[extropy-chat] Re:Just trying to figure it out

Wed Nov 16 15:33:56 UTC 2005

Thank you again for your time, I know that you must be a busy person.
I will take your advice and try again
>From: Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net>
regarding
>I have often found it a
>useful tactic to try to explain the concepts to an imaginary child -
>mostly to force myself to restate the concept in clear and simple terms
>(literally, in terms that an average child would understand).
This will be very usefull
Thank you again
Anna

>From: Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net>
>Reply-To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re:Just trying to figure it out
>Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:21:53 -0800 (PST)
>
>--- Anna Tylor <femmechakra at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >you are absotuly right, I should have written that this is the first
> > time I
> > >have ever posted anything.  My apologies to everyone.
>
>No worries.  Everyone's a newbie to these things at some time.
>
> > >Again you are right, inexperience is the problem or better yet the
> > way I
> > >communicate
> > >may be the bigger problem but I still thought I understood it.
>
>Ah, and there lies one of the biggest problems in communicating
>complex ideas: the whole point of communication is to get other people
>to understand something.  It does not matter how well you understand
>it, save that this helps you to find ways to express your ideas to
>others.  Indeed, while learning hard topics, I have often found it a
>useful tactic to try to explain the concepts to an imaginary child -
>mostly to force myself to restate the concept in clear and simple terms
>(literally, in terms that an average child would understand).
>
> > Anyhow
> > >thank you for
> > >taking the time to respond.  If you do have a few more minutes could
> > you at
> > >least look
> > >at what I thought I was reading and tell me if at least some of it
> > makes
> > >sense, it would be much appreciated.
>
>I already commented on your earlier work, but I see you have added more
>comments.  I shall respond to those.
>
> > >A model of mind-body is proposed: a potential ideal of
> > >computational leverage
> > >>I am proposing that a computer can enhance the mind to such an
> > extent that
> > >>it becomes a new mind-body experience
>
>Your restatement is clearer.  You should use that instead.
>
>I also suspect you would find a lot of agreement, at least among those
>who make extensive use of the Internet, that computers can enhance the
>mind such that it would not be totally inaccurate to call it "a new
>mind-body experience".  This is an extension of the old concept by
>vehicle operators, of being so in tune with their machine that they are
>said to become one with it, or that the machine reacts so quickly and
>precisely under their control that it is, at least in practical terms,
>essentially a (removable, and thus temporary) extension of their body.
>
> > >Mechanisms that are based upon primitive properties of the universe
> > (such
> > >as space, time, and number of dimensions) derived from modern
> > physics
> > >consistency arguments.
> > >>With the use of primitive tools, simple observation, and graphing,
> > a human
> > >>with no knowledge of existing theories could probably come up with
> > simple,
> > >>uncomplicated ideas that may benefit humans that have
> > >>huge knowledge and expertise.
>
>Again your restatement is clearer.  I believe that you are on the path
>to a much clearer document.  Perhaps it would work if you collected
>your thoughts, rewrote the work, then went away from it for a day or
>two (to clear your short term memory of thoughts associated with it)
>then reread it, looking for ways to restate things even more clearly.
>(In this case, any understanding located solely in your short term
>memory would be lost - but that's a good thing, since it lets you
>identify many of the confusing points in your wording, and you still
>understand your thoughts well enough to restate them.)  This only works
>for a few cycles, though, before the understanding filters into your
>medium and long term memory - and that is when you truly need other
>people (who, themselves, do not already understand what you are trying
>to say from having read and reread your words) to review your work.
>
>That said - I would disagree with the point you are making here.  Yes,
>it is not statistically impossible for an untrained human being to
>come up with ideas that are of use to humans with lots of training and
>experience.  In practice, while it does happen from time to time, it is
>very unlikely, and most of the time when untrained humans think they
>have ideas that are of use to the trained, they are not in fact of any
>significant use - to the point that the cost of the time to listen to
>and comprehend the idea dwarfs any potential benefit to the trained
>individual.  (Trained individuals rarely have lots of time to spare,
>as their training makes their time valuable.  It is not too inaccurate
>to view their time as a resource, in the same sense as money - at least
>to the point of making cost-benefit decisions as to where they want to
>spend their limited time.)
>
>Of course, this only applies when the idea is within the field of the
>trained individual's training.  A typical CFO is usually not very well
>trained in engineering, while a typical CTO is usually not very well
>trained in finance; the better CFOs and CTOs know to defer to each
>other when the topic of conversation drifts to the other's specialty.
>Then again, "trained" is a relative term: CFOs and CTOs both tend to
>understand both engineering and finance better than a typical 10 year
>old child (and thus are "trained" in both fields as compared to said
>child), for example.
>
> > >The ideal solution for unlimited intelligence would require a
> > sparse, high
> > >dimensional spacetime (unrestricted locality) and a formalized
> > observer
> > >mechanism (mobile observer framework based on a superset of inertial
> > frame
> > >properties).
> > >>Therefore the ideal solution is that
> > >>the human with ideas needs to contact people that can
> > >>help to explain some "Kook" ideas that someone may have
> > >>(high dimensional spacetime-being the internet) and use
> > >>some form of communication such as the extropy chat (observer
> > framework).
>
>Again, your restatement is clearer - but again, I disagree.
>
>One of the basic findings of those who have extensively used the
>Internet to aid their mind, is that the Internet - specifically, its
>automated resources - are often the *first* resource one should turn to
>when trying to validate new ideas.  If you've thought of it, it often
>turns out that other people have thought of it before - and since many
>pre-Internet sources of wisdom have been uploaded to the Internet
>already, that's 4000+ years of wisdom that are online today even though
>the Internet has been around for barely 1% of that (and been heavily
>used for even less time).  There are a certain few exceptions, such as
>thoughts on extremely new technology the likes of which were never
>conceived of before - but for example, the concept of "one with the
>machine" probably dates back to as far as there have been fast,
>reliable machines for people to be one with (and the basic concept
>actually predates what we would today call "machines": "one with his
>sword" is something that might have been said of certain mideval
>knights, or at least certain samurai from the same years, and the
>concept may be older than that), and many documents about this can be
>found online.
>
>An example of this in action: going to http://www.google.com/ and
>searching on "one with his car" brings up over a thousand results
>(which is actually surprisingly low), the first of which -
>http://www.kriyayoga.com/love_blog/post.php/269 - is a good poetic
>description of the concept.
>
>And so forth.  Quite a lot of people on this list would take the
>existence and use of such things as obvious and granted: almost
>everyone who is reading this knows of and uses such things.  My
>favorite statement of how basic and fundamental this has become - as
>has the concept of checking the automated resources (which really do
>have all the time in the world to give you information, or effectively
>so given how little strain one person's manual searching puts on these
>things, as opposed to the significant time a person would spend
>listening to and answering a query) - is a certain alias someone
>created for Google: http://www.stopbeingsuchalazyfuck.com/
>
>Note the emotional accusation: by asking people instead of looking
>things up yourself, you know you're being irresponsible.  This is
>almost never actually the case - the *answerer* may know of this
>alternate path, but *you* did not.  However, you know it now - and you
>might want to use it a lot, before you try to describe what it's like
>to use it a lot.  There are enough people who really do use it a lot,
>who will be insulted (or worse) by inaccurate depictions of what it's
>like to use it a lot (and thus to be one with the Internet).
>
>A more detailed version of this advice, as applying specifically to
>technical topics (rather than the metaphoric topic you're writing
>about, but close enough to be relevant) is at
>http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
>A quick skim of the rest of your essay seems to follow similar lines.
>I think I've said enough to set you on the right path - and I've got
>other things I need to do tonight.
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

_________________________________________________________________
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen 
Technology. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
  Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.