<BJKlein> OFFICIAL CHAT BEGINS NOW
<Nus> Whoa!
<BJKlein> Immortality Institute
<BJKlein> Chat Sept. 22, 2002
<BJKlein> "Ethics & Immortality"
<BJKlein> ETHICS
<BJKlein> eth•ic (eth'ik) n.
<BJKlein> 1. A set of principles of right conduct.
<BJKlein> 2. A theory or a system of moral values
<BJKlein> [The American Heritage® Dictionary]
<BJKlein> When talking about ethics and immortality, we often raise more questions than answered. The subjective nature of the topic accounts for this; but more importantly, there is little precedents for the discussion.
<BJKlein> Hence, the topic of this chat and one of the goals of the Institute will be to hash out a code of ethics or principles for the prospect of human physical immortality.
<EmilG> Hey.
<BJKlein> i'll be finished in just a sec
<Davidov> Oh yeah
<BJKlein> let me start off the topic
<BJKlein> and i'll open it up to debate
<Gordon> I think you can issue a command to shut us up
<Davidov> lol
<BJKlein> naw... you dont have to shut up.. just hold it down
<Ziana> lol
<BJKlein> heh, (Continued)
<BJKlein> I'll be the first to say we may just be spitting in the wind here. It could be that any effort involved in thinking about ethics appear like so much soap opera silliness in the future. When and if we succeed in creating smarter than human intelligence, it may be found that human ethics are useless.
<BJKlein> Even with these misgivings, the effort is justified in my mind by the potential benefit of helping someone out there learn more about immortality.
<BJKlein> I believe the ultimate success of an ethical guideline, if there is such a thing, will be the ability of the guideline to change and improve over time as we improve.
<BJKlein> .
<BJKlein> Max More, who has put much more thought into this than I, says it best. He has outlined seven Extropian Principles: http://www.extropy.o...principles.html
<BJKlein> 1. Perpetual Progress
<BJKlein> 2. Self-Transformation
<BJKlein> 3. Practical Optimism
<BJKlein> 4. Intelligent Technology
<BJKlein> 5. Open Society
<BJKlein> 6. Self-Direction
<BJKlein> 7. Rational Thinking
<BJKlein> Max said:
<BJKlein> "These Principles are not presented as absolute truths or universal values. The Principles codify and express those attitudes and approaches affirmed by those who describe themselves as "Extropian". Extropian thinking offers a basic framework for thinking about the human condition. This document deliberately does not specify particular beliefs, technologies, or conclusions. These Principles merely define an evolving framework for approaching life in a rational, effective manner unencumbered by dogmas that cannot survive scientific or philosophical criticism. "
<Nus> That didn't come through entirely
<BJKlein> Extropian thinking offers a basic framework for thinking about the human condition. This document deliberately does not specify particular beliefs, technologies, or conclusions. These Principles merely define an evolving framework for approaching life in a rational, effective manner unencumbered by dogmas that cannot survive scientific or philosophical criticism. "
<BJKlein> there?
<Nus> yep
<BJKlein> Ahh, Thank You.
<BJKlein> I think the Institute can borrow some of the concepts from Extropy plus add a few more that are important to our goal of Immortality...
<BJKlein> I've thought of a couple of examples, which I'll post now. Then we can open it up for discussion
<BJKlein> 1. Individuals have the right to live forever.
<BJKlein> Example: Governments, Environmentalists, Religions require people to die when aging and growing populations seem to threat to their existence.
<BJKlein> 2. Individuals do not have to die for an ideology, institution, organization, or country, etc.
<BJKlein> Examples: Military draft, the death penalty, working to “death” for a company.
<BJKlein> oky... That's it
<BJKlein> Thanks for listening...
<MichaelA> You might say "right not to die"
<BJKlein> ok
<chronophasiac> BJ, it would seem to me that those are both specific instances of the right to nonviolation of volition
<MichaelA> They are, but it's good to reemphasize
<BJKlein> so you think it's to specific?
<Ziana> "individuals have the right to choose not to die for..." would seem to be more encompassing, because some people might want to choose to
<Nus> Not to be too philosophical, but what does it mean for an individual to live forever?
<chronophasiac> i think immortality is on an equal level with all other specific instances of nonviolation of volition
<BJKlein> right.. we'll need to alow for choice
* MichaelA thinks "forever' should be avoided for just the reason Nus is illustrating
<BJKlein> oky
<MichaelA> "Forever" raises too many philosophical questions
* Nus did not mean "forever" but identity of the individual
<MichaelA> For a newcomer anyway
<MichaelA> What can't project right now what it means for ourselves to live forever because we don't know how our definition of "ourselves" will change in the future
<Nus> I would even say there can be no such definition.
<MichaelA> I would say that the definition is largely contingent on what the consensus is and what an individual's personal belief is
<chronophasiac> nus, the causal chain that links an individual's life into one string is preserved no matter how long you stretch that string through time
<Nus> All immortalism can hope to do is make sure something with certain characteristics lives forever, and whether we call it one individual that has lived forever or a series of individuals that live and are reborn is arbitrary
<Nus> chronophasiac: causal chain?
<BJKlein> both great points
<MichaelA> The only "certain characteristics" I can think of right now would be some sort of dynamic change which includes psychological continuity
<chronophasiac> nus, you are not a noun; you are an adjective
<Nus> But what adjective?
<Nus> Arbitrary.
<chronophasiac> anything that behaves in a "nus-ish" way
<Nus> How "nus-ish"? Completely like me in all ways? Very vaguely like me?
<chronophasiac> (this is a total ripoff of a john k. clark quote, btw)
<MichaelA> I think that thought experiment can only go so far
<Nus> Are all beings in my future light cone with more or less the same personality as me, me?
<MichaelA> Calling yourself an adjective is far too restrictive also, of course
<Eliezer> I don't think that humans can have "rights" to getting certain things from the universe
<Eliezer> Only to getting them from other humans
* Nus is an adverb
<Eliezer> You cannot have a "right" to freedom from hunger
<Eliezer> You might have a "right" to take away someone else's hamburger and eat it yourself
<Eliezer> Or you might not have that right
<Eliezer> Or you might have a right to ask a Friendly SI to make you a hamburger
<Eliezer> but the universe isn't a game-theoretical agents
<Eliezer> *agent
<Eliezer> you can't have rights that apply to it
<Eliezer> IMHO
* Nus agrees
<BJKlein> what if someone is trying to kill you
<MichaelA> You can anthropomorphically model the universe as a game theoretical agent ^^
<Nus> Universe Man, Universe Man...
<chronophasiac> eliezer, "rights" might actually exist if objective morality exists
<Eliezer> true
<Gordon> haha, Eli wrote IM*H*O
<MichaelA> Since most humans do anyway, it's often memetically relevant to speak of human-generated rights as universal rights anyway
* Nus thinks that if objective morality exists, rights will not enter into it.
* Eliezer says to BJKlein: "Then you have a right not to be killed."
<BJKlein> would I not have the individual right not to be killeed
<BJKlein> yes
* Eliezer says to Nus: "I agree, but chrono said *might* and I agree with that."
* Nus agrees, then.
* Eliezer says to BJKlein: "Actually, I should say: You have a right not to be killed by humans. If you think you have a right not to be killed by old age, you're going to have to prove it."
<BJKlein> My DNA is trying to kill me, I have a right to overcome my DNA
<BJKlein> or the evolutionary coding that many call "Nature" or the "Natural Cycle" of life
<Eliezer> Evolution is not a game-theoretical agent
<Nus> You have the right to try.
<Eliezer> Yes, you have the right to try
<BJKlein> however, as you suggest there is not a moral ethical framework to the universe
<Eliezer> You have the moral right to engage in immortality research without interference by others who believe you should die
<Gordon> and a right to cry :'(
<Eliezer> that's a "right"
<BJKlein> Does Might make Right?
<Eliezer> no
<Eliezer> but it sure makes what Is
<MichaelA> The right people only win through memetic might anyway
<BJKlein> What makes a right a right anyway?
<Utnapishtim> 12BJ Rationality
<chronophasiac> well, that represents technological limitations in this particular slice of pre-Singularity time, michael
<MichaelA> And if something "isn't right" that just means the minds in question are having friction with the way things are and that applies a societal design pressure
<BJKlein> What it means to each individual? or group? what each of us says is important?
<Ziana> hiya
<Eliezer> you're analyzing in purely memetic terms things that I would grant genuine ethical validity
<MichaelA> I would be more all-encompassing and say "computational limitations"
<Mind> Hello everyone
<MichaelA> Hi Mind
<Utnapishtim> Hey Mind
<Eliezer> there's a reason why certain things are memetically appealing or unappealing, and that reason is that they are ethical or unethical
<BJKlein> Mind: Topic - Ethics and Immortality
<MichaelA> How is than nontautological?
<Mind> Thanks BJ
<Nus> how is it tautological?
<BJKlein> good question MichaelA.. "Repetion"
<MichaelA> that*
<BJKlein> Sorted by :
<BJKlein> Relevance Title Description
<BJKlein> Alternatives for your query
<BJKlein> tautological
<BJKlein> tautology
<BJKlein> tautological
<BJKlein> tautology
<BJKlein> tautological
<BJKlein> tautology
<BJKlein> tautological
<BJKlein> adjective
<BJKlein> Characterized by repetition and excessive wordiness :
<BJKlein> ouch ... disregard
<Eliezer> <BJKlein> Characterized by repetition and excessive wordiness :
<MichaelA> Well it depends on whether you view "what is ethical" as defined by memetic appeal or by something else
<Nus> heh
<Eliezer> something else, Michael
<Ziana> now there's some irony ;-)
<Eliezer> something waaay else
<BJKlein> lol Ziana
<Gordon> well, things that are appealing or unappealing are only so because they fit human morals, not necessarily because they are right
<MichaelA> Ok, so it's our responsibility to say "what else" and show why it's bigger and better than the whims of individual humans
<Nus> If ethical means the same as "appealing" then there is no reason why it would also have to mean that it is actually what you should do.
<MichaelA> They don't have to be perfectly parallel at all
<Gordon> Nus: it is ethical for you to have sex with every woman on the planet: GO! GO! GO!
<Ziana> lol
<Eliezer> yeah, but Gordon, while human morals sometimes have nothing to do with ethics, sometimes they DO
<Utnapishtim> lol
<Gordon> agreed
<Nus> alright, "what you are not forbidden not to do".
<Gordon> just pointing out that it doesn't follow; there's only occasional correlation
<Nus> *not forbidden to do.
<MichaelA> A set of ethics can simply be an ideal, a goal that represents the direction the societal design force is headed towards, but it can be a local well and not necessarily an immutable constant
<Nus> I couldn't fail to refrain from not disagreeing with you less.
<Utnapishtim> I'm getting a headache
<BJKlein> Well, let me ask this: Should we even write up principles and ethics?
* MichaelA counts 5 operations in that sentence
<MichaelA> BJ: yes
<BJKlein> Will it make a difference?
<MichaelA> I personally like the idea
<Utnapishtim> Define we
<BJKlein> II
<Mind> I feel humans have developed a fairly good set of ethics...but it can be improved upon
<Gordon> Mind: dramatically so
<MichaelA> But Mind, you just think that because you don't know what better-than-human ethics are like
<BJKlein> We = ImmInst
<Mind> If anyone should be talking about it and doing the "improving" it should be us
<Utnapishtim> thank you
<Ziana> mind- which humans? there's far from one completely standard set of ethics ;-)
<Mind> I am just saying - overall
<Mind> as an average
<Eliezer> all right, Anissimov, what would you call the set of heuristics that humans have developed because of the evolutionary utility to avoiding certain antisocial actions whose long-term negative payoff was not immediately obvious to those ancestral humans?
<Utnapishtim> I think we want to make sure we don't create ideology
<Gordon> normative humans
<Eliezer> in other words, why do people not cheat in the Prisoner's Dilemna?
<Eliezer> I call that "ethics" and consider it to be an extremely important part of morality
<MichaelA> I would call that morality and ethics
<BJKlein> Eliezer: Christianity, Islam
<BJKlein> 2000 yrs of suffering
<Nus> I wouldn't call it morality
<Nus> morality has deeper questions.
<MichaelA> An approximation of morality..?
<Nus> no,
<Nus> ethics is a set of heuristics that makes things work better, but I would call "morality" the question: toward what should these things work? What are the goals, instead of what heuristics work better to certain goals.
<Nus> *?
<Eliezer> well, the point, Michael, is that you are describing as "memetic" certain things that I would describe as "ethical" first and "memetic" second - things that are memetically negative *because* they are ethically negative, and hence of genuine concern
<MichaelA> How can you ever know for sure, if you could always be in a simulation
<Nus> Know what for sure?
<Nus> And why couldn't you deduce from first principles that you're not in a simulation?
<MichaelA> Well I take for granted the fact that memetic trends have formed around a preexisting ethical framework
<MichaelA> If I wanted to be especially clear, I would say what you said
<MichaelA> Memetic things are always of genuine concern, and there's a whole spectrum of attention that should be paid to various arguments which depends on how genuine they really are
<MichaelA> moral arguments*
<BJKlein> Ok, I'm an Immortalist, and I want to show my good friend a few of the ideas I have about Immortality.... what could I show him?
<BJKlein> 1. I have the right not to die.
<Eliezer> 1. I believe that death is wrong and we should do something about it.
<Mind> death=bad
<Mind> life=good
<Gordon> MichaelA: I think that memes have much less effect than you think they do
<MichaelA> 2. Immortality is inevitable so it should be prepared for?
<Utnapishtim> The primacy existing life has over potential life
<Mind> that is an interesting one
<Nus> I don't think it has any primacy
<Nus> there should be moral symmetry between the existing and the potential.
<MichaelA> How much effect do I think they have? I know that behavioral is primarily dictated by genetic origins
<BJKlein> 2. Immortlaity is a real potential, thus should be prepared for.
<MichaelA> Maybe we just think of different things when we say "meme"
<Mind> it is inevitable
<Utnapishtim> Nus Perhaps that was badly put
<Nus> 1. Immortality is desirable; 2. Immortality is possible (probable, inevitable)
<Nus> or maybe switched around
<Nus> it isn't inevitable though, not at all
<Utnapishtim> Nus: Basically I am saying that hypothetical future peoples needs can not infringe upon my right to exist
<Gordon> Michael: you seem to be implying that regular memetic propagation can get you thinking > 3 standard deviations from normative human thought
<MichaelA> 3. Whether or not we want to become immortal personally, there's a responsibility to cushion the potential impact of radical life-extension on our society?
<BJKlein> I tend to agree with Nus, It's not inevitable, just a potential.
<MichaelA> Gordon: " > 3"?
<Utnapishtim> Michael: I ENTIRELY agree with your third point as you know
<Mind> The big problem is distributing radical life-extension evenly to everyone
<Nus> Utnap: I think maybe they can, but I think such arguments have always been nonsense because resources are much vaster than the people making the argument imagine
<Gordon> more than 3 standard deviations from normative human thought
<Mind> I can see this being a tough period in human history
<Utnapishtim> I think the need to cushion the potential impact of radical life extension is of primary importance
<MichaelA> Gordon: Well I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that, and I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "3 standard deviations", either
<Mind> Since so many die every minute
<Gordon> there's a spectrum of human thought and behavior
<MichaelA> The problem of distributing radical life-extension evenly to everyone is where nanotechnology and IA/AI come in
<Gordon> with normative human thought at the center of this spectrum
<Nus> Yes, and there are actually many more people not born every minute than people who die every minute
<Gordon> given a normal distribution, > 3 s.d. is basically statistically not normal
<MichaelA> hm, I didn't know that specific statistical fact, then, but I understand what you mean
<Eliezer> Gordon, that statement makes very little sense to me
<Nus> How many are outside of 3 SD again? .3%, something like that?
<BJKlein> BTW, all that help with this will get credit
<Eliezer> > 3 s.d. is > 3 s.d.
<BJKlein> 3. Immortality is desirable... because??
<Gordon> if something is that far out, it is generally considered statistically significant
<Gordon> so, for example, if we took human mind X
<Utnapishtim> the prospect of nonexistence is intolerable?
<Nus> for the same reason life is desirable, if any.
<Gordon> if X were more than 3 s.d. out on the spectrum of human thought, we could say that is most certainly different from normative human thought
<Mind> back to the point about existing life...we already take resources from potential life for our entire life....so I don't see that as being an issue once we are immortal
<Mind> We will not be stopping potential life from existing
<Gordon> and I was disagreeing with Michael (who, it turns out, agrees with me) that memes are not sufficient to move a mind that far out
<Nus> Right
<Mind> just living longer
<MichaelA> Why would I argue that memes can bend our neurology, or whatever
<Nus> Anything we use up now is far outweighed by increasing probability that we go posthuman at all.
<MichaelA> That would just be silly
<Gordon> well, not bend neurology necessarily
<Mind> Nus...just to read you correctly...you are saying that even if the probability immortality is small it is worth the resources we are currently using
<Nus> more or less;
<Mind> sorry for the bad grammar
<Mind> I agree with that
<Mind> anyone else agree
<Nus> I'm saying future generations can't blame us for using up too many resources, because it matters much more whether we go posthuman at all, or go extinct.
<Utnapishtim> Nus: Yes
<Nus> tens of orders of magnitude.
<Mind> do we agree that the resources we are using now are "worth it", even if it retards potential life a bit
* Gordon is sure some posthuman revisionist historian will think otherwise
<Mind> lol
<Utnapishtim> A world in which half the population are living in utter poverty is unsustainable
<Mind> *hjksfdg
<Mind> sorry
<BJKlein> OK.... I'll post here what I have so far... Please let me know if you'd like your name attached to "Ethic of Immortality" for your help....
<Nus> Ofcourse, some resources used don't actually contribute to useful goals.
<Nus> Though most do.
<Utnapishtim> therefore we have to arrive at a realistic sustainability
<BJKlein> 1. Immortlaity is a real potential, thus should be prepared for.There's a responsibility to cushion the potential impact of radical life-extension on our society MA NUS
<BJKlein> 2. Death is wrong because the prospect of nonexistence is intolerable. UTN, EY
<BJKlein> Help From MA, NUS, EY, UTN, GOR, MIND, Z
<Utnapishtim> this requires the use of more resources in the interrim
<BJKlein> I'll flesh out more as I go along.. I will not publish anything to the web until everyone gets an email
<MichaelA> Manus = fusion form of me and Nus
<Mind> The percentage of people in poverty is declining...so we must be doing something right
<Nus> You'd have to explain why the prospect of nonexistence is intolerable.
<Nus> lol
<MichaelA> When we need to battle extreme enemies :D
<Nus> (re: Manus)
<Nus> We'll do a transformer-like thing
<MichaelA> Yea, whatever suits our fancy at the time
<MichaelA> We can have a variety of different fusion styles, some of which with hilarious side effects
<Nus> or if it's a really big enemy, we could form Manuseyutngormindz.
<Mind> not sure about the wording of intolerable....
<Utnapishtim> lol
<MichaelA> If we can summon the power to do such a forbidden action
* MichaelA afks for a bit of food
<Utnapishtim> NUS: That would be one expensive toy. you'd need to have rich parents to get that one
<SingularityMinion1> Manus is inferior
<Nus> Manuseyutngormindz, whose name must not be mentioned.
<SingularityMinion1> Manus has only two
<Mind> I would say something along the lines of...death is preventable so we should spend more resources trying to end it (death)
<SingularityMinion1> SingularityMinion is all
<BJKlein> k Mind
<SingularityMinion1> you must join SingularityMinion
<Mind> I feel like...if I can help people not die...it should be a high priority in my life
<Utnapishtim> Aging is the worlds biggest killer
<SingularityMinion1> yes, you, not that other guy; you
<Davidov> Must? Uh oh.
<Gordon> okay, anyway, back to the chat
<Nus> Actually, death is
<BJKlein> lol
<Ziana> lol
<Mind> Right now I am trying mostly to spread the word about balanced diet and exercise to more people
<Utnapishtim> Nus: Death is the condition of being dead not a cause per se
<Utnapishtim> can soemthing be its own cause?
<BJKlein> actually it's Heart Disease
<Nus> True, heh
<Mind> Spreading info about current research is also helpful
<Davidov> You know, Mcdonald's and the like should be outlawed just as much as alcohol is
<Utnapishtim> Davidov: What?
<chronophasiac> it seems this is all fairly developed-world centric thinking. lets not forget that the majority of humanity lives in the third world
<Mind> Now that is quite an interesting ethical statement Davidov
<chronophasiac> where the major killers are hunger and easily preventable diseases such as malaria
<Davidov> Well, consider that Mcdonalds kills just as much as cigs do, if not more.
<Utnapishtim> Chronoplastic: The best way to help the tird world is to harness the greed of the developed one
<nrv8> conan is greatt
<Utnapishtim> Davidov: People make dietary choices
<Mind> Hunger is easily preventable....just need to spread more democracy around the world
<Utnapishtim> autonomy of the individual
<BJKlein> yep, and Cokes with 35 grams of sugar.. Diabetes is turning out the be the nuber one epidemic in the next few decades
<Gordon> is he on Comedy Central right now?
<Davidov> Yeah, but we should be able to sue Mcdonalds because it could've killed people just much as cigs have
<nrv8> he's hosting the emmy awards..
<nrv8>
<nrv8> sooooo funny
<Mind> There is no intent with the actions of McDonalds though
<Nus> the barbarian?
<Utnapishtim> Personal responsibility. I do not need to live in an idiot proof world
<Mind> they are just really great at giving people what theu like to eat
<Gordon> huh, what network is it on
<nrv8> nbc
<Utnapishtim> You would need to prove that Mcdonalds is harmful when eaten in moderation
Gordon is ~Gordon@132.170.40.110 * redbird
Gordon on #immortal #sl4
Gordon using irc.lucifer.com [127.0.0.1] Excalibur IRCd
Gordon has been idle 25secs, signed on Sun Sep 22 18:48:40
Gordon End of /WHOIS list.
<Gordon> oh, I see
<paledream> =
<Mind> McDonald's does not plot to kill people
<paledream> hello
<Nus> you don't know that.
<Gordon> I thought a show was on because they were showing clips
<Mind> just giving them what they want
<BJKlein> Welcome Back paledream
<Ziana> hiya
<Mind> hi paledream
<paledream> thanks :o)
<paledream> hellos Mind
<Utnapishtim> Mcdonalds: If the world became more health conscious Mcdonalds would shift over to fast food salads
<Mind> you got it
<Gordon> wohoo, Connan, who is already the man, is now even more the man
<chronophasiac> consensuality should never be criminalized. our society is already way too far in that direction. go eat mcdonald's and kill yourself slowly if you want
<BJKlein> paledream you missed the main chat.. I'll post to the Archives a little later.
<Mind> they would give people what they want...if they wanted health food...everyone would sing the praises of McDonald's
<Gordon> Connan is the funniest thing around right now
<paledream> oh, darn, i thought it was 8pm
<paledream> :o/
<BJKlein>
<Ziana> it is in one timezone... but not the one the chat is scheduled by ;-)
<BJKlein> where are you located paledream
<paledream> ah. i see :>
<paledream> o.o
<Mind> This McDonald's thing also ties into ethics...with the potential for immortality...people should be able to CHOOSE when or if they want to die.
<paledream> i'm located in central
<chronophasiac> mind, as i said the argument for immortality is just a subset of the argument for *nonviolation of volition*
