[ExI] immortal

Sun Aug 3 18:36:26 UTC 2025

On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 1:40 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> But why are you acting like the upload scenario guarantees some kind of
> utopia?
>

Everyone's idea of utopia is different. But what we are talking about
(generally) is that in the long-term future, intelligence and consciousness
gain control over nature. The question then, is what is the most logical
application of that intelligence and consciousness when all of nature has
been subdued and the best physically possible technologies have been
engineered?

To me, this question applies whether it is humans or machine descendents
who contemplate it.

>   Minds will expand to fill the niche, they will become something far
> larger and different from Homo sapiens.
>

Quite possibly. And I acknowledged this when I said "human-level minds"
rather than "human minds", as well as in my first e-mail on this thread,
which questioned whether it is better for there to be a smaller population
of very big minds, vs. a much greater population of smaller minds (or any
combination between).

There WILL be limited resources, because the brain itself is finite.
>

I agree there are limited resources, which was the point I raised in my
first e-mail.

> No matter how big it is, people will expand, especially because they will
> have expanded tools.
>

I think there are diminishing returns. The utility of a big brain lies in
being better able to predict the future. But the future is chaotic so it
takes an exponential increase in computing power to get a marginal linear
improvement in forecast capability. Is there more good in one 300 IQ person
living a good life, or in 10 more average people living good lives, or we
could consider even 1,000 dogs living their best lives. Is there more
utility and value in one jupiter brain, or in the myriads of simpler
individuals who might exist in its place?

>
> The only protection against this is encoding proscriptions from above.
> But that is another problem, it’s the agency problem (the vulnerability of
> going into a computer where you truly have no control and could be shut off
> by the overseers) compounded.  And of course, rules are meant to be broken,
> and with superintelligent minds, it will always be a race between breaking
> rules and making new ones.
>
> I think that believing uploading leads to a utopia is incredibly naïve.
> Have you met people?
>

I never mentioned uploading or utopia. My focus throughout this thread has
been on the question of the optimal way to apportion time and computing
resources to minds when we have the technological capacity to apportion
them however we wish. It's not an obvious conclusion to me that
immortality, or smaller numbers of big brains are ideal, as they both serve
to limit the total number of unique minds that can come into being. Should
a city of a million people be sacrificed so that one person can live 70
million years? I'm not sure many think that's a fair bargain.

Jason

>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 1:34 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 10:29 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, the electricity and materials and maintenance used to upkeep the
>>> computer still has value.
>>>
>>
>> Those things only have "instrumental value." They contain no "intrinsic
>> value" in and of themselves.
>>
>>
>>>   People don’t tend to maintain giant expensive things for free
>>>
>>
>> To what end are all the materials, energy and computing resources, if not
>> used to eventually create intrinsic value (which is only found in states of
>> consciousness)?
>>
>> If we had a Matrioshka brain would you use it to mine bitcoin until Sol
>> ran out of fuel, or would you use it to generate conscious experiences for
>> a population of 10^24 human-level minds for 10^10 years?
>>
>> In my view it isn't a question of free, but of: what does one do with all
>> those resources once one has them? The choice seems pretty clear to me.
>>
>> Once all technical problems are solved (we should reach the best
>> physically possible technology within 200 years at current rates) then
>> there is very little to be gained in the pursuit of things that are only of
>> practical utility. There is only energy, and putting it towards useful
>> computation. What is a useful computation when all practical survival
>> related and efficiency related problems are solved? In my view, it is then
>> only in maximizing conscious life.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2025 at 2:46 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having a meaningful enjoyable life is its own value.
>>>>
>>>> Why do people donate to charity? Why do we talk about creating systems
>>>> to host quadrillions of uploaded minds? Because the more positive conscious
>>>> experiences that are created, the better. In fact, positive conscious
>>>> experiences are the only intrinsically good things there are.
>>>>
>>>> Accordingly, trade with uploaded beings may not be necessary. Afterall,
>>>> what good are resources that aren't put towards the creation of positive
>>>> conscious experiences?
>>>>
>>>> In my view they are wasted.
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 12:05 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's crazy though, there's not infinite value inside the system
>>>>> producible by humans.   Value on Earth mainly comes from the low-entropy
>>>>> energy of the sun and the resources it is used to arrange.  What does the
>>>>> mind-system produce to trade with the OUTSIDE?  Intellectual pursuits?
>>>>> Writing?  Won't the AI be able to do that?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't provide resources, what can you do?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 6:41 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's an assumption here that I think may be false, and if it is,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> changes the argument completely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why assume that the infrastructure to host an individual mind has to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> outside the control of the individual?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ability to create an entire film or a symphony in your bedroom
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> a laptop at virtually no cost except your time would have been
>>>>>> thought
>>>>>> outrageous and impossible not long ago. Now it's commonplace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The assumption was that a complex thing like a film has to involve
>>>>>> hundreds of individuals, millions of pounds, and a vast array of
>>>>>> equipment to make. Then someone came along and made The Blair Witch
>>>>>> Project on a smartphone. Admittedly, it was a fairly crappy film, but
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> broke the assumption. The same thing with music. It used to take
>>>>>> professional recording studios and a crowd of audio experts to make a
>>>>>> record. Now spotty teenagers are able to create (technically)
>>>>>> high-quality music with a laptop, some free software and a pair of
>>>>>> headphones. Most of it might not be worth listening to, but that's
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is that technology advances on an accelerating curve, that
>>>>>> puts previously inconcievable abilities into the hands of ordinary
>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm pretty confident that once uploading technology matures (assuming
>>>>>> it's possible at all), it won't be long before it becomes cheap and
>>>>>> easy, no matter how hard and expensive it was to develop in the first
>>>>>> place. I also expect the physical sizes of the systems will become
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> smaller than they need to be at first. There's nothing new in any of
>>>>>> this, we've been seeing it happen for quite a few decades now, in all
>>>>>> sorts of other technologies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This means that at some point, ordinary people will be able to upload
>>>>>> themselves into a system that they own, that they can control, that
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> the ability to operate real-world agencies (robotic bodies, etc.),
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> can connect to a network of other virtual spaces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I used to be a fairly intense user of Second Life, some time ago
>>>>>> (before
>>>>>> Linden Labs got too heavy-handed with it), and my avatars, that I
>>>>>> usually created myself, used to visit virtual spaces that other
>>>>>> people
>>>>>> had created. I had a job in there, earning money, interacted with
>>>>>> people
>>>>>> from all over the world, had a blast making scripted objects, for
>>>>>> myself
>>>>>> and other people, and had lots of interesting experiences, some of
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> would only be possible in a virtual world. All - within some
>>>>>> practical
>>>>>> limits - under my control, using my own computer, at no cost other
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> my internet connection and electricity. When the owners of the
>>>>>> software
>>>>>> that made it all possible started changing things, generally making
>>>>>> life
>>>>>> harder for people, I stopped using it and found another similar
>>>>>> system
>>>>>> created by more liberal-minded developers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems to me to be a fairly close analogy to what uploading could
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> like. No doubt there will be efforts to create walled gardens,
>>>>>> controlled by big corporations, governments will try to interfere and
>>>>>> censor, and there will be what Second Life used to call 'griefers',
>>>>>> individuals who just wanted to be destructive and cause trouble for
>>>>>> people, but these are all just part of life, challenges to be
>>>>>> overcome
>>>>>> as and when we meet them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "if we live in a giant computer..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rather than the common picture of people being helpless pawns in a
>>>>>> vast
>>>>>> machine that they have no control over, I imagine a vast network of
>>>>>> autonomous individuals, each one in their own independent container,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> connecting as and when they want to billions of others, in common
>>>>>> virtual spaces that they build for themselves. So it becomes "if we
>>>>>> live
>>>>>> in our own computers..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is not so different to what we have now, really, with each
>>>>>> person
>>>>>> in their own brain, in their own body that they have a limited degree
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> control over (biology being what it is), communicating with other
>>>>>> people
>>>>>> as and when they want to and need to. We are responsible for keeping
>>>>>> ourselves healthy, sometimes with the help of a healthcare system,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> for providing ourselves with shelter and food. Being an upload
>>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>>> be that different in principle, just the actual items and actions we
>>>>>> need will be different. Antivirus software updates instead of
>>>>>> vaccinations, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The real difference is, as an upload, your possibilities are much
>>>>>> greater, and the downsides are fewer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Provided we do it in the right way.
>>>>>> But, as always, there will be many ways. There will be the
>>>>>> equivalents
>>>>>> of Microsoft, Apple and Google, and the whole world of proprietary
>>>>>> software, then there will be the equivalents of Linux and BSD, and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> world of free software. There will be people who live in 'a giant
>>>>>> computer', and those who live in their own individual computers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose it should be said that these 'computers' won't be like the
>>>>>> computers we have now. Max Headroom will never be a real thing. The
>>>>>> term
>>>>>> 'processing space' might be better, and hopefully makes the
>>>>>> similarity
>>>>>> to biological brains clearer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To go back to Bill w's original question, "How will you pay for your
>>>>>> upkeep?", there are probably as many answers as there are to the same
>>>>>> question asked of biological people. In Second Life, I used to teach
>>>>>> people to make furniture and jewellery. I expect there will be plenty
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> job opportunities for uploads, if that's what they need or want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ben
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250803/57fc617a/attachment.htm>