delusion where I am "in here" and everyting else is
"out there". It then follows that I need to pursue the acquisition of
things to enlarge my sphere of being/influence, which I falsely equate with
satisifaction.
>
> Now, some of these parts seek to recombine with each other in a sense --
> seek to find unity with the whole, directly or via unity with other
> minds/beings -- and the best moments of human experience are like this.
> Sexual orgasms can be like this in some cases, particularly when
experienced
> with a partner ;-) ...
Somewhat true, but a very poor comparison as one is dependent on phenomenal
experience and the other is fundamental/noumenal, relying on nothing.
> But by seeking unity, are we ambitious parts merely seeking to return to
the
> primordial undifferentiated orgasmium? I don't think so. We are on a
> grander quest. We are working toward a kind of dialectical synthesis of
> unity and separation, in which the parts still have their autonomy and
> choice, but ALSO have the beautiful fused ecstasy and perfection of the
> primordial orgasmium. This may seem contradictory; yet, this
contradiction
> may just be consequent from an overly narrow application of logic.
Of course we are all always seeking the divine, for lack of a better term
IMO. I would argue that all the singularians pursuit of grand AGI is
nothing other their own divine nature seeking to understand itself. It's
the very hard way to go about it, but such things must be allowed to follow
their course..
>
> I think this relates to what you said by "the way to maximize happiness
may
> be to have a lot of complex minds doing complex things." I'm not sure
that
> is true. The original orgasmium may have been just as happy as the
> dialectical-synthesis orgasmium toward which we are tending. But the new
> one has growth and choice along with happiness -- and doesn't need to have
> any LESS happiness than its predecessor.... However, the current phase of
> passing through a painful separation-of-parts period is a necessary evil
> (and is in fact the essence of "evil") in order to pass from the
> undifferentiated orgasmium to the dialectical-synthesis orgasmium.
This whole paragraph assumes some prior state that is different than the
current state. This is grounded in the basic delusion decribed earlier.
NOTE:I'm just as deluded as the next guy ;)
>
> The human Transcension/Singularity should be understood as part of this
> process of the void reconnecting with itself, undoing-without-undoing what
> it did by separating itself from itself in the first place...
No separation ever occurred and it is utterly impossible to do. An AGI, if
successful, will understand this and only then can it be called "Wise" and
be said to have achieved the "Perfection of Wisdom" All the moral/ethical
questions are resolved perfectly to such a being..human or AGI...
I think if you keep looking for a universally acceptable, definable ethical
system, a million-billion years will pass and you still will fail..
--Kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:45 MDT