A strange loop

Posted: 01/10/2014 in Philosophy
Tags: , ,

Rule Number x: Every rule has an exception.

Now thinking about this rule, stating: that every rule has an exception. Let’s apply this rule to itself. It means that this rule has an exception and there is at least one rule y that has no exception.

Two possibilities:

- x and y are not the same rule. Then rule x is wrong because we have found a rule that has no exception.

- x and y are the same, so basically what x is saying:

Rule x: Every rule has an exception, including this one. Its exception is that it has no exception.

This is a strange loop.


I posted previously this article about security and risks. Here is a shorter version that summarizes the article in a self-reference (strange loop) way:

To love is to risk not being loved in return. To hope is to risk pain. To try is to risk failure, but risk must be taken, because the greatest risk in life is to risk nothing.


In this post, I will copy-paste some definitions about some concepts, that I believe they somehow relate to each others.  Read the rest of this entry »


I recently read this blog post and I liked it a lot. Here is a quick summary:

It has been said that necessity is the mother of invention. [...] But the fact is, laziness, that much maligned human quality, seen by many as a terrible character flaw, is one of the true mothers of invention. Laziness must not be confused with lethargy. Lethargy comes with an inclination to be passive. But real laziness has no restrictions on the work ethic. Instead, laziness poses this question: isn’t there a better way to do this thing?

This is somehow true. It is laziness which drove humans to invent the wheel, not necessity. They used to have donkeys, horses, animals to transport things. So they didn’t ”need” a transportation way. The same reasoning applies to the invention of cars or planes etc. The ‘need’ was always to do things more efficiently, faster, ‘lazier’. This is somehow reflected by our lazy-intelligent nature.

In evolution theory, a lazy creature – which uses more efficient ways to solve things, has an evolutionary advantage (in term of fitness function) over his/her counterparts. Because as simply as this: He/she will use less energy/food/time to get the same benefits as the others.

Now I am not talking about the freeloaders, who live like mushrooms sucking energy from others while doing nothing. These individuals, while they get the benefits of laziness for themselves, they harm their surrounding in at least the same amount of benefits they get. The group they belong to is harmed globally more than the benefits they get individually (related story here). This is not a sustainable business; because this harm will be reflected to themselves sooner or later.

The ultimate laziness for an intelligent creature, is to invent another (artificial) intelligent creature to do the job of researching better solving problems at his/her place. If one day, we invent a machine that is really like us, truly intelligent (without considering the ethical problems that arises – like slavery; and I am not sure if true intelligence can exist without true consciousness), we won’t need to invent anything else anymore. We can be lazy forever.

However, if we accept the theory that laziness is at the heart of intelligence. This AI machine will be lazy as well by definition of intelligence; It will try to solve its tasks in the most efficient way for itself. It will end up: introspecting itself, understanding its own behavior and its own intelligence and recreating a Meta-artificial Intelligence to serve it.  The loop can go forever. This is the strange loop of laziness at the heart of true intelligence theory: an intelligent creature will try to create an artificial-intelligence which will try to create a meta-artificial-intelligence, which will try to  [...],  to solve problems efficiently, lazily :)


It’s been a while I didn’t write on this blog, I will try to be more active from now on. I return to the subject that always hunts me the most: Self-referential systems, strange loops, super-rationality. I recently watched the movie Cloud Atlas, and fell in love with this scene: 

“- And for what? No matter what you do, it will never amount to anything more than a single drop in a limitless ocean.
- What is an ocean but a multitude of drops?”

It fits perfectly with the same idea of that the whole is just a sum of the parts. And in the same philosophy of super-rationality: If everyone else does the same way as me, how the world will look like? If every drop of water decided to leave the ocean, will any ocean exists? 

 


I am assembling now my own computer for video editing, here are the parts: 

Total: 1935.33 €, this is an excellent setup under 2000 € for video editing and image processing and why not gaming :) 

 


Adception

Adception: A google adwords about google adwords using google adwords. Self-referential ads

Image  —  Posted: 18/02/2014 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,