https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/sg0hiu/what_do_you_think_about_joscha_bachs_ideas/
Not in a classically spiritual way. By introducing and indoctrinating the child from an early age the belief system of the original agent Dalai Lama is ensured further existence.
I don´t think anything here stops us from potentially rebirthing a lot of Dalai Lamas, or other personalities - or rather, agent systems. We could create an army of enlightened Buddha-like humans. We could also create a throng of lesser demons, as we basically do when we mis- and abuse our children. We instantiate certain circuits in them which becomes their personality and way of being in the world. We rebirth demons, in a way. (in the cases where they become "evil" and abusive themselves, they can of course be rehabilitated, and not all become bad people).
I however think complexity is a proxy which we don't feint properly, and doesn't really describe what we mean. Higher orders of organisation and dissipative systems, self preservation, self evolution.
he refers to "nerds as people for whom the primary goal of conversation is to submit their thoughts to peer review while for most other people, the primary goal of conversation is to negotiate value alignment"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MNBxfrmfmI&t=385s Ideas on n Wittgenstein, Gödel, Turing
"Civilization as a whole can be viewed as an artificial intelligence that can be much smarter than any individual human in it… another example of an organism/agent would be a modern corporation" dovetails extremely well with philosophy I've found extremely compelling, particularly from David Graeber, Deleuze/Guattari, and Nick Land.
Bach believes that consciousness is a side effect of the particular learning mechanism that humans use to build models but he doesn't think it's an "illusion " any more than he thinks that every thing we perceive/think is an illusion. That is, our experiences are software instantiated on the substrate of a human brain/body and has no direct physical existence. I think this is similar to how a gene is just a collection of amino acids and has no physical existence except in the context of the biological organism. The term "illusion" is not meant to be derogatory but is rather meant to distinguish it's ontological status from the fundamental substrate on which everything runs (that we have no direct access to anyway). This seems to me to be quite similar to the modern (western) Buddhist philosophy.
You may like this then , its some of bachs ideas discussed in terms of shinzen / culadasa buddhist phenomenology and "awakening" https://www.till-gebel.com/post/on-awakening-experiences
Sentience is necessary for consciousness but not sufficient. One could imagine an organism with a perfect model of its environment that never needed to update it's model that had no consciousness. it makes consciousness seem genuinely unnecessary to artifical intelligence - perhaps a different learning mechanism would obviate the need for consciousness.
https://deconstructingyourself.com/dy-006-pattern-nebulosity-guest-david-chapman.html
Keegan levels of society #research internet thinkers (Scott Alexander, David Chapman, Zvi, #research What is progress studies? Described as a grassroot field
the curious thing about Keegan levels is that one cannot distinguish between the level(s) above and those below yours, a Keegan level is so much a core in your world model that you can only tell whether it conforms to your model, or does not. https://www.reddit.com/user/Marvins_specter/