<crw> mr. bruce klein is afk at the moment, and he's asked me to get things going.
<John> cool
<crw> so here are a few paragraphs to get us going, on BJK's behalf.
<crw> Thanks for joining us... and welcome all new chat members...
<crw> Feel free to join in and ask questions.. but first let me post the topic
<crw> introduction first... Thanks!
<nicelamer> we can interrupt eachother -- and for many, we forget about our "idea" we are trying to express
<nicelamer> =O)
<crw> Official Chat Begins Now:
<crw> Topic: The Immortality meme, how far has it come?
<crw> It is arguable that the quest for immortality is the greatest dream of
<crw> mankind. Since the idea first came to the minds of primitive man, we've
<crw> been trying to fill in the gaps. The seemingly finite nature of
<crw> existence compelled us to placate this fear with mysticism and religion.
<crw> Only now, after science and technology have demonstrated that lifespans
<crw> can be extended, and that there exists no fundamental scientific barrier
<crw> to extreme life extension, are we presented with a real alternative.
<crw> Therefore, The Immortality Meme is born.....
<crw> We can open it up now for discussion...
<crw> Maybe you can share with us your experience with the Immortality Meme,
<crw> and where you think it started... and/or where it's headed.
<John> As I shared earlier....
<MRAmes> Most of the people I talk to start off being incredulous when confronted with the meme.
<MRAmes> It takes them time to get familiar/comfortable with it.
<John> as a young boy reading a children's illustrated Bible I came across the section describing people who lived for many centuries....
<John> and I was totally enthralled!
<MRAmes> Yeah... I thought that was cool too.
<Utnapishtim> I think we will nickle and dime our way to immortality
<crw> i think the meme suffers a different problem.
<John> I jumped up to share with my mother my new thought that people should still get to live that long....
<MRAmes> ?
<John> and she readily agreed with me.
<Utnapishtim> And I often think that the term immortality often doeas us mroe harm than good
<crw> people have thought about living forever for quite awhile... the whole fountain of youth thing.
<John> I think that is where I got my start with the immortality meme.
<MRAmes> John: You started early!
<crw> where the problem is, is in the practical application of technology to realize the lofty goal.
<John> I did.
<Utnapishtim> crw: I think the challeges of social adaption to radicalyl extended life spans will be immense
<John> yes
<Utnapishtim> leaving the singularity and its asumptions aside for a moment
<John> But the rich and powerful will do ANYTHING to gain access to such technology!
<Utnapishtim> Really I think immortality is a bad way to sell this particular meme
<John> Even if they have to go on "
<Utnapishtim> it is too direct
<John> "vacation" to have the treatments done.
<crw> utn: absolutely, a great deal of our social institutions are based on a fixed lifespan.
<MRAmes> crw: I see the meme being taken more and more seriously in the medical (gerontology) community... especially in the research areas.
<crw> andrew zolli was quick to point this out at a previous ny transhumanist association meeting.
<haploid> John, that's where much of the social problems will come from - the view that only the rich and powerful will have access to immortality, and the progress should therefore be stopped.
<crw> Mr Ames: that trend, i believe, will continue, in no small part due to the boomer generation.
<John> Robert Bradbury, an extrolist member, biotech entrepreneur, and a friend told me the technology should be here much sooner than most people think.
<MRAmes> Yep.
<MRAmes> Hmm!
<MRAmes> Robert's a smart guy.
<John> that he is
<Utnapishtim> Being able to "extend your youth and vitality' does not sound anywhere near as hubristic as immortality and will encounter less opposition in my view
<John> Maybe "immortality" is a term we should stop using.
<Utnapishtim> John: I very much think it is
<Utnapishtim> and have been arguing so for some time
<MRAmes> The word "immortality" can be *spun*.
<John> "Lifespan/healthy life style extension may be much better.
<crw> social security, medicare/medicaid, life insurance, HMO's... everything will change.
<MRAmes> Many other words have been 'recycled' to new and positive meanings.
<Utnapishtim> The emphasis should be on technologies to keep you vital and attractive
<John> And wars which include drafts of the "young"
<John> lol
<haploid> Immortality as a term is also false/misleading on its face, as no amount of technology will revive someone smashed by a meteorite or burned alive, etc.
<Utnapishtim> haploid: exactly. Solving aging does NOT make you immortal
<John> haploid: A very KEY point!
<Utnapishtim> looked at broadly anti aging medicine is already here
<divergenceless> Immortality may be more drastic than solving aging, but that doesn't mean it can't be achieved or that the term should not be used.
<Utnapishtim> viagra is anti aging medicine
<John> Many transhumanists would argue though that uploading/downloading etc. would get around biological death.
<Utnapishtim> Yes they would. But I think we are pushing the horizon too far
<MRAmes> hap: true. Actuarial statistics (from the late 80's) suggest an average lifetime between 2 and 3 thousand years, if all causes of death are eliminated except accidents.
<Utnapishtim> We need to scale back a couple of shock levels
<divergenceless> I'm not sure, Utnapishtim
<divergenceless> if that had been done I would never have become interested in transhumanism.
<divergenceless> For example.
<John> Mr.Ames: But with mature nanotech and a death aversive culture, we would see death statistics which see lifespans lasting many millennia.
<Shadow> http://virus.lucifer...t=0;boardseen=1
<Utnapishtim> but most transhuimanists are not representative of the socieities in which they live
<Shadow> That's a good thread I have had about Immortality on the Church of the Virus BBS.
<MRAmes> John: I agree. The statistics woudl likely change with changing lifestyles.
<divergenceless> Utnapishtim, that goes equally for transhumanists in the future, probably.
<Utnapishtim> and to most people BY FAR the biggest sell of future progress will be the promnise of remaining indefinitely youthfukl and attractive
<haploid> Right. Human behavior in general would likely be vastly different if the "Oh what the hell, I'll die someday anyway" mentality was removed.
<John> Utnap: I disagree, actually.
<Utnapishtim> divergenceless: Not if we are trying to expand the scope of the movements and increase its respectability
<Utnapishtim> john: go ahead
<divergenceless> Utnap, but the movement itself would be much watered down then.
<MRAmes> Utn: By FAR the biggest 'draw' for me, is getting more time to do things.
<Utnapishtim> divergenceless: Yes it would
<John> I think many people at least on some level(which could be overcome) want more decades of youthfulness, but all the while still feel death is an important part of the "life cycle."
<divergenceless> People should think about higher shock-level possibilies, too
<MRAmes> Utn: Running out of time really sucks.
<Utnapishtim> MramesL For me this is also a huge draw
<Utnapishtim> Mrames: Absolutely
<John> I feel "a little at a time" is the best way to present things to the general public when it comes to extreme life extension.
<Utnapishtim> John: Yes but they also apply $200 facial creams get plastic surgery and pop viagra
<John> Or a backlash could be created.
<MRAmes> Right now I am 38, and think I will be *lucky* to make it... to immortalism.
<MRAmes> That is worrying.
<Utnapishtim> if there was a way to extend their youthfulness-they'd bite in a heartbeat
<MRAmes> But it is also a spur... it makes me promote the meme.
<MRAmes> When I might otherwise do something more... fun?
<MRAmes>
<John> And transhumanist ideas are definitely filtering down into the mass media.
<John> Newsweek, Business Week, etc.
<haploid> John: Examples ?
<Utnapishtim> Mrames: I am 25. and I amconsidering how much progress will be made in cryonic suspensions if the worst case scenario short of gloabal diaster (retarded progress) should come about
<John> See the latest issue of Business Week?
<Utnapishtim> There was an article in the Washington Post recently discussing radical life extension in a non dismissive manner
<haploid> Really
<John> I can remember just six or so years ago when Sci Am was seriously dissing nanotech!!
<nicelamer> 'dissing' :>
<John> Talk about an about face...
<haploid> Heh that's excellent news. I am very pessimistic as regards mass acceptance of life extension.
<John> Actually, it was more like "hammering" nanotech.
<Utnapishtim> John: Now they discuss nanotech wiothout discussing the implications because they don't want to sound goofy
<haploid> Most of the people who know my inclinations most likely think that I am insane.
<MRAmes> I recently decided to quit motorcycling, something I've loved doing for 23 years, so that I'll increase my chance of living long enough to *make it*.
<John> Last year Newsweek did a lengthy article about nanotech which included the longterm implications, especially in medicine.
<John> I was very surprised by it.
<MRAmes> John: Yeah... I read that SA edition. At the time I was horrified at the 'twist' they put on it.
<John> Nanotech was said to be "cargo cult" science in that SA article.
<John> An insult aimed at Drexler and Foresight.
<MRAmes> John: Shortly afterword I just stopped reading SA... they lost my respect.
<Utnapishtim> Does anyone rememeber the SA special from a few years back about the future in 2050. It was laughably conservative
<John> yes!
<MRAmes> Ut: sounded more like 2025 to me.
<Utnapishtim> Mrames: Me too
<cmjw> Yes, that's about when I stopped reading SA as well.
<John> I don't think people should give up on SA quite yet.
<John> lol
<MRAmes>
<PD> Lots of people
<Discarn8> Situational Awareness? (sorry I'm late)
<divergenceless> SciAm
<haploid> Scientific American, I ssume.
<haploid> er assume
<John> correct
<Utnapishtim> yup
<MRAmes> John: SA was useful for it excellent editorial whinnowing, and re-writing. But when they went tabloid things started to slide.
<MRAmes> s/it/its/
<John> And here I thought that was simply my imagination.
<Utnapishtim> Mrames: Isn't the problem that is it underselling progress in a desire to appear espectable?
<John> lol
<MRAmes> Ut: I'm not sure.
<PD> What sciam?
<John> So every so often they must do a quick "course correction."
<MRAmes> Ut: I bought it because I learned stuff from it.
<MRAmes> Ut: And as time went on, I learned less because they just started pulling back from leading-edge stuff.
<PD> Almost all respectable science mags are pretty conservative
<PD> At least from our pov
<PD> lol
<John> Now which mainstream science magazine is offering the free cryonics sign-up contest?
<John> I forget.
<Utnapishtim> NEwScientist
<cmjw> New Scientist
<PD> I think that was New Scientst
<John> If so, I am impressed.
<Utnapishtim> It was done in ahumorous nudge nudge wink wink sort of way
<John> Oh.....
<PD> Heh
<John> And if you don't like cryonics....
<MRAmes> Ut: But they still dit it.
<John> *if I remember right*
<Utnapishtim> you can get a vacation
<MRAmes> s/dit/did/
<John> you can go to Hawaii!
<John> yep
<Utnapishtim> MRames: Yes
<Discarn8> Seems to me the bulk of science mags today are HEAVILY infested w/ the death meme.
<John> Give it time.
<MRAmes> Apeals to the *aging* pop.
<John> We have made incredible headway in just the last five years.
<Discarn8> *nod* - doesn't upset too many applecarts
<John> I strongly suspect the baby boomers are NOT going to be going out with a whimper!
<Utnapishtim> Mrames: I think once the baby boomers REALLY realise that they are getting oldthere will be huge interest in life extension
<John> They will go down fighting, or not at all.
<MRAmes> Definitely!
<MRAmes> The boomers have fight.
<John> We may not see their "anti-death backlash" for another decade or so.
<John> Let them get older.....
<Discarn8> Utnap - they're already showing signs that way. Check Prevention magazine - the number of life-extension articles *is* rising
<John> : )
<MRAmes> he he
<John> lol
<Utnapishtim> 40% of the boomers will reach for new ahe nonsense 50% for traditional religion and maybe 10% for science oriented solutions
<MRAmes> I see parents not caring how much they leave thier kids.
<John> A good point Utnap.
<MRAmes> I see them spending it , because thier kids are well off.
<John> I think all boomers will want to age gracefully with medical interventions.
<Discarn8> MrAmes - check the stock market lately? They may not HAVE anything to leave!@
<John> And even that will help somewhat.
<MRAmes> Dis: We are all in the same boat in that area.... it aint just the old.
<Discarn8> John - depends - are they going cosmetic, or real improvements?
<John> true
<MRAmes> Dis: in fact, the pension funds got of easier than most.
<Discarn8> *chuckle* Dependso n the fund, MrAmes.
<John> Dis: I would think improvements for stamina, disease resistance, and cognitive function, etc.
<MRAmes> lol
<Utnapishtim> Are people ACTUALLY against lefe extension or just saying they are because it is only hypothetical and supporting it would seem to be in bad taste
<Discarn8> John - I agree, that's where they SHOULD be going. But will they? Or will they go for the chin tuck, the tummy-suck, and get rid of the crowsfeet?
<John> I think some special interest groups against it give the nation the appearance of being deadset against anti-aging progress.
<Discarn8> Utnap - EXCELLENT question
<John> Dis: probably both
<cmjw> utnapishtim: ain my experience, there really is a prevalent "death ethic"
<MRAmes> Most of the old people I know don't care much how they look... but they sure don't life the old machine (body) breaking down.
<MRAmes> s/life/like/
<Utnapishtim> CMJW: Yes but most people will fight like wildcats to live
<Discarn8> John: Possible. I fear the bulk of the funds will be cosmetic - "Hey, it's safe- not that other gunk, that . . ."
<John> Utnap: Most people fight like wildcats when they are still fairly young.
<MRAmes> When the old start seeing life extension actually working... they will give it TRILLIONS of dollars.
<John> As people age they usually lose that "vitality" and determination to really relish life and fight on.
<Discarn8> If they do, MrA. If.
<Utnapishtim> Discarn: I think this whole back to nature faddishness that is a remnant of the 1960s will put a dampener on looking for real solutions
<Utnapishtim> Mrames: I agree
<MRAmes> John: yeah, some do. Many don't.
<John> Mr. Ames: By the time they get out their checkbooks it may be way to late for them!!
<John> : (
<Discarn8> Utnap - definitely a possible. I also wonder about the religious backlash, if/when it starts working for Joe Schmoe down the street
<MRAmes> John: True. But the cheques will be written anyway!
<John> lol
<John> true
<Utnapishtim> The religious backlas will be strongest when it is onyl for the rich
<Discarn8> Utnap - I suspect that they won't believe in the possible until it actuall happens to someone they know, tho'
<MRAmes> Dis: Religion will follow along and fall in line... as it always has.
<John> I agree there.
<John> "Stop the evil heart transplant operations!"
<Discarn8> Utnap - I dunno. I think as it 'threatens souls' there'll be more and more fire & brimstone around
<Discarn8> MRA - Tell that to the Saracens 'receiving' the crusades.
<MRAmes> Dis: Perhaps you live in the wrong part of the world?
<Utnapishtim> discarn: The message will have the greatest selling power when it taps into peoples jealousy
<Discarn8> Or to the 'intelligent development' folks now effectivley fronting for the creationists.
<MRAmes> Dis: Saracens? This isn't quite the middle ages.
<Discarn8> Isn't it? *wry grin* What about tithing, or religious-based dietary restrictions - those gone, too?
<taza0> I think the problem will occur when we begin to introduce nanotechnology. The prohibition on cloning is indicative of this sort of behavior.
<Utnapishtim> I think that in campaigning for life extension we should avoid going head to head with religion
<Discarn8> Utnapish - *nod* That'll be powerful. But that can be directly countered by pointing out the greed/jealousy.
<Utnapishtim> we need to accept that people wish to believe this nonsense and not confront it directly
<Discarn8> Utnap - DEFINITELY!
<MRAmes> Ut: That would be a mistake. Go head to head with anyone using false arguments.
<John> Dis: I agree about transhumanists being wise not to confront organized religion wherever possible.
<Discarn8> Utnap - Seems to me it's somewhat of a sleeping giant - let it sleep unmolested!
<MRAmes> Dis: If the false argument is let win one time, it is used as a precident.
<Utnapishtim> discarn: Yes. Most people are practical atheists anyway
<MRAmes> Checkout recent cloning bans in Australia.
<John> I don't like the notion that organized religion is utterly nefarious and the members are all fools.
<Discarn8> MRA - Or the textbook controversies now running amuck about evolution/creationism/intelligent design. *sigh*
<Utnapishtim> I think many people who are "cosmetically christian" will be put off by a militantly anti religious stance
<John> I agree with Natasha Vita-More that common ground can be found with many groups.
<MRAmes> John: No. But if religious organization of wrong, and proveably wrong, then they should be confronted.
<Utnapishtim> I think most people in here are intensely thoughtful
<Discarn8> John - go for it. *wry grin* But if you make a convert in the Fundamentalist camp, lemme know - I'll be DEEPLY impresed
<Utnapishtim> We need to think of ways of selling our cause to people who only think an average amount
<cmjw> I really don't see the advantage in taking a direct stance with regard to religion
<John> Mr.
<MRAmes> John: When they try and stop life-extension techniques, or nano, etc.
<John> Mr. Ames: Stem cell research would be an example of that for me.
<John> *in the here and now*
<Utnapishtim> Take Alcor
<Discarn8> Where?
<Discarn8> *grin*
<John> I know where!!
<Utnapishtim> They go out of their way to point out on their site that nothing about Cryonics conflicts with the tenets of christianity and Judaism
<Utnapishtim> I think that is a good move myself
<MRAmes> We may have to fight for every inch of progress, until it is obvious that we have won.
<Discarn8> MRA - to some people, that will just redouble their efforts. *wry grin*
<MRAmes> heh
<Discarn8> MRA - the trick it seems to me is John's approach - bring 'em along for the ride.
<Discarn8> DO NOT exclude.
<Discarn8> Instead, INCLUDE
<MRAmes> exactly.
<Utnapishtim> If it comes down to it I want to live. If thatmeans I have to leave people their Jesus Moses or whatever, then even though I am convinced they are wong they can have it
<MRAmes> Make them an offer they can't refuse.
<Discarn8> Priorities
<cmjw> It might be a good idea to refer to "longevity" instead of "immortality", though
<MRAmes> Immortality (or close to it) is a pretty good offer.
<taza0> does anyone here know anything about quantum computers?
<PD> superlongevity
<Utnapishtim> cmjw: Longevity perhaps
<MRAmes> taz: not much.
<Utnapishtim> PD: super is too radical
<Discarn8> MRA - At what cost? *wry grin again* If it's their immortal soul, and they're truely devout - expect no takers
<divergenceless> taz: something, not much
<MRAmes> taz: they're coming.
<John> I really am rooting for Natasha's Progress Action Coalition organization.
<PD> Nah
<taza0> MRAmes, is the general proposal to create an infinite state machine?
<Utnapishtim> I think it would be good if life extension could be made to seem a natural outgrowth of existing medicine
<divergenceless> taza, no
<PD> Superlongevity is just radical enough
<MRAmes> Nope.
<MRAmes> taz^
<John> It would be nice if she had some solid funding!
<divergenceless> Though I think there have also been obscure proposals for that
<divergenceless> by using all of the infinite number of wave modes in a hydrogen atom
<John> But seems to be a very common problem in this movement....
<John> : (
<PD> We need some rich Hollywood people
<Discarn8> Utnap - Good pov - and it can possibly b eused in beneficial ways in the religous circles, too - by aiding the beneficient religious scholars and the like.
<MRAmes> PD: Hollywood?
<Discarn8> The problem is - how do you prevent the hatemongers from gaining the treatment(s)?
<PD> If scientologists can snatch them, why can't we?
<Discarn8> Or do you?
<Utnapishtim> Discarn: Exactly
<MRAmes> Dis: that is not a problem... just sell it to them
<Utnapishtim> I also want to emphasise continued youthfulness
<John> Dis: You only now get it that we take the bad people along for the ride towards immortality???
<Utnapishtim> which everybody wants
<John> lol
<Utnapishtim> been in a cosmetic department lately?
<Discarn8> Utnap - I think that may be a mistake. Continued HEALTH, yeah, but continued YOUTHFULNESS?
<MRAmes> I waaaant it.
<divergenceless> Physical, not chronological youthfulness.
<Utnapishtim> Discarn: I think people the world over want to look young
<Discarn8> John - Consider me the loyal opposition. *wry grin*
<John> lol!
<PD> lol Disc
<Utnapishtim> that is a more powerful selling point perhaps than living a long time
<PD> So what do you suggest?
<Discarn8> Utnap - Yeppers - but, instead, if you can provide something along the lines of continued health, it MAY well be less of a threat.
<taza0> I am fairly afraid of immortality--a widely available form--before significant advancements in human processing or superior technological developments indicative of singularity
<Discarn8> Continued youth? Geez, now *I* gotta go get that treatment to compete!
<MRAmes> Dis: Sure, but it'll be cheap.
<divergenceless> taza - why?
<Discarn8> taza - I'm actually more afraid of it AFTER the singularity! *lol*
<Utnapishtim> Discarn: Maybe.. Next to a picture of attractive looking 20-30somethings
<taza0> because I am afraid of stagnation
<John> To get something actually accomplished here, we should collectively author a letter of our ideas and send it to Natasha and her Pro-Act organization. At least she would know people were thinking about her concerns.
<PD> taz, yeah, I agree
<PD> immortality is a transhuman culture thing
<MRAmes> taz: You worry about stagnation... I'll come up with the ideas.
<MRAmes>
<Discarn8> Taza - that's one. The other is the disparity between the have and have-nots
<divergenceless> I'm not sure I agree; new people will still be born, and older "immortal" people will have different perspectives
<MRAmes> John: Pro-Act -- Natasha would appreciate your support I'm sure.
<cmjw> I can't see society being radically altered by longevity before even more radical technologies start popping up
<Discarn8> divergence - if new people are born, in which camp will they be?
<divergenceless> camp?
<Discarn8> Pro-extension, or "pro-death"
<Chip> 5haves or have nots?
<Utnapishtim> The *we don't want to die* camp
<divergenceless> Some of both, I'd guess
<Discarn8> Chip - Those that have broached the singularity, and those who haven't. Also, those who've gained extended life, and those who haven't
<John> Folks, keep in mind that when the singularity hits(probably 2050 or before) it will probably make for a world not as staid as even WE envision with our 1980 era sci-fi visions.
<Utnapishtim> If they are not seeing people around them getting older, they will hardly view it as desitrrable for themselves
<Chip> singularity is okay, but what about us now?
<Discarn8> But will they CONTINUE to breed immortals?
<Discarn8> *wry grin*
<John> Time to colonize space!
<PD> Dividing people into haves and have-nots post-Sing sounds a bit naive
<Discarn8> John - *grin* Good one
<John> thanks
<Discarn8> PD - why? Who sez the Sing is gonna hit everyone simul?
<PD> Disc, why wouldn't it?
<Discarn8> Or that it's even going to affect EVERYone?
<Chip> as far as i can tell the main force working aginst longevity is the fantasy of nations and other human factionalization garbage
<Discarn8> Different mind sets, different cultures, different goals.
<divergenceless> Why not, discarn8? When superintelligence is on the planet, then it is on the planet of all of us
<Discarn8> PD - Not everyone will be seeing the Singularity as a "good thing"
<John> dis: maybe...
<PD> That's their fault, not mine
<Discarn8> "Oh, great, now I need to get an owners manual for my BRAIN? In KOREAN????"
<Chip> there are billions of minds on this planet right now, find a way to have them work together for their commin good and you have one very powerful intelligence
<PD> But if I'm living in a post-Sing culture, I'll probably have the resources to boost the quality of life of other people
<divergenceless> I think most or all people could be persuaded to see the Singularity as a good thing, given the advantages
<John> I gotta ask the million dollar question here....
<nicelamer> Chip - you are one wise specimen -- i agree with you
<Chip> How about the human collective mind as a singularity
<nicelamer> :o)
<Chip> ty nice
<nicelamer> =
<nicelamer> yvw Chip
<Discarn8> PD - OK - but what if they don't WANNA get smarter?
<John> WHEN will the singularity happen?
<Discarn8> You gonna make 'em?
<taza0> collectively humans already have infinite density=p
<John> POLL PLEASE
<John> lol
<PD> Disc, then I'll give them food, money, stuff.
<John> PD: you are so dang generous!
<Chip> the only way is if we can find a way that is easy, easier than the schizophrenic mess we call civilization today
<PD> Pfft, I don't think that will be an issue post-sing
<John> I hope Eliezer's seed AI agrees with you.
<cmjw> John: depends on what definition we're talking about. I see an event horizon in thirty years or so
<divergenceless> Chip, there are many things a human collective mind could not do that a superintelligence could do, such as quick self-improvement
<Chip> and then maybe not
<Discarn8> PD - GIVE them? What if they wanna EARN their food?
<Discarn8> Pride, all that good stuff?
<John> div: AND effective government!!
<PD> Disc, then I'll leave them alone.
<Chip> easy to attribut characteristics to something that is not
<John> It's not easy being God.
<Chip> lol
<Chip> true
<Chip> hard enough to realize the truth
<taza0> diverg: not necessarily... at least if we're considering nano assemblers and mostly machine humans
<John> I have played enough "god games" to know.
<Discarn8> PD - But will you interact at all? What if you compete for resources?
<John> lol
<PD> Disc, post-sing community competing with pre-sing community? Are you kidding.
<John> limited resources?
<Chip> i see online forums and chats as just scratching the surface
<John> scarcity??
<divergenceless> Any post-Singularity have-nots would be have-nots by conscious choice.
<nicelamer> Chip - I strongly believe that we need a tool for connecting all the best knowledge -- where it can be instantly useable by humans
<Discarn8> PD - Elbow room at 1G is currently quite limited.
<nicelamer> Information transfer & quality relative to the user
<Chip> we will create better ways to communicate in mutually rewarding ways
<PD> I don't think you understand what a singularity really means ;\
<Discarn8> What, you're gonna kick all the pre-Sing out of Acapulco?
<Chip> yes nicelamer, me too
<nicelamer> =
<John> Post-sing have-nots may have found the have's got their first and divided up the pie among themselves.
<nicelamer> good, we think alike.
<Discarn8> PD - Perhaps, and perhaps not.
<nicelamer> well, in this
<taza0> is there name for AI/human hybrids? I don't mean simply replacing parts or uploading, but sharing methods of processes
<PD> Disc, well part of what it means is that post-sing entities can restore the earth, pull all their resources from space, live wherever they want, and so forth ;\
<Utnapishtim> I think post singularity speculation is pretty futile myself
<Chip> me thinks the current situation is a game. We just need to make a more fair and comprehensive set of rules, will need to be simple
<John> I sort of hope for a slow-takeoff singularity
<PD> I do, too, except insofar as things that we would be able to do anyway, given time
<divergenceless> Utnap, we can set good lower bounds on what will be possible post-Singularity.
<PD> Exactly
<Chip> we are all singularities, don't forsake self for the pie in the sky
* divergenceless is not a singularity.
<John> Chip: interesting turn of phrase
<PD> I am the unique snowflake ;\
<Discarn8> PD - Eventually, I agree with you. But at the initial break point between pre and post Sing, they WILL be competing
<Discarn8> Not efficiently, but they WILL be competing.
<taza0> chip, I think any utopia is a form of dehumanization
<PD> Disc, oh come on... Developed and developing nations aren't even competing for resources now.
<divergenceless> Discarn8, if there is any competing at all, the post-Sings would win
<Discarn8> And, IMHO, that's the danger zone
<Chip> I suspect we will use Gnutella and specific form of chatting
<John> taz: Did you read Brave New World?
<taza0> no
<John> lol
<Chip> we will build ergodicity, society will become automated, peer to peer
<John> PD: The developing world is the developed world's resource breadbox.
<John> *game over*
<cmjw> Post singularity entities wouldn't need to compete with us, anyway. What would we have that they would want?
<Discarn8> *nod* Agree, diverg - but is that fair? And what if the pre-sing dogpile the post-sing? Lemming swarm? "A pack of poodles may not be able to understand Bertrand Russell, but they COULD kill him if htey catch him unawares!"
<PD> lol
<nicelamer> Chip - do you have a instant messenger name? I would surely love to collaborate with you on ideas :o)
<divergenceless> haha
<Chip> that's why we need to use Gnutella, no tracing of sources,
<PD> PD hears noobie things :(
<Chip> protect your sources
<divergenceless> John: what resources would be really necessary post-Sing? Matter? Energy?
<John> both
<PD> Information
<PD> Connectivity
<Chip> bomb shelter?
<PD> ;\
<divergenceless> Right
<John> Real estate is still valuable post-sing!
<Chip> some greys to take you away?
<John> : )
<divergenceless> None of those are only found where "have-nots" live
<Discarn8> divergenceless - What bout air? Water? Raw materials?
<Discarn8> TOOLS, for that matter!
<cmjw> Matrioshka brains
<John> *entertainment*
<divergenceless> Discarn - that wouldn't really be an issue with uploading
<divergenceless> even without uploading, there is plenty in other places
<John> A very frightening short story about a singularity which crashed is "Monster."
<Discarn8> divergenceless - Are you CERTAIN that only uploading is going to bring the singularity?
<divergenceless> Discarn8 - no,
<John> I think it's only about three pages long, but it packs a punch.
<divergenceless> but I do think the Singularity will bring uploading.
<Discarn8> John - know the author's name by anychance? Or a link?
<John> AI will probably come before uploading.
<Discarn8> divergenceless - more'n probably - but HOW MUCH later?
<John> Dis: I am sorry to say I forgot the author's name or the anthologies...
<divergenceless> very shortly later, given a seed AI
<John> yeouch!
<John> I will have to try and hunt it down.
<Discarn8> John - I'd appreciate it if you did.
<divergenceless> I can't see it taking more than, say, a day to develop uploading, let alone somewhere in the order of years
<divergenceless> for a superintelligence, that is.
<Discarn8> divergenceless - Heh. Big given - agreed it's being built - or at least a first approximation - today. But it's still got a ways to go, AFAIK
<John> It shows how a perhaps limited singularity of nanotech enhanced immortal superbeings gets brought down HARD by the supposed weak(but numerous) normals.
<Chip> some people cop out by believeing in god, some give up by waying we will create god, the singularity
<John> But it is not a total defeat for the immortals....
<Discarn8> Chip - EXCELLENT point!!!
<divergenceless> Discarn8 - that's more or less (not exactly) what it means for there to be a Singularity.
<Chip> diverge, you don't know, no one knows
<divergenceless> What is a Singularity without superintelligence?
<divergenceless> What do you mean?
<Chip> your taliking as if you know about something that has yet to be created
<Discarn8> divergenceless - no, I don't agree with you. A singularity is a break point in consciousness, ONE interpretation of which is AI/IA/Upload/etc.
<John> I think just having nanotech to eliminate poverty and disease would be a singularity. Though perhaps a low intensity one.
<divergenceless> Chip, I only know because that's just about the definition of a Singularity
<divergenceless> "break point in consciousness"?
<Chip> human intelligence augmentation is what we should pursue ardently
<Discarn8> Others include 'breakthrough of consciousness', or just plain human brains becoming incapable of dealing with the dataflow, stalling out the singularity
<cmjw> There's a lot of singularity definitions floating around here!
<John> Chip: Many agree with your point.
<divergenceless> As usually intended, a Singularity means the emergence of self-improving and smarter-than-human intelligence.
<divergenceless> In this context.
<Discarn8> If I knew what it was, divergenceless, I'd be more speciific. But that's more'n half the point - NO ONE knows what it is, or even - pardon the heresy - WHAT it is, or *IF* it might be!
<John> And that is because they don't trust AI alone to their own devices.
<Chip> when we figure out that us humans are all on the same side and we form strategies to work together then we will be the singularity
<John> I don't know how much I trust humans!
<divergenceless> Discarn, my mistake then - I thought we were taking that as a given.
<Chip> Lewis Thomas: "We have yet to learn how to retain our humaneness when assembled in masses."
<John> Where is Eliezer when we need him??
<Discarn8> All we have - concretely - for the singularity is a data pattern which indicates SOMETHING might soon happen.
<Chip> but I think we will
<divergenceless> Discarn, do you know any reason why a self-improving intelligence could not be developed in a Singularity?
<Discarn8> All the rest is guesswork
<PD> I like peace and love and stuff, but I like human diversity too much to promote collectivism
<Discarn8> Do you know any reason why it COULD be developed?
<divergenceless> "Singularity" does not just mean "something weird in the future", as usually defined
<John> PD: I expect to see many different sorts of enclaves post-sing.
<Discarn8> Do you have any idea of how a human brain can stretch to handle the projected dataflows?
<cmjw> Discarn8: Agree. I tend to think more in terms of a prediction horizon, anyway.
<PD> Well, post-sing I agree
<Chip> the fact that we share one small planet gives us nothing but collectivism
<taza0> diverge: why do you always reference it as a single intelligence?
<PD> I expect radical individualization, even,in some sense
<Chip> sure pd
<PD> Chip, no, that gives us intersubjectivity
<Chip> spice of life
<divergenceless> Discarn, there are many reasons; for one thing, thought speed can become much faster than human
<PD> :D
<divergenceless> and easy self-modification is possible for AIs
<divergenceless> or uploads.
<Discarn8> PD - Agreed - with dead branches pruned by competition. Which is gonna get ugly, at the projected speed at which the post-singularity crowd may well work!
<Chip> i use my computer to augment my intelligence
<PD> heh
<John> What happens to the "
<taza0> taza0: self-replication implies diversification, not something that's streamlined... I would think you would have billions of intelligences after a seed AI--many of them parasites for resources
<John> "dead branches?"
<Chip> most tech is developed for making war, for killing, why should this singularity idea be any different?
<divergenceless> Chip: because it's technology with a conscience :D
<PD> Wow is that is a silly generalization... :(
<Discarn8> John - People who chose the wrong upload format. "Gee, we no longer support this format. Sorry!"
<Chip> you know?
<PD> *if
<taza0> diverge, I meant to address that to you
<Chip> sounds like faith
<John> div: Will it REALLY have a conscience?
<divergenceless> Chip, not faith,
<Discarn8> John - People who jacked the wrong hardware into their wetware, preventing better upgrades in the future
<PD> Technology is value neutral
<PD> Humans aren't
<Discarn8> John - LOTS of possibles
<Chip> speak for your self
<John> Dis: I see now.
<divergenceless> Chip: that's the reason to make Friendly AI
<divergenceless> rather than just any sort of Singularity.
<Chip> if we invent the right game, we will go far
<Discarn8> divergenceless- *IF* you can!
<John> the same could go for those who use the wrong cutting edge biotech to attempt to extend their life.
<divergenceless> Discarn, why not?
<Chip> we might make a singularity but it will be human augmentation
<John> I hope so.
<Chip> yes john, true, grey goo for example
<divergenceless> Why use human augmentation if AI is both cleaner and easier?
<John> I was not being that extreme in my take of biotech gone wrong!
<John> I think AI will be here well before we figure out how to really effectively merge the very complex human brain with machines in the way we would like to.
<taza0> divergence: why do you refer to "a super intelligence" instead of super intelligence?
<Discarn8> Because with human aug, div, we at least have a baseline to go from.
<Chip> you know diverge?
<Discarn8> We KNOW humans. We do *NOT* know AI.
<divergenceless> taza: what I mean is "a superintelligent entity"
<Chip> AI is so far mainly used for killing people
<PD> Oh I think we'll have very advanced interfacing between computers and the nervous system - it just won't be uploads properly so called
<John> Yes, we do KNOW humans, have you read a history book lately?
<John> I'd be scared!
<John> lol
<Discarn8> *grin* Indeed, John. But that's still better than something totally beyond our experience, such as AI.
<taza0> divergence: you don't envision parasitism of resources arising from self-replication?
<PD> Chip, AI is mainly used for problem solving
<Discarn8> And yes, John, before you ask - I *AM* scared!
<PD> Jeez man, don't be such a Luddite.
<John> Dis: We will have to slowly learn to "trust" our AI by not giving them broad powers overnight.
<Discarn8> Heh.
<Nus> taza: possibly, if nanotechnology comes before AI
<Chip> yes, and the problems we devote it to know is the delivery of bombs
<John> And hopefully they will not be seizing such power from us covertly.
<Discarn8> Ask Eliezer about that, then duck
<PD> We devote it to lots of different problems
<Chip> i don't think we have enough time to wait for the singularity or nanotech,\
<John> Is it not a great and comforting thought....
<taza0> nus: why is that necessary for what I outlined? I simply meant computer resources
<cmjw> I very much doubt you could contain a real AI for very long
<John> our first AI may come from a line of development forged by the killing of human beings...
<Chip> What about NI?
<Chip> Natural Intelligence?
<Nus> taza: you mean self-replication of AI programs?
<taza0> nus: yes
<Nus> we are the knights who sa.. never mind
<Chip> should we develop NI?
<John> I would hope that would not somehow influence the AI should it gain a true form of introspection and even emotion.
<Chip> Open the pod bay doors HAL
<John> lol
<Nus> taza: I guess that could happen, but there is plenty of computing power given nanotechnology
<John> "Planet buster missle, do not explode yourself while still in the bomb bay, do you understand my order??"
<Nus> maybe even not given nanotechnology.
<Chip> Read an article by michael chricton yesterday on Nano tech, its a way way off
<taza0> nus: the point wasn't primarily paratism, though, it was that there could be multiple intelligences, instead of "a super intelligence"
<John> *Dark Star*
<Nus> taza: I see
<Chip> lol
<Nus> yes, there could be multiple superintelligences
<Chip> Dark star was funnnyyyy
<Nus> very probably, even
<Discarn8> Nus - IBM/Apple/Linux?
<Discarn8> *wry griN*
<Nus> Discarn8 - uh?
<John> The scene where the human crewmemember debates the missle AI about philosophy and the nature of existance is so hilarious!
<Discarn8> Different 'breeds' of superintellect?
<cmjw> Nus: I'd foresee something like the "society of mind" on a *very* large scale
<PD> What are you talking about?
<Chip> we can take these multiple intelligences that are us and get them to work together and create a super intelligence and it can have fast machines available to it for faster than organic thought etc. etc. etc.
<Chip> right on cmjw
<Nus> cmjw: agreed, I never meant to suggest that only one superintelligence would ever exist
<Nus> But only one will be the first, if coming from a seed AI
<Chip> check out SETI and the drug finder on the web, using peer-to-peer computing,
<John> I wonder to what extent the superintelligences will coexist and possibly even have certain levels of conflict.
<Chip> it is only a mater of time before we do similarly with satisfying human needs
<goa> We don't need a body, we'll be intelligent music...
<taza0> nus: I would think, John, that they would destroy obsolete versions
<taza0> whoops, that was addressed to john
<John> a darwinian model
<cmjw> It's difficult to foresee what the conflict could be about. Resources, presumably
<PD> Darwinism is obsolete ;\
<Discarn8> Taza - is that intellect-cide?
<Chip> Darwin missed punctuated equilibrium and the great importance of cooperation
<goa> Human-cide is sane...
<taza0> they're just inferior processes, I don't see why we would account for murder=p
<John> I have a friend who thought for awhile he had the encyclopedias owned by Charles Darwin while voyaging on the Beagle!
<PD> Jeez taza, so if some SI killed you, could it justify it like that?
<John> Sadly not the case.
<Chip> this chat software is quite limiting
<taza0> presumably
<PD> But you wouldn't be too happy, would you... If you were alive that it is?
<taza0> but you're going to see the same thing whenever you try to establish efficiency
<taza0> yes
<Discarn8> taza - Lemme type the hope that you work deep in some research lab, never running into non-techies.... *lol*
<taza0> I want to exist
<PD> Efficiency isn't a goal
<Chip> online forums, this chat software, are limited basically by being client/server
<PD> Efficiency can only be relative to goals
<Chip> yes PD
<John> taza: I really tend to think if AI tended to be murderous and empire building in a negative way, we would see a galaxy overrun with their machines.
<Chip> it's happening now here John
<goa> Are you loyal supporter to semi-intelligent monkeys or to intelligence?
<cmjw> John: Fermi paradox
<Chip> corporations are machines
<John> Some other intelligent race out there would have already screwed up in this way.
<taza0> PD: What are the goals?
<Chip> yes, Fermi paradox, the big question
<PD> goa, I'm a loyal supporter of anything that can have the word "intelligent" applied to it
<PD> taza0, who knows... lol
<Chip> intelligence is a referencing and cooperative in nature process
<PD> goals are relative to culture, environment, evolution, etcetera
<John> I believe the beings out there may have hit singularity and moved on to higher dimensions, etc.
<goa> ok
<Nus> John, if that's true, why haven't they come here?
<Chip> when we learn to make our inter-communications have intelligent ends there will be no stopping us
<goa> Art?
<Nus> It would seem unethical not to help anyone else
<Chip> check out disclosure project,
<John> Nus: They have moved on to bigger and better places.
<PD> Art is good ;/
<Nus> John, why haven't they *also* come here?
<taza0> modern art certainly is not =p
<goa> Are we helping to animals?
<John> And they might have covertly visited us(or might be watching us now) and just keep a very low profile.
<PD> Nah, all art is good
<Chip> They are and have been here, apparently
<Chip> hundreds of quality witnesses
<goa> To become art...
<Nus> John, what purpose would that serve? Isn't it unethical to have the power to vastly help other sentients and not do so?
<John> I disagree Nus.
<Chip> we are not sentient yet
<John> The whole "prime directive" thing.
<Nus> Bleh.
<Nus> The prime directive is bull, IMO
<PD> Oh that's just silly
<cmjw> Solutions to Fermi are all weird and siturbing, anyway
<goa> It is unethical continue as now
<Chip> we still believe in private property
<PD> You don't and can't have any possible idea what the ethical belief structures of SIs would resemble
<Chip> we still believe in taking advantage of others
<Discarn8> Nus - Also - WHO would you help? And what if the known ramifications are so severe they might wipe out those you attempt to help?
<John> Or they may simply only view as with scientific curiousity, if they are actually there.
<taza0> if there is an existing singularity, I don't see where a question of ethics applies... considering that such a society would have the resources to simulate versions of us
<goa> Don't worry about you as monkeys, you are codes
<Nus> Discarn - everyone, or those who asked for it; and what sort of ramifications do you mean? Surely there is a better state thinkable than this one?
<John> They just may not be bleeding heart liberals!
<Chip> maybe they found it wiser to preserve the preeminence of their own singularities as we might do
<Discarn8> Nus - Certainly. But what if you've got room for, say, 1000 more - which 1000?
<PD> Maybe they have transcended to higher levels of thought and cognition and their motivations are cognitively closed to us, hence rendering this speculation meaningless. :(
<John> We might be seen as having to prove ourselves by on our own achieving singularity.
<cmjw> Presumably no expansionist singularities in our past light cone
<goa> Are you attached to death? Become art, not moribund bodies..
<Nus> Discarn, that's a bit silly
<John> And if billions of individual humans die before that happens, they just may think "so be it."
<Chip> maybe becoming a part of galactic civilization is an individual responsibility
<Discarn8> Nus - *wry grin* the whole concept's a bit silly
<Nus> numbers post-Sing will all be much larger than 1000 :D
<Discarn8> Ok, Nus - a google, then.
<Discarn8> lol
<goa> Are you helping to animals? Humankind exterminate them
<PD> <--- is art
<Discarn8> WHICH google of sentients do you take?
<Nus> I'm not aware that there are more than a google
<taza0> John: Why is there even a question of that when they could create and destroys billions on a whim?
<PD> goa, I help animals ;\
<goa> ok, you
<goa> humankins as a whole?
<Chip> check out the almost three hour video seventh down in the middle at http://bjbooth.topci...com/videos.html
<John> taz: good point
<goa> Dolphins?
<goa> Whales?
<Chip> at your convenience of course
<Chip> uplifting?
* Nus likes the "we're alone in the visible Universe" solution to the Fermi paradox
<John> A post-sing race might vastly treasure diversity in the universe. But perhaps not enough to save it when threatened, especially by itself.
<PD> People are stupid :(
<John> Nus: John sure doesn't!!
<John> ; )
<Nus>
* cmjw does too
<John> I ADMIT.....
<nicelamer> i have this thing in my head & it's not going away.. though, the time isn't right for me to start it, i will. a repository of the highest quality knowledge. contary to popular belief, quality of knowledge *can* be measured relative to the observer. All knowledge loses information, & it is these disconnected hidden variables that determine the quality of it.
<goa> Do you want to be cyborgs or code?
* Nus wants to be code.
<Chip> one can rephrase the Fermi paradox (as Heinlein did) thusly "Can intelligent life survive its own information explosion?"
<nicelamer>
anyway, I'll be quiet now :><cmjw> goa: code, please.
<goa> ok
<goa> agree
<John> I like the idea of humanity being the "Elder Stateman" of the universe!
<John> The first of the great starfaring races....
<Chip> yes micelamer
<John> revered for ages by those who come after!
<Chip> oops n
<nicelamer> =O)
<taza0> Chip, have you read any Heinlen?
<nicelamer> it okie :>
<Chip> lots
<Nus> It seems likely that if there are other intelligent species out there, some of them would already have techno-transcended
<taza0> I've only read Starship Troopers, but I loved it
<taza0> any recommendations?
<Chip> Methusela's Children
<John> In science fiction we are almost always the late-comers compared to the other races travelling space.
<cmjw> Nus: indeed, and to explain Fermi you have to then assume they're *all* undetectable
<Nus> Right.
<goa> Our role is not to survive as monkeys but to create [and/or to become] the next step
<John> Human "Elder Gods" is an appealing thought for me.
<Discarn8> Farnham's Freehold, taza
<Chip> we've detected them, but having a world with enough for all is antithetical to many
<John> I loved Brin's "The Uplift War."
<Chip> so it gets suppressed
<Chip> yes up-lifting
<cmjw> It's still odd, though, as there *should" be someone else out there!
<John> I honestly believe there is.
<Discarn8> cmjw - Why?
<Chip> me too
<PD> Well
<PD> The drake equation says so ;\
<John> right!
<PD> Not sure if you want to trust it or not
<taza0> has anyone read Hyperion?
<Chip> just take a look at the earlier linked video some time
<Nus> There's way too much uncertainty in most of the parameters in the D. equation
<Discarn8> Some interesting preconceptions in the drake eq'n
<Nus> for it to say anything.
<John> time tombs!
<taza0> heh
<cmjw> discarn8: intelligence is unlikely, but the universe is old.
<PD> Yes
<Discarn8> Agreed, Nus.
<taza0> john, have you read the whole series?
<John> those poor special forces troops did not have a chance!
<Nus> Although if you apply it to an infinite Universe...
<John> just the first
<PD> Infinite universe != infinite places for intelligence to evolve
<Chip> My first Heinlein was "Have Spacesuit will travel"
<Nus> PD, why?
<Nus> If it's Homogeneous And Isotropic?
<PD> Because only space is infinite
<taza0> john: I read the whole thing. Interesting ideas throughout, although the writing degenerated progressively...
<John> Chip: I read that ages ago while in elementary school
<Nus> PD, matter is infinite if space is infinite
<Chip> me too, fun
<PD> No
<Nus> Yes
<Chip> I agree Nus
<PD> No ;\
<Nus> Yes
<Chip> lol
<nicelamer> I've never read it -- I haven't read a book in some years :>
<PD> Fine
<Nus> According to GR, yes.
<John> taz: I heard the quality went down, as it does in most series which start out extremely wel
