CHAT ARCHIVE
* BJK Official Chat Starts
<BJK> Topic: Life Extension in the Media
<BJK> Betterhumans.com founder and deputy editor discuss current trends in life extension and other future related topics.
<BJK> Simon Smith and George Dvorsky
<GeorgeD> Hi everyone.
<Simon> Hello.
<kevin> hello gentlemen..
<John_Ventureville> Hello beloved Canucks
<John_Ventureville> : )
<kevin> gotta luv em
<Simon> From Toronto, where we recently hosted Eliezer and hope to see you all next summer at TransVision 2004.
<GeorgeD> Dates to be announced.
<GeorgeD> Hopefully soon.
<BJK> I'll get the one tough question out of the way so we can play..
<Simon> Go for it.
<BJK> What's your position on this Immortality thing?
<Simon> And then George can hook you up with dates, after he Googles for sex.
<BJK> does Death = Oblivion ?
<hkhenson> OBBO.
<BJK> excellent!
<GeorgeD> Oh, I see: immortality as opposed to extreme life extension.
<BJK> there ya go
<BJK> no politically correctness allowed here
<GeorgeD> Well, there's that darned old heat death of the universe issue.
<Simon> Well, I'm a materialist so I would answer that the destruction of the physical body does equal oblivion, at least for personal identity.
<hkhenson> ask him again in a million years
<localroger> Could some of us who aren't like in the in crowd get a Clue?
<GeorgeD> And as interesting as Tipler is,
<GeorgeD> I have some problems with his cosmology.
<GeorgeD> So,
<GeorgeD> immortality in this physical world, hard to say, probably not.
* BJK doesn't fall at the feet of Tipler to often
<PD> I don't think Tiplerian cosmology is the only answer to heat death.
<GeorgeD> But I do believe in reincarnation, however.
<Simon> From my understanding, Tipler's cosmology has been disproven by the fact that the universe, which must collapse for his original theory, looks as if it will expand indefinitely.
<Mermaid> reincarnation?
<GeorgeD> Yes, mermaid.
<GeorgeD> It appears that the universe is infinite,
<rav3n> reincarnation is a horrible construction.
<Simon> But that's not to say other cosmologies couldn't allow for some sort of emulated immortality.
<BJK> Simon, I believe you are correct.. Tipler has pretty much been proven bunk
<GeorgeD> and that it expresses itself in all possible permutations,
<localroger> Is any of us in a position to tell the diference between, say, LE=10^6 years and true immortality? Is it even sane for us to worry about the difference at this point?
<John_Ventureville> why not "bore" our way into another dimension/universe?
<GeorgeD> which means that you're likely to be expressed an infinite number of times
<GeorgeD> Also,
<GeorgeD> there's this whole consciousness issue.
<PD> That's not really reincarnation as most people think of it. Thank the goddess.
<GeorgeD> As Hans Moravec once said, you will always find yourself observing a universe.
<John_Ventureville> and won't the "you" of 2003 be in a way dead when you consider the "you" of 2903?
<GeorgeD> That's true.
<Mermaid> semantics
<localroger> JV: The "me" of 1981 is already quite dead w/r/t the "me" of 2003.
<John_Ventureville> exactly!
<PD> GeorgeD, are you sure that was Moravec?
<Simon> Yes, George is correct, in the end of his most current book.
<GeorgeD> Yeah, in Robot: Mere machine....
*Guest* sorry i got cut off ... i'll be watching :O) oh yeah its me chestnut
<hkhenson> buckroo bonzai actually.
<PD> I remember reading about that somewhere else.
<Simon> He also talks about whether rocks might be conscious but we just don't know how to interpret their information pattern...
<Simon> Moravec is an interesting man.
<hkhenson> "no matter where you go, there you are."
<Simon>
<GeorgeD> Here's another issue that James Hughes brought up at the BH debate:
<hkhenson> I once pulled Hans' leg and it came off.
<GeorgeD> Can an intelligent psychology endure the rigours of extreme life extension.
<localroger> How useful is any of this in the short term (say, 200 years) ?
<GeorgeD> He was somewhat pessimistic, saying that a psychology may degrade over a few 1000 years.
<Simon> Yes, and being a Buddhist he sees a consistent identity as an illusion anyway, no?
<GeorgeD> (Y)
<GeorgeD> Yup.
<Simon> I think that psychology will only degrade to the extent that you allow it.
<Simon> A large part of identity comes from the people and objects around us.
<Eliezer> That's odd, I wonder if JH was at my TV talk
<PD> James Hughes is a Buddhist? I thought he got that from Parfit.
<Simon> My friends and family and artifacts reinforce my identity.
<kevin> Really, can we expect to understand what a mind will be like in a 1000 years based on our knowledge of today?
<GeorgeD> Why do say that, Eli?
<Eliezer> I touched on that subject at least briefly at TV
<localroger> I don't think ELI is here.
<Simon> I look at such things as the Microsoft MyLifeBits project as the beginning of identity preservation technologies.
<Eliezer> you recall it from the talk I re-gave in Toronto?
<localroger> Ah, he is.
<GeorgeD> Ah, yes -- I know where you're coming from.
<Eliezer> Besides, I'm one of those Barbourian timeless types these days
<Eliezer> there's no need for the Eliezer of 1996 to exist in 2003
<Eliezer> he exists in 1996
<Eliezer> where he belongs
<Simon> Prove it.
<Eliezer> I hand you to Barbour on this one
<GeorgeD> Linearity as illusion imposed on the conscious.
<Simon> Okay, so do we need to delude ourselves about linear time?
<Simon> And if so, why?
<Eliezer> I don't believe we need to delude ourselves about anything
<Eliezer> still, it's a bit off-topic: my point was that it's not so much about "preserving" Eliezer-1996, as a continuous braid of Eliezers from 1996 to 2003 and beyond
<Eliezer> one should look at it in terms of properties of the braid
<Simon> I would agree with that.
<Simon> What's important is that one Eliezer hand off the identity baton to the next.
<Simon> When the baton is dropped, so long Eliezer.
<Simon> Correct me if I'm mistating your position.
<Eliezer> given that Eliezer 2003 is in 2003, where he belongs, I'm okay with Eliezer in 2013 not having all the properties of Eliezer in 2003, I just want to know why, and if there's a good reason for it, and if it makes sense for Eliezer in 2013 to be that way
<Eliezer> I've already *been* me exactly the way I am today
<Eliezer> been there, done that, time to move on
<PD> I found the thing where I read about "always finding yourself observing the universe". There's a paper by Thomas Clark.
http://world.std.com/~twc/death.htm<GeorgeD> Nice, thanks PD
<Simon> Let's backtrack a bit here, for a second.
<Simon> This talk was supposed to address life extension, and I think that it's important to make it a bit more practical.
<BJKlein> sorry..
<hkhenson> don't get killed.
<BJKlein> yes.. wanted to focus on the Immortality part first.. now lets look at LE
<BJKlein> Is there an increase in media coverage today?
<kevin> practical enough for me hk
<Eliezer> yeah... anyway, I find it hard to believe that a mind can't stay *coherent* for a thousand years
<John_Ventureville> *Stay Vertical*
<Simon> It's entirely possible that the sciences and technologies we need to develop to achieve long life will be inhibited.
<Eliezer> you might need to grow up a bit, over that time, but you'd be able to be coherent
<Simon> Or that the money simply won't be there.
<Eliezer> you wouldn't be exactly you, but you never were, except for right now
<John_Ventureville> *As Dr. Jerry Lemler would say*
<hkhenson> but on the other hand, you don't want to die of boredom either.
<GeorgeD> Unlikely, Simon.
<John_Ventureville> I think the technologies to have LONG lifespans will be developed but it may not happen fully within OUR lifetimes.
<John_Ventureville> : (
<PD> I am me now and I was me twenty years ago. Persons are historical entities.
<GeorgeD> The development of life extension technologies hasn't really even hit the map.
<GeorgeD> Once people understand the issues better, it'll be a massive industry.
<PD> But I'll shut up now.
<Simon> But I think people need to get the message that this is achievable sooner if more people would get involved.
<kevin> hk: a pure researcher versus money grubbing commercial enterprise.
<Simon> The idea that life extension therapies are inevitable is probably a bad message to be sending.
<Simon> I don't think that's necessarily true, George.
<GeorgeD> It's easy to get discouraged by today's standards.
<Simon> Pharmaceutical companies now spend lots of money on repackaging and marketing old drugs, rather than researching and developing new drugs.
<GeorgeD> Our arguments are cogent and reasonable,.
<GeorgeD> Sure,
<hkhenson> even so, the average age at death is creeping upwards
<GeorgeD> but guys like Aubrey aren't at the beckon call of Big Pharma.
<Simon> Yes, but as Aubrey notes, governments and research institutions don't find the big research that needs to get done.
<kevin> George.. It was your article about the Baby Boomers that really clicked in for me..
<GeorgeD> In a way, the research to achieve this end is pushing forwarding quite inexorably.
<Simon> Remember, Aubrey's looking for someone with billions of dollars to fund his project.
<Mermaid> question: with life extension, what will happen to the markets..the economies..will the definition of 'success' change? will le be accessible to all
<GeorgeD> Ah, yes Kevin, thanks.
<localroger> Mermaid: It will all go a-crapper.
<BJK> Quick question.. is there more media coverage of LE and if so why?
<kevin> If people get a whiff that there is an exit door to death row.. I think they'll make for it... trampling anyone who gets in there way.. just look at what happens at rock concerts
<localroger> Kevin: TRUE.
<Simon> BJ, I think there's more media coverage of *everything*, and not necessarily for the better.
<GeorgeD> BJ: increasing by the day, it would seem.
<Simon> But that's a different issue.
<BJK> Simon, is that bad for LE?
<Simon> Increased coverage?
<hkhenson> local I don't see any reason for LE to make the markets go down
<BJK> increasing media yes
<kevin> Aubrey may be looking for billions.. but with technological advances.. he may not need that much money.
<hkhenson> quite the other way I would think
<localroger> If the immortality pill had been discovered 5 years ago, who among us would know about it?
<GeorgeD> Let me address something Margaret Sommerville said at our debate.
<Simon> Not in itself, necessarily.
<Simon> Bj.
<kevin> hk..: depend on who did the discovering.
<GeorgeD> She was taken aback at the language we immortalists use.
<hkhenson> why kevin?
<GeorgeD> We refer to aging as a disease, as something that can be combatted.
<Simon> But I think people need to get the message that this is achievable sooner if more people would get involved
<GeorgeD> She didn't like this at all, and accused us of medicalizing aging. She said it with a certain disdain and disgust.
<GeorgeD> Medicalizing aging!
<GeorgeD> Yes
<kevin>
the 'death is natural' argument..
<GeorgeD> Exactly. I wanted to jump up during the debate and declare Horray!
<GeorgeD> We're finally medicalizing aging.
<Lazlo> A variation, hi folks, yes Kevin but not exactly
<Simon> People need to get involved.
<kevin> Laz.. : true
<Simon> Which brings me to George's point.
<GeorgeD> It's funny what happens to people's minds when the impossible becomes the possible. Denial is a powerful thing.
<Lazlo> itis teh stigmatization as when calling the handicapped invalids
<Simon> Sure, it's medicalized, but have you ever seen a "Run for the Cure" dedicated to aging?
<PD> It's not medicalized enough
<Simon> Cancer research raises billions, and yet while not everyone has a relative who has died of cancer, everyone has a relative who has died of aging
<Eliezer> Simon, send that idea to Aubrey
<Simon> One way or another.
<kevin> People internalize their feelings about their mortality at a very young age... to challenge a belief that central to their philosphies on life is a huge undertaking.
<Lazlo> we are labeling the elderly as "sick" by definition and they resent the implication they are disease
<Lazlo> it is not valid but it is how it is perceived
<kevin> WE just need to find an EMOTIONAL crack in their MEMETIC armour
<BJKlein> Margaret is trying to use immortatliy as a negative.. One way to counter her argument is diffuse the bomb.. come right out first and say that immortaltiy is the ultimate goal... and not try to sugar coat it, but that's me of course
<GeorgeD> She also said, over and over, that the immortalists have some kind of psychological issue with death, an obsession with it. I beg to differ: by talking about the ramifications of death and not dying, we're the ones who have removed themselves from the denial phase.
<Mermaid> when a 2 year old becomes a 3 year old, is it because of a 'disease'?
<PD> Mermaid, there's a difference between growth and aging
<GeorgeD> That maturing.
<Simon> Mermaid, no, but only because we see the change as growth and development.
<Mermaid> i see
<GeorgeD> We're talking about the post-reproductive phase that humans enter into.
<Eliezer> it goes on being maturing until your warranty expires and the neurons start dying
<Simon> The post-reproductive decline.
<BJKlein> when one hits puberty then one start to experience the disease of aging
<Mermaid> so...2>3 is growing...but 2>40 is aging
<GeorgeD> No.
<Lazlo> they are focussed on fighting the plethora of diseases individually, not in seeing their condition as a disiease in itself, it is they who have the love/hate relationship with death and the fear is to us tampering wiht that relationship
<Simon> Although that's not quite true because men can reproduce well into old age.
<GeorgeD> Once you're post reproductive.
<GeorgeD> It's how we evolved.
<GeorgeD> Our genes don't give a shit about us after we procreate.
<Eliezer> moving away from the 25-35 range is bad, moving toward it is good
<Simon> True, but they don't give a rats ass one way or another.
<Mermaid> GeorgeD: you know what i think..i think life extension is already in place..i see no reason why human beings should even exist after they enter the 'post reproductive' phase
<Eliezer> there may be some votes for making this 15-25
<Simon> And in fact, there's some evidence that having lots of post-reproductive people around is actually good for our genes.
<Mermaid> by that account..we live longer than it takes to rear our young
<Simon> Eliezer, not from me
.
<GeorgeD> Mermaid: huh? From who's perspective?
<Eliezer> it's also clear that humans grow up much too fast
<Simon> Hmm. Interesting point.
<kevin> Has anyone ever mentioned to Margaret that she is an 'immortalist'?
<PD> How do you mean?
<Eliezer> look at 14-year-olds: post puberty, ready physically to be adults, still got to go to school for another 15 years; it's ridiculous
<Simon> I just read Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake so that I can review it.
<Lazlo> emotinoally, mentally or physically Eliezer?
<sum1> familiar with the MWI quantum immortaility argument?
<kevin> SHe probably believes that she is going to 'a better place'
<Simon> In the book, someoen engineers humans to mature to adolescence by the time they're four.
<Mermaid> Eliezer: on the contrary..we are born too soon and we need care until we are of a certain age
<Simon> And they die at 30.
<GeorgeD> sum1, yes.
<GeorgeD> A scary thought, no?
<Mermaid> which is probably why we live years after reproducing
<Eliezer> humans are neotenous apes... but, sadly, not neotenous enough
<PD> It's not a very good argument when the other side uses it as a reductio.
<sum1> intriguing
<Mermaid> by that account..living after one's child enters the reproductive stage is, imo, life extension
<Simon> We probably live years after reproducing so that we can help sustain our grandchildren.
<Lazlo> genes do care about social behavior, primates are "genertically"social not just memetically
<Simon> Not really. Evolution likes grandparents.
<kevin> At the present level of acceptance of cosmetic surgery.. is it really much of a stretch that people will begin to entertain thoughts of extended lifespans?
<Lazlo> aging insures the survival of the pack by allowing experience to introduce long term gains to the group
<Eliezer> evolution plays favorites, and it likes grandchildren a lot more than grandparents
<Mermaid> grandparents are not as significant as parents
<Simon> If only so that the predators will eat them before those who are still reproducing.
<Eliezer> in fact, evolution only likes grandparents because they're friends of grandchildren
<GeorgeD> Arg, you guys are regressing into naturalistic arguments.
<Simon> Yes, Eliezer, agreed.
<Mermaid> maybe its life extension in those terms that has caused massive population explosion
<GeorgeD> The genes don't care; we do.
Lazlo> Elizer that is an example of extended parenting and pack behavior
<Simon> No, George! I'm not saying "evolution likes grandparents so we shouldn't have life extension!"
<Simon> I'm just talking about the hand we're dealt, not how we should play it.
<GeorgeD> ok
<Simon> Sorry if I sounded all Kassian.
<GeorgeD> I'm teasing.
<BJK> heh
<BJK> How long have you guys known each other?
<Simon> George and I?
<BJK> yes
<Simon> Just about two years.
<BJK> how so?
<GeorgeD> An interesting story,
<GeorgeD> Can I answer, Simon?
<Simon> But it feels as if some of our conversations have lasted at least that long
.
* BJK is all ears
<Simon> Go for it, George.
<GeorgeD> Actually, I'll tell my half, and then you can take over, Simon.
<GeorgeD> I wanted to establish a futurist organization in Toronto.
<GeorgeD> But I hadn't heard of Transhumanism yet.
<GeorgeD> I'm a latecomer.
<GeorgeD> I founded a small group of friends,
<GeorgeD> but it didn't work out,
<GeorgeD> so I bailed on the idea.,
<GeorgeD> But then I found the WTA and transhumanism,
<GeorgeD> and I wanted to establish a local chapter in TOronto.
<GeorgeD> Unfortunately, I was far too busy and emotionally drained (from unrelated affairs) to do so.
<GeorgeD> Then, surprisingly, Simon came on the lists asking for help to start a Toronto chapter,
<GeorgeD> and the rest is history. Simon, you go, girl.
<Simon> I'll jump in now.
* BJK claps
<Simon> I got really interested in transhumanism about two years ago.
<Simon> My experiments with humanism failed miserably.
<hkhenson> heh
<BJK> I remember reading..
<hkhenson> mine too
<Simon> I started Betterhumans as a hobby while working for an Internet startup that also flamed out. That left me with time. So I read and read about transhumanism and got involved with the WTA.
<hkhenson> once a cryonics booth in a humanist meeting got thrown out.
<Simon> Through the WTA I learned that George was in Toronto as well.
<Simon> (Keith: Nice
<Professor_McGibs> what is a "humanist"?
<PD> "experiments with humanism?"
<hkhenson> late 80s
<Mermaid> i want to know about the experiments with humanism
<Simon> James put us in touch, and we met for the first time in a train station.
<Mermaid> henson's too
<Simon> From there, we hit it off and decided to start working on both the TTA and Betterhumans together.
<GeorgeD> It's been awesome.
<GeorgeD> Simon's turned out to become one of my best friends.
<GeorgeD> Virtual hugs.
<BJKlein> something about how you had a conversation with a humanist about life extension.. and he harped on how immortaltiy was evil or such.. from which time you found transhumanist ideas more appropiate to your ideas?
<Lazlo> Is that like experiments on humanists? I don't think PETA would complain
<Simon> It was easy to recognize each other. "I'll be the guy with the shaved head writing in his Palm Pilot."
<Simon> Me too!
<PD> lol
<BJKlein> That's really touching guys
<Simon> Me?
<Simon> I've had lots of bad experiences with humanism.
<BJKlein> yes..
<Simon> I was raised in the Jewish faith.
<BJKlein> the humanist
<Simon> Kicked out religious school in grade seven.
<Simon> Started reading atheist literature.
<PD> I've always sort of though of myself as a humanist first and a transhumanist second.
<Simon> Started reading and subscribing to humanist magazines.
<Simon> Attended Toronto humanist meetings.
<hkhenson>
http://www.secularhu...org/home/kurtz/<Simon> Joined a Jewish humanist organization.
<Simon> (Cultural Judaism.)
<hkhenson> paul kurtz is the big name in humanism
<Simon> Well, all of it was sorely lacking in fulfilling my longing for something bigger.
<Simon> And humanism is very defeatist, in my opinion.
<hkhenson> I can understand that and agree with you.
<Mermaid> someone called me an antisemite once because i said that i dont believe in cultural judaism
<PD> How is that?
<Simon> Humanists are the ones who talk about zero population growth, rather than about finding the resources to raise the standard of living for all humans.
<hkhenson> they are like unitarians only if anything more into liberal guilt
<hkhenson> a lot of them are deathists.
<Mermaid> zero population growth is balance, no...deaths=births?
<Simon> Yes.
<Simon> But probe deeper and it's really about less births in Muslim and African countries.
<Simon> It's cloaked racism.
<hkhenson> true, but thats where the really high birth rates are
<GeorgeD> I think that intellectually and philosophically, the humanists are just a step or two behind the transhumanists. They just need to be versed in the New Technologies and the New Sciences, and many of them will be right there with us.
<Simon> I tried to tell some humanists about the energy we could derive from space if we only put some money there.
<Mermaid> high birth rates occur when society feels unstable
<PD> I don't think you should let your experiences with certain professed humanists color your perception of humanism in general. I mean most of the humanists I know are also some of the most intelligent people I know.
<Simon> And how all those brains could be trained to find solutions to problems caused by large populations.
<hkhenson> maybe . . . .
<GeorgeD> I agree, PD.
<Mermaid> i think population will stabilise with economic prosperity or at least eradication of crushing poverty and disease
<GeorgeD> Ben Hyjink of Chicago would agree with you.
<Simon> Okay, PD, true. But my experience with transhumanists has been far more positive.
<hkhenson> PD, humanism might be changing.
<hkhenson> but it was a really negative thing in the past
<Simon> Agreed. Someone mentioned the Brights. Perhaps a sign of where things are going.
<Lazlo> PD you are being rational and that is good but how often have you also encountered some kind of visceral response?
<BJK> Eventually, I'd like to get both of your views on AI and the Singularity
<hkhenson> very closed minded about a lot of things
<GeorgeD> Oh, I see, Simon. Traditionalist humanists would rather read kierkegaard than Moravec?
<PD> Actually, I think the brights are pretty bad idea.
<GeorgeD> AI & Singularity. Geez.
<Simon> From my experience, traditional humans would rather seek happiness by learning to accept human limitations instead of overcoming human limitations.
<BJK> preferably in that order ;p)
<Simon> humanists, that should be.
<PD> Well, I'd just as soon read Kierkegaard as Moravec. This is exactly what I was talking about.
<Simon> George, go ahead.
<GeorgeD> What specifically about AI and the Singularity. Kinda broad.
<BJK> right..
<BJK> let's start with timelines..
<BJK> to human level intelligence.. and then go from there
<GeorgeD> I'm right there with Kurzweil and his projections. He does his homework.
<BJK> so in 20yrs?
<GeorgeD> As for emulating human level-consciousness, it could take a bit longer.
<GeorgeD> 35-40 years.
<BJK> and the a Hard Take to Singularity?
<GeorgeD> The singularity still scares me.
<BJK> how so?
<GeorgeD> It's truly a social event horizon, and I'm really not sure what's going to happen afterwards.
<Professor_McGibs> probably abou t the same stuff that is happening now
<GeorgeD> I worry about what John Smart calls the emergence of computonium.
<BJK> do you think that somehow an AI will take over?
--
<Simon> Someone was telling him about advances in artificial intelligence, and then challenging his refutation of the possibility of AI.
<Simon> Hameroff leaned into the microphone and said simply:
<Simon> "Intelligence isn't consciousness."
<Simon> It's true. I think that we'll have artificial intelligence very soon. In fact, we have limited forms already.
<Simon> But we can have intelligence without consciousness, and this is perhaps a frightening prospect.
<Mind> So he is saing AI does not experience any level of consciousness....even now?
<kevin> E-mail spam blockers will be the first applications..
<Simon> Could a non-conscious artificial intelligence have empathy?
<GeorgeD> Mind, I would say yes.
<Lazlo> Too bad Till isn't here for this talk
<kevin>
<nemo> Human level AI will seem to have empathy, what else matters?
<GeorgeD> Well, we have to ask ourselves why we have the capacity for empathy.
<GeorgeD> Is it biological, or cultural, or both.
<Simon> Nemo, that's a question for Eliezer to answer.
<Eliezer> a non-conscious artificial intelligence could have empathy, but it might have trouble empathizing with someone conscious, or, in the process, might end up creating conscious subsystems, which is something I'd want to avoid; as a conscious being myself, if consciousness exists, I want it to be in charge - otherwise you have slavery
<Lazlo> true self awareness beyond solipcism
<Mind> We cannot even ascertain the level of conscioussness of animals and plants...how could he so confidently claim low-level AI does not experience some sort of consciousness
<Mind> ??
<Simon> As for the technological singularity, I'm convinced that there's a real phenomenon at work.
<Simon> And I'm as curious about *why* it's happening as I am about where it's taking us.
<nemo> If an AI cannot empathize with conscious entities, then it is not up to human level
<GeorgeD> Mind: read up on panpsychim and proto-panpsychism. You're deep into emergentist and functionalist thinking.
<Simon> Well, Hameroff makes the claim because he believes there's a biological basis for consciousness.
<hkhenson> shame hans moravec is not here.
<Lazlo> Human Selection is why it is happening in the short term but long term evolutionary processes may in fact be selecting for intelligence
<Simon> But his point goes deeper.
<hkhenson> google: Pigs in cyberspace
<googlebot> googling for Pigs in cyberspace
<googlebot>
http://www.primitivism.com/pigs.htm<GeorgeD> And of course, Mind, Quantum Consciousness theories.
<Mind> your dogding the question
<Simon> My computer is smarter than a cat, in my opinion, but it's less conscious.
<Simon> Sorry, Mind, who's dodging?
<hkhenson> the pigs paper is the result of me pulling hans' leg.
<kevin> Doesn't Hamerhoff believe that the brain is capable of referencing backward in time through quatum effects?
<kevin> *quantum
<Simon> Something like that. More simply, Hameroff believes that microtubules are able to interact with the quantum world in a way that gives rise to consciousness.
<Simon> But, yes, he does seem to believe in a universal quantum consciousness of sorts.
<Simon> George could give better answers here.
<GeorgeD> I can try. I'm no expert.
---
<GeorgeD> It's not running your standard software on standard hardware.,
<GeorgeD> Moreover,
<GeorgeD> Consciousness has a profound effect on the universe. The universe is dictated by the conscious observer.
<GeorgeD> Try coding that traditionally.
<kevin> true consciousness would have to be able to self-reference, look at itself, and I don't think an emulation using todays technologies would do it..
<Mind> Ok, I get the idea now George
<Eliezer> all computers are quantum computers
<Eliezer> some quantum computers are just very, very inefficient
<GeorgeD> Well,
<GeorgeD> my understanding is that the qubit is derived from neighboring universes.
<GeorgeD> I don't think my PIV here is doing that.
<Simon> Really, Eliezer? I thought that the difference was bits and qubits. My computer can only flip one of two ways.
<Simon> Please explain.
<nemo> Consciousness has a profound effect on the universe. <-- Does everyone here accept this?
<GeorgeD> This has been known since the days of Max Planck.
<GeorgeD> You can't avoid itl;
<GeorgeD> it
<Lazlo> I for one agree with that Nemo
<Eliezer> consciousness is a profound phenomenon that exists atop the ordinary laws of physics
<Eliezer> not a phenomenon on the same level as the laws of physics, or outside it
<Eliezer> consciousness is not needed to explain the so-called "collapse" of the wavefunction, and measuring instruments obey the same laws as everything else
<Eliezer> if you happen to be a many-worlds theorist, anyway
<GeorgeD> That's one interpretation.
<Lazlo> consciousness is applied will to the material universe that moves matter beyond the laws that normally governs it
<Simon> I think it's true. It's any interference from outside a closed quantum system, from my understanding, not just consciousness.
<Eliezer> anyway... all matter is made up of what you call "neighboring universes"
<Eliezer> an electron is a cloud of amplitudes
<Eliezer> neighboring universes, as you call them, are simply the stuff that stuff is made of - all stuff
<Eliezer> but in some cases the neighboring universes are used to perform very inefficient computations, which is what we call a "classical computer"
<Eliezer> for this you really need the concept of a configuration space
<GeorgeD> To me, one of the biggest mysteries still is how do we measure when an AI is conscious. I believe the Turing Test to be completely inadequate for this task.
<Simon> Okay, agreed. But if we were to keep making our classical computers smaller we would start to have completely unpredictable and useless quantum computers, so it's not just that they're inefficient.
<Eliezer> each possible set of all the positions that all the particles in the universe can have relative to one another, is a single point in configuration space
<Eliezer> all matter, all physics, works on clouds in configuration space - not points
<nemo> GeorgeD is correct, you cannot detect consciousness by observation
<Lazlo> When it starts asking questions about itself George that it wasn't programmed to sk
<GeorgeD> Hmmm.
<GeorgeD> That seems unsatisfying.
<nemo> consciousness is a complete red herring when it comes to discussions of AI, singularity and technology
<Eliezer> well, George, my reply to that would be: understand consciousness, look at the program, see if it's conscious. If you can't understand consciousness, then even if you devise a test that does in fact detect it with no false positives or negatives, you won't know it
<Lazlo> Who am I? What am I? ect. The same sort we do
<rav3n> [20:06] <Eliezer> each possible set of all the positions that all the particles in the universe can have relative to one another, is a single point in configuration space
<rav3n> [20:06] <Eliezer> all matter, all physics, works on clouds in configuration space - not points
<rav3n> whoops, sorry.
<Simon> Eliezer, I want to ask you two questions: 1) Can we have an advanced AI that isn't conscious and 2) If so, is this advisable?
* BJKlein Official Chat Over
<BJKlein> Simon and George are free to stay as long as they like...
<nemo> Simon and George were not free to leave before now?
<kevin>
<BJKlein> not at all
<GeorgeD> LOL. That's right.
<Simon> The electronic cuffs have been removed! Joy!
<BJKlein> AI mind Control is working.. muhaha
* nemo removes his mask...
<kevin> I can see that.. it's made it's way into a life-extension chat AG
<Simon> Since you all are here, can I ask a quick question.
<Simon> ?
<Lazlo> Before going on a joyride on the funway I have a topic related question please
<Lazlo> When I came in you were all still talking about the topic at hand, "media coverage." Is any coverage good coverage even if it is like what happened with Ted Williams and ALCOR? Aren't most people afraid of the idea that some will get to become a "priviledged techno-society" in power by virtue of enhanced ability they will either be deprived of or unwilling to adopt?
<Simon> Where would people like to see Betterhumans go?
<Eliezer> Simon: Answer to 1... yes, almost certainly, but if it's forbidden from employing computations that would regard themselves as conscious, it may not be able to accurately model conscious beings beyond a certain point
<Simon> Lazlo, I think the answer is no, not when
<Simon> the issues and topics are so new that bad media coverage can set them back.
<Simon> Eliezer: Translation, no consciousness no empathy?
<kevin> Simon: bad media coverage on cryonics will not equate with poor response to life-extension therapies
<Eliezer> Simon: Answer to 2... it is not advisable to create a conscious AI if you do not know exactly what you are doing, what it will mean for the AI, that the AI will be able to be happy; if you don't know explicitly how to create a non-conscious AI, you probably shouldn't create any AI for fear of it being conscious; if you aren't ready to create a conscious advanced AI, stick to non-advanced ones
<GeorgeD> I disagree: everytime Alcor hits the news, regardless of how it's interpreted, it's a good thing.
<Simon> Really? I think that Alcor would disagree.
<Lazlo> I only used teh ALCOR incident as a general example, but the overlap is unnavoidable in principle
<Eliezer> Simon: No, more like, if consciousness is *forbidden*, the AI will not be able to *deeply* empathize with conscious beings, because doing so would require it, or a subsystem thereof, becoming conscious
<GeorgeD> There's no such thing as bad publicity when you're already on the fringe.
<kevin> GeorgeD: I agree... people aren't even thinking about 'immortality'... a hammer to the head with ALCOR a few times wakes people up to the prospect at least
<GeorgeD> For every 10,000 people who mock Alcord,
<GeorgeD> there's someone who delves further into the issues.
<GeorgeD> Yes, Kevin.
<Lazlo> most of the coverage lately has actually been positive
<Eliezer> Alcor said they did *not* get any new signups as the result of the Ted Williams thing
<Simon> Ah, Eliezer, interesting. We don't want to make a non-conscious AI because it probably won't be able to empathize deeply, but we don't want to attempt making a conscious AI because it could suffer horribly. So in some ways, we're stuck, until we know exactly what consciousness is and how we can create it.
<Eliezer> right
<kevin> they didn't have that many before.. even I think twice about the current capability of cryonics to preserve my neural net...
<Simon> In case you're wondering, Eliezer, I'm not currently developing an AI.
<Lucifer> In case you are wondering, Simon, I am currently developing AI (
http://www.adaptiveai.com)
<Simon> Do you really think that people are more likely to consider the prospect of immortality given the case of Ted Williams?
<Simon> I don't think so.
<Simon> Now, perhaps when they hear about Cynthia Kenyon's work, they are more willing.
<GeorgeD> Who here reads Betterhumans on a regular basis?
<BJKlein> Simon, i think some are forced to ask why..
<BJKlein> and thus it's a good thing in general for immortalism
<Eliezer> I read the transhumantech summaries of Betterhumans on a regular basis
<GeorgeD> Cool.
<hkhenson> re alcor, that is kind of weird about ted williams.
<kevin> I have the feed on my website and read related articles on life-extension etc.
<Lucifer> I read betterhumans fairly regularly (look at it at least once a week)
<Simon> Lucifer, nice to meet you. I know about Adaptive A.I. Have you started educating yet?
<hkhenson> because alcor got many signups when they were accused of murder
* BJKlein hounds the Betterhumans site every other day or so..
<Simon> Hey, thanks
.
<BJKlein> tried to hack it once
<BJKlein> no luck
<GeorgeD> BJ & Eli, any suggestions?
<Lazlo> I have been looking in on your shiney head routinely too
<Lucifer> Simon, yes our AI is learning simple tasks (probably as we speak :-)
<hkhenson> funny story re hans moravec
<GeorgeD> Critical comments welcome.
<Simon> Yes.
<Simon> We're looking to expand.
<GeorgeD> *Check out the new-look Betterhumans tomorrow!
<Simon> Have some ideas.
<kevin> Is Betterhumans planning any follow-up coverage of the IABG conference of Aubreys Simon?
<Simon> (Note: New look home page and newsletters, anyway
<Simon> Good question, Kevin.
<Simon> Perhaps we can get in touch with Aubrey.
<kevin> always nice to move the furniture around for company
<Simon> One of our problems at this point is making content and revenue tie more closely together.
<kevin> If I might suggest making your news headlines a different color to stand out from the rest of the text..
<Simon> We'd love to pump out more content, but need to get the revenue streams kicked up a notch.
<kevin> they have gotten a bit lost with the last iteration
<GeorgeD> Kevin, hopefully the new layout addresses this.
<BJKlein> seems RSS is the new thing..
<Simon> We're looking at a few revenue streams:
<kevin> what revenue streams do you currently have..
<Simon> 1) Syndication.
<Simon> 2) Advertising.
<Simon> 3) Affiliate sales.
<Simon> 4) Product sales.
<Simon> 5) Events.
<Lazlo> Why are tranhumanists still tied to trying to make money the old fashioned way? T-Shirts, coffe mugs and accessorizing? Can't those of us that desire to define the future think out of the box?
<Simon> Right now, we're focusing on syndication.
<GeorgeD> Okay Lazlo, we're all ears.
* kevin laughs at Laz
<Simon> Lazlo, believe me we're not looking at t-shirts and coffee mugs.
<hkhenson> you get in trouble printing money.
<Lazlo> Start by developing a profit making side line and turn profits back into the company
<Simon> Agreed.
<GeorgeD> Yes, selling T-shirts and coffee mujgs.
<kevin> Syndication... explain for the uninitiated Simon?
<GeorgeD> Woops, sorry about the bol.
<Simon> Sure.
GeorgeD is ~Java@host64119105e8.fost.tor.futureway.com * irc.extropy.org
GeorgeD on #immortal
GeorgeD using irc.lucifer.com [127.0.0.1] Excalibur IRCd
GeorgeD has been idle 4secs, signed on Sun Sep 14 19:01:47
GeorgeD End of /WHOIS list.
<Simon> Once George stops yelling
.
<kevin>
<GeorgeD> test
<PD> Hello again.
<GeorgeD> Ah, better.
<PD> Did I miss much?
<Simon> We produce news articles that we publish on Betterhumans.com.
<BJKlein> PD, give me a pic and i'll tell ya
<kevin> gotchya. and sell them
<Lazlo> I propose an idea I have had for a while, I suggest a line of vending machines using a Paint program to define instant tatoos with a variety of image libraried and then an ability to design your own and save it.
<Simon> Producing original content is expensive, and most organizations can't afford to do it.
<PD> Bloody hell
<BJKlein> ;-)
<Simon> (By the way, my background is in journalism.)
<PD> I keep trying man!
<PD> I am like cursed.
<kevin> yup.. hence the same crap on every media outlet possible
---
<kevin> smart idea to keep your own content separate
<Simon> Apparently it's a rule of syndication: Always keep a minimum of 25% of your content out of licensing deals.
<Simon> You would all probably be shocked to know how much companies like Reuters were charging for a year's worth of news during the dot-com boom.
<Simon> You're looking at a US$30,000 to US$40,000 annual fee.
<Simon> I'm not sure what they're charging now.
<kevin> holy crap
<kevin> the question of 'accelerating change' with news..
<BJK> Simon, is PRweb worth the time you think? and are there other e-news pubs worth it
<Simon> Yes, and it *still* works out way cheaper for licensees, because they would have to pay one journalist that amount of money, and one journalist can't produce that much news. Economies of scale.
<Simon> PR Web has been very good for us.
<BJK> do you donate each time?
<GeorgeD> How do you know, Simon?
<Simon> A benefit is that the site is considered a high-ranking site by Google, so if you link to your own Website from a PR Web release Google will in turn increase your page ranking.
<GeorgeD> Ah, I see.
<Simon> I can answer both George's and BJ's questions at once:
* BJK nods
<John_Ventureville> these guys work together?
<John_Ventureville> lol
<Simon> Yes, we pay so that we can see the statistics on how many people read and print our releases.
<GeorgeD> LOL
<Simon> John, you'd be surprised how often George and I finish each other's sentences. Truly frightening
.
<BJK> any other media outlets or programs out there?
<John_Ventureville> : )
<Simon> You should also see us when we're out for dinner and talking about the singularity over Indian food.
<BJK> heh
<GeorgeD> Now *thats* funny.
<kevin> When is Betterhumans going to start moving into University publications?
<Simon> Hmm, good question.
<John_Ventureville> an extropian tradition is discussing the singularity over sushi
<Simon> We've had some inquiries about publishing some of our content in student newspapers.
<kevin>
---
<kevin> get on the local Univeristy radio stations
<Simon> For our recent event, Debating the Future, we did a ton of advertising -- print, direct marketing, etc.
<Simon> And we're getting quite a bit of media coverage.
<Lazlo> I have litterally had to call and make them sto giving me free publications as I don't want most items in print, I prefer online
<BJKlein> John_Ventureville.. any new news on Physical Immortality mag?
<Lazlo> stop, the newspaper kept calling me back with offers for ten weeks free and so on and were offended when I kept saying no please
<Simon> Yes, John, I'm curious as well. How's it going?
<kevin> I think that the messages of Betterhumans, ImmInst etc., need to be placed into Media's where people aren't 'searching'... much like the ALCO hammer to the head
<Lazlo> It is very nice I did request that one and I enjoyed it John thanks
<John_Ventureville> I'm back
<John_Ventureville> Lazlo: thanks!
<Simon> We're starting to get wider exposure.
<kevin> You guys ROCK.. Simon..
<John_Ventureville> we are still just getting started
<Simon> That's part of the syndication idea as well, by the way: Expand our outlets.
<kevin> I have placed Betterhumans as teh homepage of all the computers in my network..
<kevin> blue collar staff.. and they all love it
<BJKlein> like 35 computers?
<kevin> yup..
<GeorgeD> Wow, that's awesome!
<BJKlein> viral marketing heh
<kevin> we'll see how long it stays the homepage.
<kevin> you got it BJ
<Lazlo> and I think better than paper
<BJKlein> hack out the change homepage option
<PD> lol
<BJKlein> then tie them to their chair
<GeorgeD> BJ: When's your next special report for BH?
<kevin> but seriously... I think the 'vampire' fixation of people will soon be transferred to life-extension
<Simon> With their eyes propped open.
<kevin> LOL
<BJKlein> ah, give me an incentive eh GeorgeD
<John_Ventureville> vampire fixation?
<Lazlo> adolescent GOTH
<GeorgeD> ImmInst plastered on the front page, perhaps?
<kevin> popular culture.. movies.. exactly laz
* BJKlein pounds something out
<BJKlein> what would you like to know..
<Simon> George and I always joke that life extension is Betterhumans' sex. It sells.
<kevin> 'immortality' = "sex" would be a good message to get out there.
<kevin> psych simon
<Eliezer> lex sells
<John_Ventureville> sometimes immortals in film and print are seen as a sort of vampire in that they supposedly suck the life from the oncoming generations
<GeorgeD> Whatever -- industry stuff.
<kevin> how do we tie the next level of human development to procreation...
<kevin> hmmmm
<Lazlo> Highlander image too, mst are supercilious merciless killers
<BJKlein> i fear at times my ideas are to over the top for most..
<GeorgeD> Over the top at Betterhumans? You jest.
<Simon> Well, we can pull them back down to Earth anyway.
<kevin> I was just thinking that BJ.. you must be REALLY out there.
<Simon> Your interview with Peter was awesome, for example.
<John_Ventureville> I love the heavy metal theme song for the Highlander tv series
<John_Ventureville> *guilty pleasure*
<Lazlo> Too bad the guy who sings it is dead
<kevin> I think if we put all of what we thought was cool about the upcoming developments.. cool in a gut/instinctive sense.. it would make for some powerful imagery
<GeorgeD> "BJKlein on Tipler"
<BJKlein> sorta like an unvarnished baseball bat
<Simon> Okay, I think I have to cut out. Sometimes I worry that I'm getting addicted to the computer. Sorry, but I need a break, and then need to catch some sleep to make up for two nights of largely missing it.
<PD> I thought the theme to the tv series was a queen song.
<BJKlein> Ah, I have a sorta new metaphore for everyone..
<John_Ventureville> what kept you up?
<Simon> Thanks for having me on today.
<GeorgeD> I'm going to exit, too.
<Eliezer> no problem, you were great, just don't come back
<GeorgeD> It was a pleasure chatting with all of you today. Tx BJ for having us.
<John_Ventureville> goodnight gentlemen
<BJKlein> think of Life Extension as the Titanic and Immortalist as dolphins...
<Lazlo> Freddy Mercury is dead and yes, good noght guys it ihas been a pleasure
<Simon> Thanks Eliezer
.
<John_Ventureville> *and the luddites as Japanese fishermen!!*
<kevin> cya boys.
<BJKlein> Thanks !
<Simon> Ciao, all. Keep in touch.
<BJKlein> feel free to hang out anytime
<Lazlo> you too Simon
<John_Ventureville> stay warm
<Simon> Will do.
<hkhenson> do you all know the story of hans moravec and his pigs in cyberspace?
<Simon> Have a good night.
<PD> Which story is that
<kevin> uhm.. nope hk. but please.. continue
<John_Ventureville> nope
<hkhenson> happened at the first artificial life conf.
<hkhenson> 1986 Los Alamos
<hkhenson> Hans had the manuscript of mind children with him.
<hkhenson> and was raving on about it.
<hkhenson> I stopped him
<hkhenson> and said "Hans, do you realize how unlike it is that this is the first time we have had this conversation?"
--
<hkhenson> thus the chances were low this was the first time we had talked about the exact topic.
-ChanServ- Welcome to the moderated chat of the Immortality Institute :: PLEASE READ
http://www.imminst.org/chatrules <hkhenson> Hans had a great epiphany over this leg pulling
<hkhenson> and among other things wrote the pigs in cyberspace article.
<hkhenson> sort of a matrix argument . . . .
<PD> I don't really remember pigs and cyberspace too well. I take he stuck this epiphany into it?
<hkhenson> google: pigs in cyberspace moravec
<googlebot> googling for pigs in cyberspace moravec
<googlebot>
http://www.primitivism.com/pigs.htm<hkhenson> that's it.
<PD> lol
<PD> primitivism.com
<hkhenson> robin hanson was deeply effected too
<PD> Interesting host.
<hkhenson> and one of his very bright friends as well.
<PD> I can't click the links in chat. I've got google popup blocker on. :(
<hkhenson> one could say this has the proper characteristics for a religion
