[ExI] Talk like an uploader! =P

[Kelly Anderson]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Alan Grimes <agrimes at speakeasy.net> wrote:

OK, nobody else has taken a stab at this, so I'll bite.

> parallel the writings of the Big Weenie (Kurzweil),

Why is RK the Big Weenie? And if he is the big weenie, why parallel
his writings? Or is big weenie a good thing? ;-)

> I catagoricaly do not endorse the following
> as a political manifesto.

That's good since it really isn't. More of a view of a potential future.

> I will definitely not be playing my usual character in any ensuing
> discussions.
>
> mu
>
> Human history can be understood as a discreet series of integrations
> facilitated by technology. Families became tribes, tribes became
> villages, villages became city-states, city-states became nations. Then
> a phase-change occurred, the mode of integration stopped being mere
> physical proximitity involving cities and sky-scrapers, it became
> informational, based on telecommunications. Telegraphs became
> telephones. Telephones became the internet. Now everyone is expected to
> carry it around in their pocket.

Looked at another way, the same trend can be stated, "There has been
an exponential increase in the speed of communication between people
over time. Because of this, the size of the network meaningfully
interacted with by each individual has also grown, but linearly. There
is no reason to believe that these increases will slow."

> The next stage of human evolution will be organic.

Here you lose me entirely. Why do you assert this?

> The telecommunication
> devices will be implanted in the body, opening new channels of
> communication.

Again, why? Communication devices that efficiently interface with us
through our current senses will take us a long way. People are not
likely to subject themselves to surgery until it is nano surgery, so I
see this as a way down the road.

> This will begin a third major chain of evolutionary
> steps. The next stage after that will begin when we realize that as
> automation progresses, our bodies will become increasingly redundant.

I agree with the idea that bodies will become increasingly redundant,
but not for some time. This will require an evolutionary path of
robotics that will occur outside of human beings initially. The
technologies will be merged eventually, but will evolve separately for
some time.

> We
> will begin living in pods that maintain our bodies while allowing us to
> enjoy the gigabit bandwidths a land-line allows full-time.

If you're going to live in a pod, then lose the body. This pod to
maintain the body idea is ridiculous IMHO.

> This next
> impetus for change will come from the costs inherent in maintaining
> separate systems. The next change in the social order will come when we
> abandon our individual dwellings and store our pods in huge communal
> facilities. The economies of scale will probably plateau at this stage
> for a while.

I disagree. Individuality is at risk in the future, but moving a bunch
of pods into a warehouse just seems unlikely to me. The only reason to
maintain a body is so that you can leave the pod/matrix.

> The problem of maintaining individual pods will remain until the problem
> of merging bodies together is solved. This will permit the ultimate
> phase of integration. By fusing our bodies together we can achieve even
> greater economies of scale.

Crazy talk. By the time you could do this, you wouldn't want to.

> Do to safety considerations of being too
> close to our impermanent sun, we will be forced to limit the level of
> integration to a few hundred tons worth so that it will be possible to
> launch us into space using rockets and then complete the integration
> while in orbit.

Why not just upload into a more efficient substrate of computronium.
Why maintain cells and ATP?

> The resulting being will be a tightly networked community of minds
> sharing a common dreamscape and linked to powerful computronium-based AI
> engines that will provide the necessary logistical support.

This makes sense. Just lose the tie to biology. Biology is not the
most compatible way to get into space.

> Over the long term, the AI systems will mine out the solar system and
> maintain an appropriate balance between living and machine mater. As new
> planets are discovered, new people will be spawned off to go and
> experience it and then be returned to the collective after they have
> matured.

Why return when you can just return the information and keep going?

> The only questions that remain are the technical issues of how to
> accomplish this.

Sure.

> The primary concern is heat. Heat will be the ultimate limiting factor
> of how dense the collective can be. In all probability, a fractal
> pattern will be used to increase the surface area available for
> radiating away heat.

You're diving into the details here. It weakens your argument to
change the level of the discussion.

> Energy is a lesser concern but can be mitigated because you only need to
> really support the brain and the base metabolism, there would be no need
> for any kind of physical exertion much less kitchen appliances or fast
> cars.

Even better is to be loaded into a substrate that can maintain healthy
operations at 4 degrees Kelvin. A lot of the energy concern sending
cells into outer space is keeping them above freezing. Lose the cells,
and you lose most of the problem.

> The primary biological need is a constant source of ATP. The
> metabolization of fat and sugar molecules for energy involving the
> consumption of oxygen and the production of uric acid is far too
> inefficient. The collective's tissues will be converted to absorb
> microwave energy using nano-devices which will supply the necessary ATP.
> The balance of other nutrients will be maintained through a common blood
> stream and a combination of mechanical and organic organs to re-process
> toxic substances.

Again, lose the biology, solve the problem.

> Immune system compatibility issues will be solved by replacing the
> immune system with a nano-based system.
>
> The merging itself will be quite pleasant. It will be mediated by a
> dense swarm of nano-fog that will envelop part or all of the bodies to
> be merged and accomplish the merging while managing the sensory
> stimulation to be either numbed or pleasurable. As the collective grows,
> it will be able to completely envelop new members or smaller collectives.

We'll see. Again, much easier if you lose the cells.

> The process will involve upgrading individual cells and then
> re-organizing them into new tissues and structures.
>
> Brains, obviously, will be preserved as much as possible except where
> necessary to adapt to the new physical form. Specifically, the autonomic
> functions will be re-designed to meet the new set of needs.
>
> Life in the collective will be nearly careless except that you will have
> some perception of your part of the collective and some of your
> neighbors. This will be a minimal but essential role in maintaining the
> safety of the entire collective.
>
> If your body isn't strong enough to undergo the process or you feel that
> it is deficient, it can be upgraded before you begin the merging process.
>
> Evolution past this stage is less clear because it depends much on how a
> great many technical questions are resolved. I would tend to think it
> would feature a continuation of the blurring of the distinction between
> individuals and between what is deemed living and what is deemed machine.

I like this paragraph. It's accurate (we don't know a great number of
things) and it is deep enough to provoke thought.

> Okay, there I've done it. I took a completely new, and potentially
> dangerous meme, loaded it into a gun which I know works, and pulled the
> trigger. I can't say it's everything that I had hoped it would be then
> there is not much else I can say in the emotional state I'm in right now.

I'm not sure why this meme is dangerous. It's not all that believable,
and so it's reproductive speed will be very slow. Slowly reproducing
memes are rarely that hazardous. Sorry about your emotional state.

> IMPEACH OBAMA NOW.
> Presidents cannot be allowed to start wars.
> Powers are not rights.

Disagree as I do with Obama, I don't think he's done anything worthy
of being impeached (that we know of). He would argue that he didn't
start the war, but that the UN did. Whatever. I think Obama is chasing
the ghost of Clinton's failure in Rwanda. He doesn't want to have to
apologize for doing nothing in the future. The middle east is, of
course, a quagmire, and nothing you do there will ever work out for
your good.

-Kelly