• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Chat For Sun Oct 13, 2002


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 14 October 2002 - 01:04 AM


<BJKlein> OFFICAL CHAT
<BJKlein> Begins Now
<BJKlein> Topic: Immortality: AI & Uploading vs. Biological Upgrading
<BJKlein> Caveat: The following ideas are a little disjointed and ad hock as my grasp of the subject matter is not exactly impressive. I'm learning. Thanks for joining us for the Immortality Institute's weekly chat. Be sure to check out the forums for more in-depth debate: http:www.imminst.org.
*** Retrieving #immortal info...
<BJKlein> http://www.imminst.org
<BJKlein> I'll begin this chat with a little monologue, and then open it up to discussion.
<BJKlein> When it comes augmentation, transhumanization, and immortality, the debate rages at to which method should/could be used to safely upgrade our bodies.
<BJKlein> It’s true that bodily augmentation is here now... organ transplants, device implants, artificial hearts, plastic surgery, to name a few. But these are only band aids. The fundamental problem is the disease of aging. Every cell in our body is programmed to die
<BJKlein> If there's one thing Immortalists do agree upon, it's that we can't simply let the status quo continue for more than a few decades. The accumulation of genetic garbage over and the inevitable shortening of telomere caps ensure a lifespan of no longer than 130 years.
<BJKlein> So, the relevant question remains… what do we do to overcome the problem of aging and death? How best can we protect life and health over time?
<BJKlein> There are two sides to the debate, among others, I’m sure, those who want to keep their biological bodies and those that wish to upload their consciousness to a more durable substrate. For sake of brevity, I'm in the uploading camp.
<BJKlein> I believe that staying inside a water and bones bag is about as safe as Osama Bin ladin walking around downtown New York.
<BJKlein> An augmented physical body may survive for a few hundred years, but the risk of bodily injury and existential threats to life will eventually take their toll.
<BJKlein> Therefore, I'm a fan of uploading. I believe we can upload consciousness to a more reliable and durable substrate.
<BJKlein> There I’ll have the option of networking, intelligence enhancement, and backups. To me uploading is the only long-term option that makes any sense.
<BJKlein> Thanks for listening! Now we’re open for discussion ?
<BJKlein> ;)
<MRAmes> On the question of AI & Uploading vs. Biological Upgrading: IMO - If Bio-Upgrading somes first, Uploading will quickly subsume Bio-Upgrading as soon as it becomes available.
<MitchH> I would like to point out that no matter what you plan on doing, greater intelligence will make you more capable of doing it. AI is, therefore, the right answer -- but not neccessarily in the same category as bio vs. artificial
<MRAmes> Uploading has to the many advantages, including: speed, backups, easier self-mod, mind-melding with others, etc.
<Mind> I feel like uploading will quickly lead to some sort of AI...so it might be knid of a moot point
<MRAmes> I would personally like my bio-body to stick around for a while... so I can visit it. :) Sounds a bit goulish I know, but that's what I would prefer.
<Mind> Me too
<MRAmes> I can always discard the 'bag of water' later.
<MitchH> With Friendly AI in the picture, your bio-body can probably be made much safer.
<MRAmes> Aye.
<Mind> Aye
<Utnapishtim> I am really not in a rush to switch substrates as long as the current one can be made more durable
<MRAmes> I don't just want 'more durable', I want *indestructable*.
<Mind> I do not think we should forsake AI research in favor of uploading
<MitchH> But if it's just a long-term static, physical substantiation you're going for, you might be interested in an artificial body in a real environment, i.e. Gleisner bodies from Egan's *Diaspora*
<MRAmes> MitchH: Indeed. There were several things I found attractive about such a scenario. But I cannot see myself sticking with a Gliesner body for very long.
<MRAmes> At least, not all copies of me.
<BJKlein> There one that get
<BJKlein> gets me everytime... copies
<MRAmes> Ha.
<MRAmes> First chance I get!
<BJKlein> There's somethig in my brain that does not let me grasp the concept easily.. EvPsy
<MRAmes> BJK: Perhaps its time for a near-death experience... hmm?
<Eliezer> not direct EvPsy
<Eliezer> emergent result of EvPsy
<MitchH> Yes, immortality through copies is almost like immortality "in principle" -- like a large granite monument. Some do not find it comforting to know that, if they die, someone exactly like them will carry on in their stead.
<Eliezer> you've spent the last 7 million years being one person
<Eliezer> you have a lot of built-in assumptions structured around it
<MRAmes> MitchH: Depends how sync'ed-up your copies are.
<MRAmes> MitchH: If you are fully sync-ed during the death process, then - it'll be one hell of a ride!
<MitchH> Unless your concsciousness is "shared" at the point of death, it doesn't matter, subjectively, to the one dying.
<BJKlein> Is there a speed limit to intelligence augmentaion?
<MRAmes> Speed limit? Explain.
<BJKlein> how fast can I become smarter?
<BJKlein> how fast can I upgrade or add to my core intelligence before I loose identity?
<MRAmes> As long as intelligence is linked to slow bio-neurons, then: you bet there is a speed limit.
<Eliezer> depends what you choose to consider your identity
<Eliezer> though how much "flex" there is in that decision, I don't know
<MRAmes> In the .2 seconds it takes my neurons to think of the next thing to type, I could have lived a whole chat on a faster substrate.
<Ziana> only if everyone else you were chatting with was on that same speed of substrate, of course ;-)
<BJKlein> I'm different from the person from 10 yrs ago... a little smarter... but still Bruce
<MRAmes> Ziana: Aye.
<Eliezer> There might be a unique definition of identity continuity so obvious that it might as well be an objective fact. Or not.
<Eliezer> If not, then "Who am I?" is a question *you're* going to have to answer, and that answer will determine the speed limit, if any
<MRAmes> BJK: Yeah. I believe that I am different too (from myself 10 years ago), and constantly changing.
<BJKlein> the definiton of "identity" seems to me to be the most important issue.. in terms of Immortaltiy and augmentation.
<MRAmes> BJKlien: Or "identity continuity" perhaps?
<BJKlein> yes... more precisely
<MRAmes> okay. I can dig that.
<BJKlein> So, Who are you? Who am I?
<Gordon> there is identity discontinuity
<BJKlein> What is it that make me different from a brick?
<BJKlein> different from a someone who is dead?
<MRAmes> You *want* to live.
<MRAmes> That's it.
<BJKlein> What is "wanting" ?
<MRAmes> Just a program.
<BJKlein> This kinda ties into the ol' free will game
<MRAmes> Ha!
<Eliezer> Wanting to live is why he deserves to live, but it doesn't explain what "living" is defined as
<Iggy> Ziana, glad to see you are here!
<Ziana> hiya
<MRAmes> Eli: yep. But its a good start.
<Ziana> going afk for ~30min, actually... ;-)
<MitchH> life, consciousness, sentience -- all traits that exist on a sliding scale, imo. It is easy to categorize entities near the extremes, but hard to define the exact boundaries.
<Iggy> What's been cooking? Just read the e-mail about the chat and thought I'd drop in. What has been going on here? Anyone is offering an elicsir for eternal life yet?
* BJKlein looks into a mirror and sees a monkey in a shirt.... nothing more impressive than dog that can talk..
<MRAmes> Living is a complicated thing, and intelligence is even more complicated. Defining them *shouldn't* be easy.
<BJKlein> Iggy... welcome.. Topic:
<BJKlein> Topic: Immortality: AI & Uploading vs. Biological Upgrading
<BJKlein> BTW, before I forget.. any suggestions for next weeks chat?
<MRAmes> MitchH: IRT 'sliding scale'. I agree whole heartedly. And thus tend to de-emphasize the differences between Humans and Canines... even bugs.
<BJKlein> Well, I wonder if we'll ever come to understand consciousnes and life as we understand the laws of physics..
<MitchH> indeed, particulary when we consider how much more "alive" and "sentient" SI might be.
<BJKlein> will we understand life when we have a Unified Theory?
<MRAmes> I don't wonder. I'm going to understand it... it is just a matter of time (and work).
<BJKlein> time and work... yep.. I agree
<Eliezer> life isn't really all that hard to understand
<Eliezer> intelligence is hard to understand
<BJKlein> There are more and more of us everyday.
<MRAmes> Curious... how we are here 'chatting', wasting our time away, when I really ought to be working... hmmm... must think on that.
<BJKlein> Eliezer, you referring to the processes of life...
<BJKlein> not the fact that there is life
<Eliezer> yep, life and evolution
<Eliezer> that's very easy to understand
<Eliezer> we live in a low-entropy universe
<BJKlein> MRAmes, get to work man!
<MRAmes> :)
<Eliezer> as soon as you have one self-replicating molecule
<Eliezer> (which is only possible in a low-entropy universe)
<Eliezer> the rest follows from there
<BJKlein> yes.. I agree "that
<BJKlein> is not hard to understand..
<BJKlein> but the fact that it happened in the first place is a little difficult
<MRAmes> Eliezer: From our current perspective it is somewhat true that 'life' is easy to understand... but we sure have taken a long time to find the correct explaination.
<MRAmes> We are currently far from fully understanding intelligence.
<Gordon> MRA: I'm working, not wasting time here
<BJKlein> Just as it's hard to believe that there's anything after death... that's difficult to understand.
<Gordon> come on, you're going to fall behind
<MRAmes> Oh Gordon... ::::ppppp
<Eliezer> BJKlein: abiogenesis is not difficult either; see the talk.origins abiogenesis faq
<MitchH> "time waste", another scalarly sliding item.
<BJKlein> http://www.talkorigi.../faqs/abioprob/
<MRAmes> MitchH: I sometimes think: If only I could concentrate my miniscule intelligence on *exactly* the right thing, I could make a big difference.
<BJKlein> So, back to the question of consciousness and intelligence..
<MitchH> willpower greatly distorts the validity of strict "opportunity cost" tallies of effectiveness when used at the individual level.
<MitchH> MRAmes: I think we all feel that way
<MRAmes> MitchH: I guess that is what I am trying to actually do... but my aim is very approximate.
<BJKlein> why is intelligence hard to understand?
<BJKlein> because we're trying to think about thinking?
<Eliezer> because it's inherently a big complicated thing
<MitchH> try figuring out why you percieve the color red and your video card doesn't.
<MitchH> or does it? ....
<jason> qualia
<MRAmes> MitchH: IRT 'willpower'. Yes indeed. I find this monkey programming very distracting... it takes time away from the important stuff, and I cannot ignore my EP. Drat.
<Eliezer> qualia... those are fun
<Eliezer> but as far as I can tell, not necessary to intelligence
<MRAmes> qualia are beyond me... so I ignore them.
* Gordon is a zombie; ignore Eliezer
<MRAmes> lol
<MRAmes> In school my nickname was 'zoid', meaning zombie, because I just ground through the boring classes, emotionless.
<MitchH> I've thought of qualia as the internal process as percieved by the internal process. I would expect that any intelligence would have some perception of what being that intelligence is like.
<Eliezer> no... I worked that part out already, and it's not qualia
<Eliezer> :)
<MitchH> ok, then :)
<Gordon> MitchH: you talk like someone with qualia
<Gordon> stop lying, you are all ZombieMinion
<MitchH> will knowing if an AI has qualia be as simple as asking it?
<Eliezer> yes, and the answer will be 'no'
<XxDoubleHelixX> qualia?
<MRAmes> Hmm, could be. Depends if it turns out to be a valid concept... or just a conceit.
<MitchH> I thought my very definition of it implied that it was just a conceit... I really don't think there's anything *too it*.
<Eliezer> that will be a big help, from our perspective
<MitchH> to it
<Gordon> I think it's all conceit (hence the zombie comments), but I'm apparently underinformed from things Eli says
<MRAmes> MitchH: Uh huh.
<BJKlein> XxDoubleHelixX: http://plato.stanfor...entries/qualia/
<MRAmes> Gordon: it aint worth bothering with... at least, not right now.
<XxDoubleHelixX> so its one of those you cant sum up?
<XxDoubleHelixX> heh, jk
<BJKlein> I don't uderstand qualia, I just feel it..
<XxDoubleHelixX> i c
<MRAmes> Now we know you not a cold fish.
<Gordon> I feel like qualia is all conceit ;-)
<XxDoubleHelixX> when does the chat start again?
<XxDoubleHelixX> In 20 min?
<MRAmes> 41 minutes ago.
<XxDoubleHelixX> oh
<XxDoubleHelixX> heh
<XxDoubleHelixX> afk
<MRAmes> Back on topic... I read an artical about networking via a handshake the other day... 10Mbps, very interesting.
<BJKlein> MRAmes :)
<jason> tcp connections
<MRAmes> I will eagerly adopt bio-enhancement as soon as it becomes available.
<jason> use a 3 way handhsake
<jason> handshake
* Gordon starts networking; shakes hands
<MRAmes> tcp, via a real handshake.
<jason> :p
<jason> token ring
* jason gives gordon a token
<BJKlein> link?
<MRAmes> Or just touching the other person's flesh would do.
<jason> OHH
<jason> that
<jason> exchanging information
<MRAmes> I'll dig it up....
<jason> with a handshake?
* Gordon starts thinking up naughty networks
<BJKlein> I really love this weather..
<MRAmes> huh?
<jason> freezing
<BJKlein> fall
<MRAmes> ahh. warm in Ottawa.
<BJKlein> in Alabama is the best
<MRAmes> Handshake opens data stream: http://www.newscient...p?id=ns99992891
<Eliezer> "An AI was born today when 5 scientists bumped into each other at a Foresight Gathering..."
<MRAmes> :)
<Eliezer> Heh, Flare. Flare the self-organizing, adaptive, automatically-linking-up language.
<Eliezer> If people are running programs written in Flare, you really might get something interesting when five people link hands.
<MRAmes> You could pass computer viruses just like regular infections now.
<Eliezer> Life imitates anime.
<MRAmes> Or... more useful programs...
<Eliezer> "But if we link hands and use our powers *together*, we can -"
<MRAmes> Watch out for the tubes! The tenticles are coming!!! aaaIIIEEEEE!~
<Gordon> put that into a ring and it's Captain Planet time
<Eliezer> Of course, it will be overtaken by Bluetooth soon enough
<MRAmes> Bluetooth? Maybe not. Handshakes would be more secure.
<MRAmes> Both could co-exists, used for different purposes.
<Eliezer> that's the most pathetic kind of security I've ever heard of
<Eliezer> I'm going to tap you on the shoulder and steal your industrial secrets
<MRAmes> Do you have the right encryption password?
* Gordon sneaks up to tap Eli on the shoulder
<Gordon> rats, I can't understand any of it
* Eliezer is tapped on the shoulder by Gordon, thus stealing all of Gordon's industrial secrets
<MRAmes> Its the difference between speeking outloud, and reading...
<Eliezer> it works both ways, silly
<MRAmes> s/spee/spea/
<Gordon> Eli's typing is worse than trying to read his chicken scratch :-P
<Gordon> just pretend that the last sentence was grammatical
<Ziana> lol
<jason> gordon should keep those comments to himself
<MRAmes> Eli: Physical security is easily penetrated, true... but it still has value.
<jason> :)
<Gordon> which comments?
<MRAmes> Eli: Especially for non-critical communications that you just want a 'little bit' secure... like private messages.
<Eliezer> sounds to me like the real security is the encryption
* Gordon puts his security expert hat on
<MRAmes> I think it could be argued (in court) that data communicated via a handshake is not 'public domain'.
<jason> "i'm happily married with 827 kids"
<jason> great commercia
<jason> l
<MRAmes> But if you broadcast it... anyone can (and will) listen in.
<Gordon> MRA: too late
<MRAmes> Gordon: for what?
<Gordon> so what if it's not legal, they've already go it
<MRAmes> Its like Mitch's sliding scale again: use the level of security appropriate for the data.
<Gordon> for the date to which you wish to keep it secure
<MRAmes> If you just want to keep it legally private, then the handshake communication will probably be okay.
<MRAmes> If you want to keep it absolutely secure for the next few years, better use hard encryption.
<Gordon> well, assuming you've got the legal precedents
<MRAmes> Precedents are for lawyers and judges.

#2 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 9,150 posts
  • 581
  • Location:UK

Posted 18 October 2002 - 09:03 PM

while theoretically many people would agree that soley being based on eletrical current and metal is "safer" than being based on electrical current and carbon/water complexes, - this does not mean that this would occur to be an attainable state in the forseeable future.
However among those who frequent the chat, this seems to be the prevalent idea.
So be happy BJ: you are not alone in your own home.

:(




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users