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

[Anna Tylor]

Ok, again sorry to be bothering you
I have a few questions when you have some available time
I really don't want to be bothersome but what can I do,  I really want feed 
back
These are my questions, comments and curiosity?
Don't rush, please take your time, I know your busy and I really don't want 
to
annoy you
Thanking you again
Anna:)

So let me get this right:
Eliezer Yudkowsky created the Singularity Institute,
which in, before or after wrote "Seed AI", "Levels
of organization in General Intelligence", "Ethical
Cognitive enhancement", "Creating Friendly AI" and
"Shock Levels".
-I'm sure his written more,  but I'm asking if these are
-his most popular works?
-and yes.. i've read them all, many times
-and yes.. I think they are brilliant

The Foresight Institute is preparing for nanothechnology:
-They are focused on their challenges such as
-meeting Global energy with clean solutions
(very recommendable)
-Clean Water Globally
(It's about time)
-Increasing health and longevity of human life
-Maximizing Productivity of Agriculture
-Making powerful information Technology available
everywhere
-Understanding the development of space

The Extropy Institute
by Max Moore
"A think tank "Ideas Market" for the future of
social change brought about by consequential
technologies"- Martin
"An original philosophy from transhumanists"
"As the extent of a living or organization system's
intelligence, functional order, vitality energy,
life experience and capacity and drive improvement
and growth."
Please read "Principles of Extropy" or "Precautionary
principles"

Transhumanism:
by Julien Huxley 1957- the remaining human, but
transcending oneself by realizing new possibilities
of and for his or her human nature.

by Dr. Anders Sandberg- describes modern transhumanism
as "the philosopy that we can and should develop to
higher levels, physically, mentally and socially using
rational methods"

by wiki- there exists an ethical imperative for humans
to strive for progress and improvement of the
human condition

Should I have read (based on your opinion) Transhuman
Principles?

A little of Broderick, Smith and Einstein--we
could have all the answers.  no?

Einstein's success:
--Special Relativity
--Brownian Methos
--Photoelectric Effect
--Equation E=MC2
Quote by Einstein
"Quamtum mechanics is certainly imposing.  But an
inner voice tells me it is not yet the real thing.
The theory says a lot but does not really bring
us any closer to the secret of the old one.  I, at
any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice"

Quotes I didn't agree with regarding transhumanism:

wiki: about transhumanism
while Dr. Robin Hanson describes it as
"the idea that new technologies are likely
to change the world so much in the next
century or two that our descendants will
in many ways no longer be 'human'."

wiki: about transhumanism
A more notable critic of transhumanism is Bill Joy,
co-founder of Sun Microsystems, who argued in his essay
Why the future doesn't need us that human beings
would likely guarantee their own extinction by
transhumanist means. This led some to conclude
that humanity has an inherent lack of competence
to direct its own evolution.

What I didn't agree about Yudkowsky:

For those of you who went directly to
Singularitarianism without stopping off at
transhumanism along the way, and are wondering why
the heck I'm going to such lengths not to say anything
bad about selfishness, it's because a number of
"transhumanist ethical philosophies are selfish in
a foundational sense.  This is a very formal sort
of "selfishness" - for example, gaining selfish
pleasure by gratifying your personal impulse towards
charity is entirely acceptable (except to loony
Objectivists).  In my personal opinion this is
part of the general overreaction of technocapitalist
philosophies to the great Communist disaster,
but that is, of course, only my opinion.)"
I'm not clear about this?
this is personal opinion about?
-When I started researching I started at AI and broke
-it down to transhumanisn.  You can have selfish desires
-and fufill them at the same time and give back to
-humanity by making a positive impact on society? no?

And by that time, some existing supergenius like
myself will have long since built a Strong RSI
that doesn't pass through the bottleneck
of 200Hz neurons.
-I'm not sure if this is him. I hope not,  but I did
file it under his name.  (But i'm not sure) Please
let me know
-you may have "long since built a Strong RSI
-that doesn't pass through the bottleneck
-of 200Hz neurons."
-but your ego will not let you become anything else
-than what you've become: Self-centered+egotistical+
-smart=a very dangerous combination

If you have something to say, don't phrase it in
the form of a question.  This holds especially
true for your first post.  Don't say:
"I'm new here, but wouldn't X be Y?"  Say:
"I object, because I think that X will be Y",
or just "X will be Y."
--if someone comes to the site and has something to say:
--a moderator should (not in all cases)1 acknowledge
--that a person is trying to make contact.
--If a person feels rejected or put down, chances are,
--they won't be coming back..
--How does that promote the cause?
A lot of people are smart and have a need to learn.
It is unfortunate that popularity and difference
combine together actually create something of
a significance..but that's the way it is.
a cause needs to be public..therefore you need to make
in known to the vast population
Does anybody have any idea how they are going to
do this?
Quoting Andrian Tymes:
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).

If you have a genuine question, please consider
sending it to me rather than the list,
especially if it looks like a question about
the basics.  If you have some question that
looks blatantly obvious but isn't discussed
anywhere - a "Well why didn't anyone think of this?"
question - then please check with me first,
because it almost certainly has been discussed
already.  You may also want to check the
"Indexed FAQ" in "Creating Friendly AI".
-This I won't comment on

Based upon (not in all cases)1
This is a science-literate mailing list.
If you're still unclear about whether humans
evolved or were planted on Earth by flying
saucers, you're welcome to read SL4, but you
probably won't like what you read, and your
first post will probably be your last.
There could be an exception to this rule.
We just haven't encountered it yet.
-this can happen there are "kooks"..lol..out there,
(and they must not be critized, just removed from
the setting)
but in general, for an ordinary, average human
trying to grasp the theory seems almost impossible.
How is it going to become worldwide or accepted if
nobody knows to understand it?

If you don't post an angry reply calling the
moderator an evil dictator, it means you're a wimp.
-This would be a naturel instinct based on criticism
and lack of self-confidence

However, this analysis is valid only if
the pulsar exhibits no proper motion with
respect to solar barycenter. Since this is
likely never to be the case, a relativistic
correction must be made to account for the
Earth's constantly changing velocity with respect
to the reference frame of the pulsar source.
-I lost my notes on this and am curious if anybody
can help me out.
-When I quoted this, what was he talking about?


>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 advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters 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*.