[ExI] singularity utopia's farewell
possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 16 20:15:38 UTC 2010
I am saddened you think my site is a kook's paradise although contrary
to your assertions some serious-non-kooks have professed a great love
for it. I wanted to create something colorful and fun, which in
conservative circles could perhaps seem kooky. I imagine straitlaced
Christians probably thought the Rolling Stones and the Beatles where
kooky back in the 60s. Thinking about the Beatles I am reminded of the
colourful Yellow Submarine film, which was rather colourful and kooky,
thus I am inclined to state you are a Blue Meanie.
I first saw "The Yellow Submarine" when I was about six, and the Blue
Meanies scared the hell out of me! My wife (now ex-wife) once dressed
as a Blue Meanie for Halloween...
Hopefully my site will attract the kooks instead of the Blue Meanies.
[*] asks: if I am so smart then why am I not rich. I reply thus... is
amassing vast wealth truly smart? Perhaps I have a rich mind?
Furthermore I'm not superhuman or perhaps I am superhuman thus I
struggle to exist burdened by immense depression living amidst this
world of fools. If I was incredibly smart, which I am, it is also
possible normal humans could see me as a threat thus I could find it
difficult to function in this civilization: try to imagine a human
surviving in a community of monkeys; the monkeys could be hostile
because they feel threatened. In The Country of The Blind the one-eyed
man is not King.
It can be reassuring to someone of somewhat low self-esteem and
limited personal success, to want to believe the world is not nearly
as wise and special.
No wonder some Transhumanists fear the advent of unfriendly AI... you
see greater intelligence than yours as a threat thus you will probably
try to enslave AIs thus you are likely to cause AIs to rebel and
attack you (a self-fulfilling prophecy). If I was a AI, I would
definitely feel unfriendly towards most humans.
Oh, so Eliezer's friendly AI project is actually about "A.I. slavery!" lol
Previously I have been criticized for being over the top with my
ideas... but no one seems to get it... that's the whole point... the
SINGULARITY *IS* OVER THE TOP because it will radically and very
dramatically transform the human race, hopefully in a very colorful
A good point.
Some people are so disrespectful and hostile on this chat-list, with
no sense of fun, therefore I shall bring my input to a close. I am
private person with no desire to become a public punching bag. I don't
have the energy.
I really enjoyed S.U.'s posts until he started ranting about being a
techno-messiah! Perhaps we was merely trying to do positive thinking
& visualization at a very intense level, but it left me cold. I
thought for a time he was someone playing games, and using an alias
for strictly personal amusement, but now I tend to believe he is
I was about to say I was too hard on the guy, but I probably was
not... But despite my comments and challenges, I am rooting for him.
: ) I hope he can make it to a transhumanist conference sometime soon
and forge some real world friendships with people who can help
encourage and guide him.
On 9/16/10, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/9/16 Gregory Jones <spike66 at att.net>
>> We have been perplexed by the puzzling commentary by Singularity Utopia
> I wasn't. I've seen this category of fail far too often. Here's roughly
> what happened:
> * SU saw something (the Singularity) that promised to make a lot of problems
> go away.
> (The particular something is irrelevant; people have made this mistake about
> a number of
> other things, with different justifications.)
> * SU confused "a lot" for "all". (Failure #1. In short, There Is No God
> Solution. Some
> things can be miraculous or at least very good, but if you think something
> solves all
> problems forever without costing anyone anything - not just "as compared to
> solutions", some current set of problems, for a limited time, or for a
> limited and
> acceptable cost (including if the cost is acceptable because it is only
> borne by others),
> but literally everything forever - you can safely assume you've overlooked
> misunderstood something.)
> * Based on that incorrect data, SU logically decided that promoting it would
> be the best
> course of action. (If there were some god-action that could fix all
> problems with
> practically zero effort, then yes, getting everyone to do it would be best.
> Again: we
> know the Singularity is not that, but SU believed it was.)
> * SU went to an area perceived friendly to that something (this list).
> * SU was informed of the realities of the thing, and how they were far less
> than initially
> perceived. In particular, SU was informed that the thing would require a
> lot of careful,
> skilled work, not merely boundless enthusiasm
> * SU experienced dissonance between SU's perception of the thing and what SU
> being told. In particular, SU perceived (likely not fully consciously) that
> SU would have
> to actually do some less-than-enjoyable work in order to achieve this end,
> accepting this new truth less palatable. (Letting such personal concerns
> affect judgment
> of what is real was failure #2. Reality doesn't care if you suffer.)
> * Knowing that there are many people generally resistant to change, SU
> resolved the
> dissonance by believing that even these supposed adherents must be more of
> same, and therefore that anything they said could be dismissed without
> consideration. (Failure #3: few people actually do personal attacks when
> they see a way
> to instead demonstrate the "obvious" benefits of and reasons for their
> position. Most
> such disagreements are not about logic, but about the axioms and data from
> which logic
> can be done.)
> * Having committed to that, SU then rationalized why we were "attacking"
> that vision, and
> ignored all further evidence to the contrary. (Extension of failure #3.)
> There is a sad irony in this case, because the principles of Extropy, as
> defined by Mr.
> More, include memes that defend against this category of error. This
> particular collection
> of mental missteps is more common in, for example, politics. (To be fair,
> there are more
> people in politics who will personally attack to back up ulterior motives,
> but politics -
> especially on large scales - often deals with situations so large that most
> are honestly starting from very limited sets of data, perceiving parts of
> the whole that
> other stakeholders do not, and vice versa.)
More information about the extropy-chat