<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>"Then there's public transport - it's not only for the poor and disabled,
despite what some people may think."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Darn right! I use public transport from time to
time! Oh wait... I am poor.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think Robert has taken a bit of a one sided
battering on this one. Although, I find I can at least somewhat see where he's
going with it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This may have something to do with considering
myself an innovative person. Whenever I see something I can't help but take it
apart and see if there's anyway I can improve it, even if it's working fine
before I touch it; "If it ain't broke, tweak it until it is!"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My brother is a patent lawyer and I've spent a
countless hours time chatting about ideas to him and investigating the
possibility of filing patents on designs and ideas I've had for magnetic nozzles
etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>One thing that has suprised me quite a lot is that
basically, if you've had a great idea, you can almost bet your life that at
least one other person is already onto something very similar or already filed
for it. If you revisit the patent office with new ideas regularly, you'll see
just how incredibly frequent this is - and how little most people appreciate the
repetition of ideas. My brother, as someone who deals with the problems when the
ideas cross over, can attest to the similarities and, often,
almost insignificant differences between designs claiming to be
unique.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Not being a particularly religious person, I don't
have a lot to comfort myself when it comes to the idea of death.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But one of the few things* I do take some kind of
strange comfort in is that even after I die, I'm sure there will be people with
minds working in a similar pattern to my own. They won't be me, and they won't
have exactly the same ideas, but they'll be approximations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My point here is that I think people sometimes over
emphasise on each individual being unique in a superior sense. We're each
unique, but I think there are a lot more similarities than differences - the
motto of the IP guys being "Evolution not revolution!"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Robert's argument is an absolute, and one that will
likely take a long time to reach. By the time we do reach it, our capacity for
computation will be disgustingly huge by comparison with today and there's
almost no way our understanding of the universe or ourselves will be as it
is now. It's quite possible we're making predictions for 'future shortages' that
are never going to occur in the way we see them now simply because we'll
discover some new layer of space previously known to us. E.g. 100 years ago
- "We'll run out of coal and the world will stop", then along came nuclear
physics. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Also, I seriously doubt (and I really mean
seriously) that our concept of self will still be anything like it is now - e.g.
we might exist as a pool of consciousness (just mutation factors) that operate
on one big shared pool of data, not individual memories and private ideas. In
our pool, 'killing resources' won't be analogous to killing people as it is now,
we'd be trimming off things everyone had access to and didn't want anymore. The
only thing close to killing humans today here would be killing the individual
'mutation factors' (the 'randomness' that causes us to interconnect ideas in a
less than perfectly linear fashion) and when you examine precisely how the human
brain invents ideas even now, there is very, very, very little
spontaneity about it (neurons interconnect by 'linear' logic as
simultaneous depolarisations occur that can produce a better result, they don't
'just do it' in the romantic way an artist would like to think they do - and you
should be grateful they don't, because it's the reason you're able to type a
reply to the list). Even art has a linear nature to it, the artist isn't just
making up randomness, they're trying to convey something, somehow directly
from empirical experience (perhaps modified a bit in their mind's virtual
environment, but modified with reference to other emprical experiences) - be it
a photorealistic picture or abstract swipes with a 4" brush (Would an artist
with no memory of empirical experiences be able to create art?). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If you want to experience the romantic beauty of
more random thought, try some magic mushrooms or acid. Perhaps once we can
upload our minds, we can do even better by purposefully distorting our neural
interconnections with randomising algorithms to increase 'spark' inventivity (To
me, this is a perfectly valid use of psychoactive drugs).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>There is a large quantity (perhaps even a
majority?) of redundant data shared between us that we just won't need in an
upload type of environment (we can delete a whole load of it and still not loose
-anything- unique, what so ever - you couldn't even really call it compression,
it'd just be a vector format). So, pragmatically, in an upload environment, I
think there'll initially be a huge amount of room for improving the 'efficiency'
of consciousness by just getting ride of all the repeating memories we share.
We'll start off needing loads of space for it all. Then, once we start sharing
with each other, we'll go through a rapid efficiency improving stage as we
realise that my memory of orange is virtually indentical to Robert's, and
everyone else's (or at least parts of that memory are, meaning that they can
removed stripped without any loss to 'uniqueness')</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In today's world, going out and hunting down
'lesser' entities wouldn't be necessary (If you're thinking in terms of SENS
stuff). Controlled breeding and/or better education of their children
would 'evolve' them out of the system as they died away naturally.
Condoms and people using them would seriously help the population problem all on
it's own. In Robert's ultimate, we might assume that the lifespan of our
entities will be gigantic (that they burn up resources at an unacceptable
rate, that endangers the entire group's survival, compared to
discovering them), and so some form of active cleaning up would be
required. This is already happening in places like Africa and China in a passive
drive - trying to get them to use condoms or sign up for
sterilisation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Theoretically, a single intelligence (Robert or I
for instance) could grow and grow until it drains the entire universe of
resources due to it's massive scale. So the entirety of humanity would only do
that more rapidly given the same rate of expansion per entity. However, we can
be a bit more pragmatic about it and take into account the ideas I mentioned
above regarding an equally expanding understanding of the universe and a
new understanding of consciousness counteracting the effect somewhat. Also,
we can make an immediate effort to control the quantities of individuals
entering into our 'dyson sphere super computer' rather than just waiting for
them to spiral.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Rather than be nasty and actively wipe out billions
of people, you could start with only passing those consciousnesses into your
sphere that already displayed some signs of a 'unique spark' rather than
everyone that just prefers to cruise through existence. Of coarse, this can get
quite complex given that part of the reason I'm not the latter is purely due to
my education and environment. But this prelude before a person's mindset becomes
solidified represents a big efficiency drive. Criminals are an example. Once a
child grows into a criminal, it suddenly costs tens and tens of thousands of
pounds (minimum) to deal with what would have cost next to nothing for the
parents to avoid initially. When my mum smacked me and told me off as a kid, it
meant that the rest of society wouldn't have to deal with a substantial tax
burden when I grew up.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My initial upbringing has also allowed my mind to
remain open, which is perhaps one of the hardest things I think you can teach a
child. I, for example, don't immediately cringe shut at the idea of allowing
religious people to carry on thinking what they want to, or deleting individuals
(like myself) when there are others who are similar and not enough
resources to support us both.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In a similar way, my primordial super computer
upload space (limited rooms! apply now!) might not have the spare room to
accommodate individuals who aren't already 'well behaved', that need subsequent
parenting on the others' behalf. So instead, I might prime it with individuals
judged by society to be 'unique' candidates (Not necessarily celebrities,
no - since so many of them aren't that unique in reality. Celebrities like Jimi
Hendrix might qualify).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If society just flat out didn't have the money to
pay for criminals to be dealt with in the way they are now, they'd just be shot
for efficiency. It's only because we have the luxury of spare resources that
they're not - lucky them hey?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Saying all this, I do like the idea of
smelling the roses and planting seeds as opposed to pruning.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I also stop and question from time to time this
unquestioning 'drive forward' we have. Again, as someone who constantly tweaks
things and messes around to make them better, it's something very personal to
me; understanding why I'm actually doing that in the first place.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sometimes, I like to read books, watch films, play
slowly to drag out the experience (which is just allowing more memories to
replay and more time for interconnections to form in my
brain).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It may be that we don't see a
continuously exponential rise in our consumption (see the above bit about
vector formatting away redundant junk) and intellect once we achieve
uploading. That instead, we go through a boom phase and then begin leveling off,
at least temporarily, before our consumption rate becomes unsustainable. There
may only be so much to know. The curve will be dictated by a.) how quickly we
acquire / process that knowledge and b.) how much of it there is in
relation to resources available for processing it. E.g. If there's more possible
knowledge (logic takes energy to process) than resources, the curve will still
be rising when we run out of stuff to fuel the processing. Or perhaps there's
enough energy to process all the knowledge possible, and so it'll start leveling
off as the knowledge starts being regurgitated (and our cleaned up resources get
messy again as we use up all the spare resources).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But cutting everything short, the idea of
'uniqueness' (which is closely tied to compression) is something that
really interests me. I suspect that it'll only become more and more important as
we approach and enter uploading. In order to compress something, you need to be
able to evaluate it for repetition, which is difficult when we all have private
consciousnesses and memories. Once those are uploadable, the data they contain
will be exposed and become discrete and highly quantative making it easy to
route through things presently thought of as private and incapable of being
judged by another and delete away the redundancies. This will also be aided as
we develop better and better ways of converting huge fields of qualitative
information into discretes that can be processed in a similar way, as well as
better computers and algorithms for working through it all.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>John</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>*One of the other things that makes death slightly
easier for me is an appreciate for the cycle energy is passing through and
knowing that perhaps some other form of life might be able to make some use of
me to carry on with it's struggle against thermodynamic equilibrium if
I'm unlucky enough to die. That I came from the soil and that's where might end
up again, just as a transient arrangement of the the energy previously in the
soil that happens to be.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>