Metamodern Spirituality | Consciousness vs. Replicators (w/ Andrés Gómez Emilsson)

Andrés Gómez Emilsson of the Qualia Research Institute joins Brendan to discuss "the universal plot": what's it all about and what matters most? Andrés says the big story is one of consciousness vs. pure replicators, the struggle to resist brute, value-neutral replication processes and maximize instead the positive valence possibilities of universal consciousness. Andrés considers how this narrative emerges as the most nuanced and developmentally advanced of the various ethical stories of the past (compared to "Good vs. Evil," for instance), and considers some of the theoretical/philosophical axioms on which it's based. What then is the relationship between consciousness and replication? How do we ensure we privilege positive conscious states over parasitic replication? How does it relate to the evolution of consciousness, and avoid the pitfalls of asceticism?

0:00 Introduction
2:21 The Universal Plot at Different Levels
16:17 What is the Relationship of Consciousness to Replication?
24:07 What is the Source of Valence if not the Replication Impulse?
26:55 What is the Telos of the Evolution of Consciousness?
30:44 Integrating Replication with Consciousness
36:48 Towards Omega: How do We Engineer Paradise?
48:13 Critique 1: Evolutionary Complexity vs. Human Intellectual Hubris
54:00 Critique 2: Is this Just Gnosticism 2.0?
57:18 A Developmental Metanarrative

"A Universal Plot - Consciousness vs. Pure Replicators: Gene Servants or Blissful Autopoietic Beings?" video mentioned in the podcast:

"The Universal Plot: Consciousness vs. Pure Replicators" blog post mentioned in the podcast:

[metaRising]

Really enjoyed this conversation. Thanks guys.

[S.G.Wallner]

It seems that there are infinitely many conscious states due to contextual framing, but there are finitely many brain states due to physical constraints.

[bustville]

This video is evidence of replication algorithms' capacity to disseminate "Consciousness promoting" (aka better experience) configurations.

To go with the neural annealing metaphor... humans are attracted to super-alloys because they provide a promise of future curvy structural relief.

[rhmdrhmd-ii]

Having trouble what "Localized experience was more useful for surviving and reproducing, so it was selected by the replicator." means. So far, from what I kinda understand...

"Phenomenal binding problem is very hard to solve with closed individualism - why do I experience the world as this discrete 'me' entity instead of some smaller or bigger information processing unit? The cut-off point seems very arbitrary especially when you look at split brain patients, etc."

"Maybe, actually all the other experience options were very much possible for any creature, but it was not useful for survival and reproduction of a replicator, thus only the creatures with localized conscious experience remained, and we stand on that lineage."

Okay, but what does this actually mean, mechanically?

It feels like this supposes this "experiencer" token, and you can give it to a single choice option from various "possible arrangements of information processing units", is this the case?

Also if I am this "experiencer" token, occupying this topologically segmented localized information processing unit wrapped in my skin... how does that really help the open individualism case?

It's not like we know that the experiencer token will be transferred to some other information processing unit when I die or something, right?

If it's any help - I did have some ego death experiences, but I don't really know what to make of them.

Help me out here; thanks in advance.

[mouwersor]

Andrés Gómez Emilsson is great. I especially find his work on happiness (the different forms, how they are experienced, how they can realistically be maintained at a higher-than-normal range and what societal consequences those wireheading practices have, etc.) very insightful.

I completely disagree with his 'we are all one' view which leads to utilitarianism and such. Yes the continuity of the self is an illusion, but that doesn't mean we can think outside of that illusion (like free will). I can only act based on the desires I have, and the happiness of others only is desirable to me when I use empathy and abstract it as some 'good goal' but it always boils down to what I want. We do not share some collective mind. And utilitarianism and Buddhist-like views do not necessarily bring me the most desirable states (which I necessarily want).

[MarmaladeINFP]

To counter the other commenter, I do agree with his 'we are all one view' which doesn't necessarily and inevitably lead to utilitarianism and such. Yes, the continuity of the self is an illusion, and that DOES mean we can think outside that illusion (like free will). That has been the point of many religious and spiritual practices, particularly in Eastern traditions.

But we can also verify this in looking to the anthropological literature where animistic tribes demonstrate how identity can be much more open, porous, fluid, and shifting; including identity change. This is also the area of study involving philology, consciousness studies, and neuroscience (see Bruno Snell, E.R. Dodds, Eric Havelock, Julian Jaynes, Tor Norretranders, Iain McGilchrist, etc); overlapping with linguistic relativity and the anthropological research on non-WEIRD populations.

What is desirable is based on what we experience and that is determined by our overall state of mind and identity, which is biased by our culture, language, and such. Not all humans operate according to the ego theory of mind. In fact, probably most humans for most of human existence did not. Some argue the bundle theory of mind, involving 4E cognition (embodied, embedded, enacted, extended) is the more accurate description of the psyche. The ego theory of mind might even be why modern humans are so unhappy and struggling with so many mental illnesses.

[S.G.Wallner]

This inspired me to think... First there is good OR evil, then good AND evil, then good/evil as in the recognition of a ratio or relation of good over evil. Finally, a control mechanism that seeks an optimum ratio of good/evil. Haha! I don't know.

[maxcopes-finke]

Is there a value of novel states of consciousness that replicators would add, as opposed to just valuing high valence states?