Re: Wilson's mental hierarchy

Paul Hughes (
Thu, 10 Dec 1998 19:29:29 -0800

"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:

> My bogosity detectors go off whenever I read "X levels of consciousness"
> arranged into ascending order, because I know perfectly well that the "good
> guys" will be operating at level eight and the "bad guys" will be operating at
> level one. Wilson is making a moral distinction; I'm making a design distinction.

Prove Wilson explicitly makes any kind of moral distinction. That is your assumption not his. Your assessment of Wilson is completely ignorant. Using your line of logic and emotional dismissal, I could just as easily claim you are making a moral distinction, and Wilson is making a design distinction. Have you proven otherwise, I don't think so. BTW, are you telling me your degree of consciousness is no greater than that of an insect? If so, perhaps that might explain your blind assumptions in this matter.

> Furthermore, as has been pointed out, anything designed in for "future
> evolution" is a flaming lie. If you could find one single example of that it
> would overturn the entire field of evolutionary biology.

I have never claimed or defended such a position. And your implication that I have is another blind assumption with no proof to back it up. Come on Eliezer, I know you can do better than this. :-)

> > I'm aghast that you and Damien (both whom I respect highly by the
> > way) can't see past the 1977 hippie prose
> Any author who wants to make me wade through 1977 hippie prose to find out
> what he's saying can take a hike. (Similar considerations apply to artists,
> social scientists, psychoanalysts, and professors of literature.)

Despite your mathematical and linguistic genius, your complete dismissal of all things not scientific is surprising, yet revealing proof of a lopsided brain at work.

> So, if I dig through the hippie prose, I'll find a claim that the multilevel
> laws of biology and physics are somehow mirrored in the brain? I don' think so.

This is so obvious that I'm quite embarrassed to point out it out to you: Last I checked the brain is made of of genetic material, which is itself composed of atoms. Are you telling me the laws of quantum physics and molecular biology have no bearing on brain chemistry? Are you suggesting that the brain is operating outside the multi-level laws of biology and physics? Now you are really going out on a limb; perhaps we should bring Shirley McClain into this discussion.

> '' Let me know when I can read about
> distinctions between neurons, genes, and atoms instead of extraterrestrial ear
> lobes or whatever Wilson/Leary was gibbering about.

Again, this is quite embarrassing to see you Eliezer making blanket assumptions that are in complete conflict with Tim Leary's writing. Dozens of pages in Info-Psychology are devoted to the distinctions between neurons, genes and atoms. So I'm letting you know right now - read Tim Leary's 'Infopsychology' - since it's obvious you haven't.

If for someone reason my reaction is alarming you, perhaps it would make more sense if I claimed your entire 'Singularity Analysis' is nothing but hogwash and techno-religious gibberish about 'heaven' and 'hell'. It's about is on target and fair assessment as your understanding of the 8-circuit model. Would it be fair? No. Would it upset you? It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

Paul Hughes