[ExI] The Parallel Man

[Eugen Leitl]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 07:44:09AM -0700, Ben Zaiboc wrote:

> Actuarial tables are averaged over a population of people who seldom think about much more than what's on telly, how delicious does that doughnut look and who can they shag without the missus/old man finding out.  
> I spit on them. (Actuarial tables, I mean, not the people).

Actually, I'm willing to bet your risk is higher than the
average.

The same personality traits which make people open to
transhumanism (and cryonics) result in them running a higher
personal risk. Exceptions, of course, can and do exist. 
 
> Besides, if thinking about neural interfaces doesn't help me, but does help other people, does that not make it worthwhile?

Sure, some of the things you can do today and won't directly
benefit from will help other people.

However, there are plenty of things you can do today and
will directly benefit you and people living today, as 
well as those in the future.
 
> I actually think it's /important/ to muse about things that, if they did work, would make a huge (huge?  I mean ENORMOUS) difference to things.  Even if the likelihood of them actually working is pretty tiny.  One of those ideas will work, one day, and that will be worth all the failed ideas that precede it.

I agree. No need to duplicate effort where prior work
shew it's not worthwhile. 
 
> Please, don't discourage people from thinking outside the box.  It's an important activity, even if the thinkers themselves may not benefit from it (and even it they are hopelessly naive, and have crap ideas).  What we need is /constructive/ criticism, not "don't bother".  

The "don't bother" was a shorthand for a more technical argument.
Please realize that people have trodden this ground 15-20 years 
ago, and some even prior. Technology changes, the laws of physics
do not.
 
> Tell me to get an education (working on that, actually), 

Do defintely get an education.

> tell me to do my maths again, 

*Did* you run the number of cubic microns in a brain, and amount
of instrumentation required? I ask because I haven't seen these
numbers in your post.

> tell me to talk to an expert, but don't tell me not to bother.

Do talk to an expert.

However, if she tells you not to bother, and tells you why, it's
probably a good idea to turn towards area with more and better 
short-term ROI.

I would say that fixation/plastination, vitrification, scanners,
brain surface pickup, NIR brain video pickup and carbon nanotube 
pickup via vascular access and the like are good and easy.

Looking at Freitastech level of technology http://nanomedicine.com/
be better postponed until we're sure it lands sufficiently soon
to take it into account.

 
> 
> Ben Zaiboc
> (sorry if that turned into a bit of a rant! I do feel strongly about it)

Both are good things.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE