179 replies to this topic

[forever freedom]

Strange how perceptions differ. When I grew up I had to dial a rotary phone to make a call (to connect via audio VR to another person) and it was very expensive to dial long distance. Our family always made sure to not stay on the phone very long in order save money.

Today I can make a free video phone call (or very nearly free, through Skype) anywhere in the world with one click of a mouse.

A pessimist would say, that nothing has really changed...a phone call is just a phone call...you deluding yourself if you call that progress.

I call it substantial technological progress. The progress seems to have been dramatic in my life, across multiple industries and technologies.

In my opinion immortality is not in the same category as making a video phone call.

This delusion is what I'm trying to warn you about.

Some of us have no clue how tricky and unpredictable the human body is.

The human body is not a primitive PC or a car.

If you go to the doctor in most cases he/she has no clue what is going on in your body. Doctors are using statistical guessing and the "make no harm" rule to treat you in most cases.

To make it simple: the iconic "20 years" is my problem here and now, not the undeniable pace of technological development.

We are seriously underestimating the technological challenge of immortality.

My goal is the same as yours, but I think we are just waiting for the miracle to happen.

We must try harder.

I agree that the human body is very complex and we can't cure aging with our current technology or anything near our current technology in the next 100 years, that's why i have so little faith in programs like SENS.

But i do believe that creating strong AIs will bring unforeseen development. There's a good chance we will create strong AI in this century (likely in the first half), and that's where my and Kurzweil's hopes are.

[Custodiam]

KalaBeth wrote:

we need less visionaries and more engineers... or at least, more engineering homework on the part of (some of) our visionaries.

This is exactly what I meant. For a lot of people there is only one hope: working hibernation technology within 20-30 years. Where is any organization which coordinates this kind of work? Where are the financial donors?

Most transhumanists are just sci-fi fans with overdeveloped confidence in technology.

We should stop daydreaming and start making funds and organisations.

I call some transhumanist daydreaming a kind of "Technology delusion", which is strangely similar to religious delusion.

Live your life and the singularity will take care of everything...can I ask, exactly how?

This kind of "solution" is very familiar: I heard it all before, but it wasn't the holy singularity, it was the trinity.

The whole singularity concept is strangely similar to Fukuyama's "end of history" idea from 1992.

There are historical, biological and economic forces which won't disappear any time soon.

As I wrote, the greco-roman technology was amazing, but their social immaturity caused the stagnation and fall of their civilisation.

You cannot count on the singularity as a technological phenomenon until we, as humanity are not ready socially and psychologically for the singularity.

And we are not ready, that is for sure.

Edited by Custodiam, 25 October 2009 - 06:34 AM.

[Custodiam]

Forever freedom wrote:

But i do believe that creating strong AIs will bring unforeseen development. There's a good chance we will create strong AI in this century (likely in the first half), and that's where my and Kurzweil's hopes are.

As I wrote earlier, my problem with strong AI is that it cannot be algorithmic.

Currently - as I know - we have only one kind of AI, and that is the algorithmic computer.

So in my opinion not even in theory we have any idea how can a strong AI work.

[Mind]

Forever freedom wrote:

But i do believe that creating strong AIs will bring unforeseen development. There's a good chance we will create strong AI in this century (likely in the first half), and that's where my and Kurzweil's hopes are.

As I wrote earlier, my problem with strong AI is that it cannot be algorithmic.

Currently - as I know - we have only one kind of AI, and that is the algorithmic computer.

So in my opinion not even in theory we have any idea how can a strong AI work.

You should tune in to the Sunday Evening Update to catch the interview with Randal Koene. I am sure he will have some insight into the development of strong AI and AGI.

[Luna]

One of the things that scares me, other than the doubt in technological timeline and singularity, is availability.

Ok, so a super AI was made, it doesn't mean anything changed.

It's still in a computer, humans decide what to do with it, and we know them.
And even if they decide the right decisions for us, they also kind of decide who gets it, and we know greed, money, not for sale, who knows, scary!

[forever freedom]

It's still in a computer, humans decide what to do with it, and we know them.
And even if they decide the right decisions for us, they also kind of decide who gets it, and we know greed, money, not for sale, who knows, scary!

Scary, maybe, but still better than not having these things at all

I always say this, immortalists should work to become very well financially because it's likely that in the beginning of the existence of true life extension technologies, only the ones with a lot of money will be able to afford it. If you're already old by then, you may not have enough time to wait until they become affordable. Money would sabe these people.

Edited by forever freedom, 25 October 2009 - 05:02 PM.

[KalaBeth]

1. Mind- thank you for the link. Sounds interesting.

2. Having written software in the commercial world, I agree with Custodiam that conventional software cannot ever be AI, no matter how much hardware you throw at it. All that's happening in there a series of pre-written "if this happens, then do that" conditional statements. It doesn't matter whether those statements are executed at a rate of once in twenty years on an abacus, or thousands of times a second, it will never generate a self-aware consciousness. Or in simpler terms, the internet won't "wake up" no matter how many connections or how high the processor speed.

That said, I can envision a process like this one working eventually, given enough cycles:
http://mind.sourcefo...et/aisteps.html

So long as the software is self-organizing, it doesn't really matter how closely it mimics neural behavior I think.

(as a curious sidenote, the evolutionary approach puts us in classical "God quandry" of "can't be omniscient, onmipotent, omni-benevolent," as we couldn't 'evolve' a problem-solving entity without, well.. giving it problems. Essentially creating pain. )

3. On "not being ready for it" - we're never ready for major changes. Hence their being major changes. Western culture wasn't ready for the "New World"... it adapted. Some wonderful things will happen, some terrible things will happen. But we won't grow to become ready by staying in the metaphorical nest.

Further, we're still making many of the same mistakes that brought down the Classical civilizations.. 'the one thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.' I'd like to think a culture of significantly longer-lived individuals wouldn't make the same mistakes, but honestly I rather doubt it would change that much, given human nature.

4. I think FF makes a good point about those alive now being able to finance this kind of thing. It will become comparatively inexpensive eventually (assuming it's not criminalized as soon as it enters mainstream consciousness, which honestly between 'against God's plan' on one side and 'it's not fair' on the other, I can foresee as a possibility.) Either way though... it can't hurt to be prepared financially at the start.

[Custodiam]

KalaBeth wrote:

So long as the software is self-organizing, it doesn't really matter how closely it mimics neural behavior I think.

Yes, I agree. Biological evolution is the evolution of the "neuron-bio-software" and the bio-hardware.

It means that bio-hardware and bio-software evolve together.

A self-organizing software could work only if the software itself can change the hardware.

It is largely impossible with any silicon based computer hardware. I don't see any difference using quantum computing or "optronic", light based components either.

3. On "not being ready for it" - we're never ready for major changes. Hence their being major changes. Western culture wasn't ready for the "New World"... it adapted. Some wonderful things will happen, some terrible things will happen. But we won't grow to become ready by staying in the metaphorical nest.
Further, we're still making many of the same mistakes that brought down the Classical civilizations.. 'the one thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.' I'd like to think a culture of significantly longer-lived individuals wouldn't make the same mistakes, but honestly I rather doubt it would change that much, given human nature.

I think we hardly survived the introduction of nuclear weapons. If the singularity will work, the military technology will develop in an unimaginable pace.

Think about nanorobots programmed to destroy or infect humans, cause illnesses. Think about antimatter weapons, artificial worm holes etc..

I'm absolutely sure that we will have weapons with immense capabilities.

There are wars around the globe, everywhere.

Imagine a world, where hipermodern weapons are used by sociopaths or psychopaths ruling powerful nations.

Technological singularity presupposes a global unity.

A global unity can trigger a new world war.

Of course "humanity" will survive but the millions or billions of dead people won't be enjoying it.

What I'm saying is that we should realise the dangers of instability.

This can alter the course of transhumanist development.

(assuming it's not criminalized as soon as it enters mainstream consciousness, which honestly between 'against God's plan' on one side and 'it's not fair' on the other, I can foresee as a possibility.)

This is the biggest problem in my opinion, unless the living standards of the poor nations will catch up.

But there are already signs that the US and the western part of the EU can only maintain high standard of living by using Chinese and possible Russian monetary funds (loans).

If it is true, than the US and EU living standards will drop in the future.

This can cause massive problems. Not to mention that the majority of the world is living in poverty...

So in one side you have people who wanna join a hipertechnological singularity, and on the other side there are people who cannot get clean water.

This divide will cause undoubtedly immense problems, including irrational/religious/intolerant regimes or movements.

Edited by Custodiam, 26 October 2009 - 07:21 AM.

[Custodiam]

Forever Freedom wrote:

If you're already old by then, you may not have enough time to wait until they become affordable.

Social inequality will flame up religious and irrational (?) behaviour.

If the majority of immortalists cannot get the technology, they will react irrationally (?) or aggressively.

It will mean terrorist attacks against "the rich": those who cannot afford immortality will simply kill those who can. Of course some religious or ethical disguise will be used.

To put it simply, either immortalism is a social human right or this will be the start of a global civil war.

Have no doubt about who will win.

Edited by Custodiam, 26 October 2009 - 08:11 AM.

[Mind]

Forever Freedom wrote:

To put it simply, either immortalism is a social human right or this will be the start of a global civil war.

Have no doubt about who will win.

The ones with the best war-making technology, no doubt.

You seem to be more in the pessimistic than realistic side of things Custodiam, any particular reason for that?

In reality, many utopian and dystopian predictions have come and gone throughout our lives, yet the aggregate human condition has improved by almost any metric, and IMO it is because our technology has improved. Even if technological progress slows down, we are likely to see some benefit. Maybe not a "magic" Singularity, but improvement none-the-less.

[Custodiam]

The ones with the best war-making technology, no doubt.

Like in Afghanistan? NATO could destroy that country in no time. But destroying the country will not win the war.

In the future the country with the most to lose will be the most vulnerable in my opinion. It is hard to build. It is easy to destroy. Unfortunately.

You seem to be more in the pessimistic than realistic side of things Custodiam, any particular reason for that?

Maybe history? Human nature?

In reality, many utopian and dystopian predictions have come and gone throughout our lives, yet the aggregate human condition has improved by almost any metric, and IMO it is because our technology has improved. Even if technological progress slows down, we are likely to see some benefit. Maybe not a "magic" Singularity, but improvement none-the-less.

Well, can you tell this to those hundreds of millions of people who died in the 20th century because of some "improvements"?

Immortalism maybe realistic for you, but pessimism is the new realism for billions of people.

Of course we can and we will change all of that, but you should see the dark side of humanity too to succeed.

Of course, "we can do it". But sometimes we fail. We have to learn from our mistakes.

[Luna]

I don't know if 20 years is realistic or optimist..
I think it is realistic but doesn't mean it's true, more like the optimistic view of realistic.

I think it might take a bit more, but I don't think there will be *war* because of it, or at least hope not.

I hope it will be here very soon and that all of us and everyone else will be able to have its full benefits, hopefully.

I think many on imminst might be optimistic and many others seem very pessimistic, reality is really hard to draw from here because it's very much dependant on humans.

[Mind]

Well, can you tell this to those hundreds of millions of people who died in the 20th century because of some "improvements"?

Immortalism maybe realistic for you, but pessimism is the new realism for billions of people.

You are working on old data and perceptions.

We are living in the most peaceful time in human history, even the 20th century was much less violent than previous centuries.

The third world is no longer the "3rd world", most countries of the world are advancing.

Violence occurs, extreme poverty occurs, death occurs, but by almost every metric, the aggregate human condition is improving. No guarantee it will continue, it will take continued effort on our part to ensure a peaceful and happy future.

[Luna]

Well, can you tell this to those hundreds of millions of people who died in the 20th century because of some "improvements"?

Immortalism maybe realistic for you, but pessimism is the new realism for billions of people.

You are working on old data and perceptions.

We are living in the most peaceful time in human history, even the 20th century was much less violent than previous centuries.

The third world is no longer the "3rd world", most countries of the world are advancing.

Violence occurs, extreme poverty occurs, death occurs, but by almost every metric, the aggregate human condition is improving. No guarantee it will continue, it will take continued effort on our part to ensure a peaceful and happy future.

condition overall should always improve.
But wars can be quite a bit more destructive too!
This century had just begun! who knows what will happen, with all this iran nuclear arm and.. that's pretty much all I hear of in israel as I don't really look into politics ^^

[Custodiam]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War


This is an incomplete list of wars.

Wars in the 20th century are in bold letters.

Wars in the 19th century are in italic letters.

· 60,000,000–72,000,000 - World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)[68][69]
· 36,000,000 - An Shi Rebellion (China, 755–763)[citation needed]
· 30,000,000–60,000,000 - Mongol Conquests (13th century) (see Mongol invasions and Tatar invasions)[70][71][72][73]
· 25,000,000 - Qing dynasty conquest of Ming dynasty (1616–1662)[74]
· 20,000,000 - World War I (1914–1918) (see World War I casualties)[75]
· 20,000,000 - Taiping Rebellion (China, 1851–1864) (see Dungan revolt)[76]
· 20,000,000 - Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945)[77]
· 10,000,000 - Warring States Era (China, 475 BC–221 BC)
· 7,000,000 - 20,000,000 Conquests of Timur the Lame (1360-1405)[78][79]
· 5,000,000–9,000,000 - Russian Civil War and Foreign Intervention (1917–1921)[80]
· 5,000,000 - Conquests of Menelik II of Ethiopia (1882- 1898)[81][82]
· 3,800,000 - 5,400,000 - Second Congo War (1998–2007)[83][84][85]
· 3,500,000–6,000,000 - Napoleonic Wars (1804–1815) (see Napoleonic Wars casualties)
· 3,000,000–11,500,000 - Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)[86]
· 3,000,000–7,000,000 - Yellow Turban Rebellion (China, 184–205)
· 2,500,000–3,500,000 - Korean War (1950–1953) (see Cold War)[87]
· 2,300,000–3,800,000 - Vietnam War (entire war 1945–1975)
Where is the improvement?

[ben951]

"self-organizing software could work only if the software itself can change the hardware."

We simulate self modifying biology without modifying the hardware.
In theory we can simulate about anything including natural process that self modify if we input the right data and have the necessary computation power.

[Mind]

Custodiam, I apologize for ruining the structure of your post. I accidentally hit edit instead of reply. Very sorry. I tried to restore it.

[Mind]

Where is the improvement?

If you watch the video, Pinker presents data and archeological evidence for the decline in violence, at least an order of magnitude since biblical times. Including wars and other violence society was much more violent than it is today and in the 20th century. Your "intuitive perception" is not well supported by the data.

[KalaBeth]

I doubt we'd see international wars over the technology, any more than we see Mexico militarily invading the US 'cause there's a much higher standard of living here. Population migrations - legal and otherwise - to where "the good life" is though, certainly.. and hardly new.

Depending on how widely available it was though, I can see a have/have not situation leading to French Revolution style purges within the first world. Depends on who and whether someone takes it as a demagogic plank to power, and what the chance of "upward mobility" is. Sad, but hardly unprecedented.
(that's not advocating such a purge obviously - merely acknowledging it as one possibility..just as there might be violence on the facilities from the hardcore folks on both sides of spectrum ["you're killing the planet/oppressing the masses/playing God/pick your excuse"] )

None of which means it shouldn't be pursued of course. And frankly, if we want to see it all, make peace with the fact that the "beta testers" are likely going to be the Bill Gates and Ted Turners of the world.


The first world/third world divide though.. wow. Even cheap by first world standards would be horrifically expensive by third world standards. I can see a yet further "elves vs orcs*" divide there, at least in the short term [short term for the purposes of this statement meaning "300-400 years"]


-KB


* Essentially, "do you invest a little bit each in a LOT of people, or a LOT each in a few people?" Historically, the West has favored the latter approach, especially in the last century or so. Just a couple kids per family, each of which gets between 12 and 16 years of continuous education before even *beginning* to be prepared to be productive in society... compared to having lots of kids, most of whom herd goats around and never learn to work a machine more complex than a Kalashnikov.



(edited for grammar/clarity)

Edited by KalaBeth, 26 October 2009 - 11:46 PM.

[Custodiam]

Dear Mind!

No problem.

I can reconstruct it.

Wars in the 20th century are in bold letters.

Wars in the 19th century are in italic letters.

· 60,000,000–72,000,000 - World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)[68][69]
· 36,000,000 - An Shi Rebellion (China, 755–763)[citation needed]
· 30,000,000–60,000,000 - Mongol Conquests (13th century) (see Mongol invasions and Tatar invasions)[70][71][72][73]
· 25,000,000 - Qing dynasty conquest of Ming dynasty (1616–1662)[74]
· 20,000,000 - World War I (1914–1918) (see World War I casualties)[75]
· 20,000,000 - Taiping Rebellion (China, 1851–1864) (see Dungan revolt)[76]
· 20,000,000 - Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945)[77]
· 10,000,000 - Warring States Era (China, 475 BC–221 BC)
· 7,000,000 - 20,000,000 Conquests of Timur the Lame (1360-1405)[78][79]
· 5,000,000–9,000,000 - Russian Civil War and Foreign Intervention (1917–1921)[80]
· 5,000,000 - Conquests of Menelik II of Ethiopia (1882- 1898)[81][82]
· 3,800,000 - 5,400,000 - Second Congo War (1998–2007)[83][84][85]
· 3,500,000–6,000,000 - Napoleonic Wars (1804–1815) (see Napoleonic Wars casualties)
· 3,000,000–11,500,000 - Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)[86]
· 3,000,000–7,000,000 - Yellow Turban Rebellion (China, 184–205)
· 2,500,000–3,500,000 - Korean War (1950–1953) (see Cold War)[87]
· 2,300,000–3,800,000 - Vietnam War (entire war 1945–1975)

Where is the improvement?

***

The original structure.

***

[Custodiam]

I'm sorry but without clear references and sources I can't accept Mr. Pinker's statements.

The data I represented clearly proves that the 20th century was much more murderous than the 19th century.

60,000,000–72,000,000 - World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)[68][69]
20,000,000 - World War I (1914–1918) (see World War I casualties)[75
20,000,000 - Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945)[77]
5,000,000–9,000,000 - Russian Civil War and Foreign Intervention (1917–1921)[80]
3,800,000 - 5,400,000 - Second Congo War (1998–2007)[83][84][85]
2,500,000–3,500,000 - Korean War (1950–1953) (see Cold War)[87]
2,300,000–3,800,000 - Vietnam War (entire war 1945–1975)

It is 133.700.000 dead.

20,000,000 - Taiping Rebellion (China, 1851–1864) (see Dungan revolt)[76]
3,500,000–6,000,000 - Napoleonic Wars (1804–1815) (see Napoleonic Wars casualties)·
5,000,000 - Conquests of Menelik II of Ethiopia (1882- 1898)[81][82]

It is 31.000.000 dead.

In the 20th century the number of deaths increased 4.31 times.

Let see the population growth:

http://en.wikipedia....orld_population

World population:

1800 978 million
1900 1650 million
1950 2519 million
2000 6070 million

6070/1650=3.678

As you can see, the number of war causalities grew more rapidly than world population.

Edited by Custodiam, 27 October 2009 - 07:58 AM.

[Berserker]

Obviously the relation between population and causalities is going to increase, as in the XIX and XX century we started with the total war, and since then, in case of war all the country is involve…by despite of this, I think is clear that we are improving and that things are getting better.

[Custodiam]

Obviously the relation between population and causalities is going to increase, as in the XIX and XX century we started with the total war, and since then, in case of war all the country is involve…by despite of this, I think is clear that we are improving and that things are getting better.

The question is not whether there will be a nuclear terrorist attack or a limited nuclear war, but when and where it will happen.

It is statistically very probable that in the 21th century there will be limited nuclear exchanges or small scale nuclear terrorist attacks.

With the increase of the destructive power of weapons there is an increase of war causalities.

If we think that history is made by leftist, peaceful and liberal daydreamers we are up to a big surprise.

Edited by Custodiam, 27 October 2009 - 09:09 AM.

[Berserker]

Well, I agree with you about terrorisms. In my opinion terrorism and radical Islam are the main treats for the first decades of this century.

However, I can’t see other big war again. With the welfare state and the improvements in the quality of live, people is not likely to fight again. I’m more positive than you and I see an amazing progress. Remember, just 70 years ago the WWII was starting. We were killing each other across Europe. Now we have a common market, a single currency and we are together. Isn’t this a massive improvement? Also, its just 20 years since the Berlin wall collapse…

Our quality of live is much better than the quality of live of the people 50 years ago, and a think that everything will keep improving.

But yes, massive destruction weapons in terrorist hand are a big issue.

[AdamSummerfield]

Immortality only 20 years away says scientist

Scientist Ray Kurzweil claims humans could become
immortal in as little as 20 years' time through nanotechnology
and an increased understanding of how the body works.

http://www.telegraph...-scientist.html

Aubrey de Grey says we've got a 50% chance of bringing the first wave of anti-aging to humans in 25 years. Besides, Kurzweil's prediction track record is... atrocious.

[Custodiam]

My main problem is the relative fall of the West.

The military and economic power of the Western World is shrinking relatively every year.

There will be a western "ressentiment". Of course there can be a rising anti-western or anti-white sentiment all over the world.

It is a historical fact, that the end of a dominant era - a power-shift - provokes wars.

[Berserker]

Well, when the Soviet union collapse there was no war(not a big one, despite some wars in same parts of the planet during the cold war)...i think that today as I said people is not willing to fight. Also, as we have much better weapons we won’t go to war because it will be a disaster.

Respect comparing the predictions of Aubrey and Ray, I think that both are very optimistic. Also, I think that SENS is not receiving a lot of money…however; government and companies invest much more in nanotechnology, so nanotechnoly may be a better way to get life extension.

Edited by Berserker, 27 October 2009 - 10:57 AM.

[ben951]

Besides, Kurzweil's prediction track record is... atrocious.

Really ?!
To me his track record seems pretty good so far.

Edited by ben951, 27 October 2009 - 02:07 PM.

[forever freedom]

Immortality only 20 years away says scientist

Scientist Ray Kurzweil claims humans could become
immortal in as little as 20 years' time through nanotechnology
and an increased understanding of how the body works.

http://www.telegraph...-scientist.html

Aubrey de Grey says we've got a 50% chance of bringing the first wave of anti-aging to humans in 25 years. Besides, Kurzweil's prediction track record is... atrocious.

Why do you say that?

Edited by forever freedom, 27 October 2009 - 01:47 PM.

[KalaBeth]

Aubrey de Grey says we've got a 50% chance of bringing the first wave of anti-aging to humans in 25 years.

Frankly, I'd say we're already in the "first wave" of anti-aging. Or at least, of life extension. I know several guys - likely so do y'all - who wouldn't be on this side of the daisypatch twenty years ago, as their hearts blew apart on them. Now they're patched up and sent home in a few days. That's... mind boggling, when you think about it from the perspective of our ancestors.. but it's normal now.

Which makes me wonder about whether this "singularity" will actually be as earth-shattering as it's imagined now, or if all these advances just slide into the "new normal" so quick hardly anyone will notice. I mean, ten years ago the web was this shiny new thing .. now it's just part of the background, and folks think nothing of sliding an iPhone models across the table to compare.

"What if they had a singularity.... and nobody noticed?"


To the war thing.. I'd be careful about saying things like "as we have much better weapons we won’t go to war because it will be a disaster."
They said the very same thing about Hiram Maxim and his little toys a little over a hundred years ago, if I recall correctly.