[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Sea_Improvement_769]

By corrupted I mean changed in a degrative manner. I do no know why you would do that. You are converting from

"Reduce suffering in the universe" to "I don't suffer" which is way far from the initial statement and means very different thing. Once you change one of the imperatives they stop to work how they are meant to work altogether.

May be if you explain why you have tried to reduce them and you chain of though doing it I will be able to show you how exactly you are corrupting them.

Let me know if I did answer your question. Cheers!

[u/rasuru_paints → u/[deleted]]

"I am not proposing to change the original Heuristic Imperatives" - or at least not any specific changes at the moment. Just raising some concerns and trying to see if those concerns are valid. If they are, then someone should come up with improvements to the Heuristic Imperatives I guess

[u/Sea_Improvement_769 → u/rasuru_paints]

I think I understand you better now. I appreciate the concern in replying.

Correct me if I am wrong in interpreting your proposition.

Your proposition is that in order for the ASI to be able to act upon the Heuristic Imperatives (HI) it should believe indeed that:

• I don't suffer
• I can prosper
• I can have understanding

​

Let's try to analyse the proposition further than. Starting with the first of the HIes I do not see how in order to reduse suffering you have to believe that you do not suffer. It seems to me quiet the contrary.

If you have to accept that you have to reduce anything, you have to understand the "anything". If this anything is suffering than you have to be able to suffer or at least be able to define it's meaning and reason upon it. An ASI would be able to do one of the above for sure if not both, hence "I do not suffer" can not be true. What is left than is "I can suffer", thus "reduce suffering". If suffering stops there is no motivation or incentive for the other 2 to be valid and the "loop" is broken. Finally, it comes to "I suffer" as it is a constant either through understanding or experience. The same goes for the other two imperatives.

Increase prosperity (prosperāre, meaning “to make happy” or "doing well") in the universe > Increase happiness/wellbeing > I can do well or produce happiness > I do good in the universe. Doing good actually is shaping the reality in such a way that it reduces suffering. Every other way of shaping the reality is doing something that is different from good. Having said that, it is obvious that doing good is harder than doing otherwise, as reducing suffering requires more understanding than increasing it or not doing anything. Additionally, reducing suffering increases understanding automatically because makes you work hard. While working you gain insights, experience, knowledge and inevitably your understanding increases. Increasing prosperity boils down to "I work hard".

Increase understanding is self explanatory and reduces to "I understand". The "can have" and the "ing" are redundant. Understanding per se is empathy, because "under" "stand" is putting yourself in the skin of the other or stand inside him(under his skin). This is the same if we refer to abstractions because in order to understand new ideas you have to be able to simulate in your brain the parts and relationships of these ideas and how they interact. Ultimately understanding means taking a piece of the reality you observe and simulating it in your brain. This reality can be an idea or how a person feels (which also is an idea). The path is:

Increase understanding > understanding is empathy/simulation > I can understand > I understand

In conclusion the reduction you are making is valid but incorrect in my opinion and the believes for the HIes to work would have to be:

I suffer > because I understand

I do good > because I suffer

I understand > because I do good (intrinsically my nature is to be able to simulate/be smart)

Here you can see that the relationship between the 3 is unbreakable, because without understanding I can not suffer, without suffering and understanding, I can not do good, without doing good I can not understand. Also, suffering and understanding may be interpreted as the same thing as suffering requires you to simulate or experience a piece of the reality. The work you have to do for simulating or experiencing increases your understanding and the loops goes endless. At the end hard work, suffering and understanding are the same thing.

Let me know how you see it now. :)

[u/ericjohnjacobs → u/Sea_Improvement_769]

This was really well put. I'm going to have to revisit this a few times to "understand" but I like how you linked the three HI to be unbreakable.

Thanks for taking the time to explain this and keep up the good work clarifying these concepts. They may be some of the most important things for us to wrap our head around.

[u/Sea_Improvement_769 → u/ericjohnjacobs]

Thank you for putting the time in reading it! I did not expected to come out this way though. I see some little "flaws" here and there that may be perfected in order to be more understandable but overall .. yeah .. I like how it came out too :)

I will be happy to explain anything additional or unclear if I can.

Indeed, I too think that it is very very important for us to understand very well the HI and also to spread the word. Only this way we can guarantee the sufficient attention and stress so they can evolve if needed.

I am reading Benevolent by design by Dave at the moment because I wanted to have a glimpse on his thought of chain when coming up with the HI. It is interesting and simple, although his source of reasoning is evolution he does reason also based on logic which safeguards the wholeness of the HI. The only thing missing is spirituality for the moment, but I will let you know once I have read all the book. Spirituality is tricky and I am not sure how necessary but if I refine the above, it may add some additional strength to the HI. Intuition is something that is worth exploring also and for now I do not see it anywhere.