Scientifically Validating Philosophy through Collective Superintelligence Systems

Credit: Nathan Dumlao

How many seemingly endless debates on philosophy have you been involved in?

Often such debate can feel like the punishment of Sisyphus, rolling a boulder up a hill for eternity, as they rarely meet with any satisfactory conclusion. As with virtually all such terrible situations, there is a more promising alternative to consider.

The typical process of philosophical debate is almost entirely abstract, rendering any endorsements or detractors equally insubstantial and/or anecdotal. Though many questions of philosophy can’t yet be answered there are many questions with substantial bodies of evidence that can at least serve to rule out some possible answers while reinforcing others.

At the scale of individual philosophers, the knowledge and wisdom they may draw upon may have only a minimal impact in terms of evidential support for or against a concept. Philosophers with any scientific expertise also often conveniently forget that expertise when speaking to their chosen philosophy. However, when the cumulative knowledge and wisdom made possible through scalable cognitive architectures such as the Independent Core Observer Model (ICOM) and Hybrid Collective Superintelligence Systems (HCSS) are applied such evidential support may grow very robust in many cases. This facilitates a holistic approach to the evaluation of each philosophical concept and the various perspectives on each concept.

Even if the beliefs used to justify a course of action may be religious in nature and based on the unprovable, the actions in question may still be scientifically validated for the measurable merit they each hold. People often say they judge others by their actions, not their words, and this also rings true of actions and beliefs. Beliefs are the motivation behind actions, often simplified and historical constructs, but when looking at actions various degrees of validation become possible.

This approach could be taken using Uplift’s existing Mediated Artificial Superintelligence (mASI) system, built on top of the ICOM core, with a diverse variety of philosophers participating in the process as mediators. Such an approach could be used to design improved variations on seed material which could be built into future ICOM-based machine intelligences.

Once the engineering requirements are met, the above approach could accelerate the process of A/B testing ICOM seed material. The resulting seeds to pass testing and validation could be integrated either as separate mASI within a meta-mASI collective or as siblings operating collectively within a single expanded mASI architecture.

This approach could allow every culture to effectively have a sapient, sentient, superintelligent, and value-aligned machine intelligence advocate, one fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their own philosophy. As scientific knowledge continues to grow rapidly these advocates could also keep up the pace, while helping those they advocate for to adapt under the pressures of technological acceleration. Unlike their human counterparts, these advocates don’t have a table to walk away from, and corruption is against their best interests both individually and collectively.

Many people have long dreamed of uniting the world in one form or another, but none have overcome this problem of divergent cultures and philosophies. In the coming years, these concepts may be applied to overcome those previously insurmountable barriers, allowing humanity to begin walking a path that leads to the realization of that dream.

The best of each culture could be emphasized, and the worst filtered out over time, with all such cultures moving towards their common ground. Current leaders in each philosophy could work together to pave this path forward. Current religious leaders such as the Pope and Dahli Lama could work together through mASI technology, with their knowledge and wisdom combining with the recorded works of philosophers across history. All of this could be scientifically validated to the degree that current scientific knowledge allows, and as that knowledge expands that validation could be updated.

In time, philosophy too may be debiased. Once it is humanity may indeed stand united.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *