[ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 78, Issue 36

[Keith Henson]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 7:57 PM,  <jameschoate at austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ---- Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>
>> SURELY I speak for at least some, here, who see the benefits
>> of achieving uploading wholly in these other terms:
>>
>> * increased security
>
> Security from what/who?

The large class of events that kill people today.

> I think that the belief that uploading will somehow reduce the impact of competition and corruption is a pipe dream. Lawrence Lessig addressed the generally unrecognized impact of code as a second form of law in his book. To quote Jefferson "have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him?" the infrastructure that this requires has to be built by somebody, and at least some of those will be corrupt. And the simple fact is that there isn't any way around that reality, virtual or not.

There are counter examples.  Linux is not corrupt.  PGP is not
corrupt.  I don't see any reason that an AI or an upload environment
could not be the same.

>> * brain tampering
>
> How would one know? Trust the hash algorithms indicating cohesion? Who wrote those programs? Who wrote the compiler and tool chain to implement them? Who loaded them and what sorts of chroot opportunity did they have? How do you verify (some sort of PKE?) your I/O is valid and untampered with?

It's a good reason for the environment to be open source.  Imagine
*living* in something written by MS.

>> Is the point not appreciated by all and sundry that one
>> might be able to *choose* one's interests? As soon as
>> enough progress is made, why would someone play games?
>> Any games?
>
> http://venturebeat.com/2010/03/12/game-guru-sid-meier-explains-decades-of-second-guessing-egomaniacal-gamers/
>
> The short answer is that some people don't want to deal.
>
>> Right now, we're trapped by our ancient hardware into
>> being rewarded by some kinds of silly things:
>
> And somehow changing the hardware of this gilded cage makes it more acceptable? Think not.  On the other hand I have great uneasiness about this future.
>
>> Are you finding yourself curious about enough things?
>> Or curious enough? Curiosity itself is simple a certain
>> kind of brain behavior. As for me, I'm not sufficiently
>> curious about knitting or kayaking, though it would be
>> neat to experience going off Niagara Falls in a kayak,
>> now that I think of it. And there are lots of things
>> that don't begin with the letter "k" which I intend
>> to become curious about if I make it.
>
> Mental solipsistic masturbation. So the ultimate goal of this grand socio-technical experiment is so we can spend our time in a dynamic mountain cabin exploring our every whim of insanity. Pass.

Hmm.

>> Based upon our inherited mammalian anthropoid
>> brain architecture---and what we're accustomed to. Surely
>> you'll agree that by a large margin, this undersells what
>> will eventually be possible.
>
> My concern is the R Complex. But, yes, I agree that the vast majority have not grokked the eventual possibilities, both good, bad, and pointless.

Presumptively you are a fan of Gilliland.  So am I.

Keith