[extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do

[Lee Corbin]

Eugen writes

> > People, of course, will be able to choose what is boring
> 
> Why is everybody talking about just people? What about
> the eqivalents of viruses, bacteria, nematodes, insects,
> rodents, deities?

The answer is simply this: we are not now at all interested
in having the experiences, if there are any, of viruses
bacteria, nematodes, and insects, and we suspect that the
experiences of rodents don't really have that much to them.

And unfortunately, by the Campbell/Vinge paradox, we can't
understand the experiences of deities.

Moreover, please understand that by "people" I include sentients
at human level or above, though usually underestimated problems
with identity arise when we go seriously past the human level.

> > SF writers considered that future tech would allow us
> > to control our emotions directly.
> 
> I don't think this is a reasonable future. It looks
> too much like our present.

Could you elaborate? It doesn't seem to me now that I have all
that much control over my emotions. I'm happy or sad, often for
reasons outside my control. I wish always that I could suppress
anger or resentment, if either they don't logically seem
appropriate for the situation, or simply because I believe
that it would be better for me not to have those experiences.
At least I know that *you* agree that natural isn't always
best.

> > Will people really *choose* to be interested in games?
> > Why???  Instead, I have postulated that in the very long
> > run---assuming that physics gets worked out comparatively
> > rapidly---only two activities remain, however unpalatable
> > they now seem to most people now:  mathematics and
> > gratification research.
> 
> What about pointless stuff we're doing now? Games, art,
> socializing? How can a mouse do math research? Why
> should I do math research if I can start a war instead,
> or do <wr54334543>?

I would hardly call them pointless; it's simply that they may
not be optimal in some ways at some times for some people,
people who presently are passive victims to their own tastes,
whether evolved or acquired.

Indeed, a mouse could do "math research", but he'd become a
trans-mouse in the way that many of us yearn to be transhuman.

> > Mathematics is provably infinite in complexity, and surely
> > people will still want to enjoy life. There you have it.
> 
> I would like a proper mathematical proof of that, please.

There are infinitely many true relations between just natural
numbers, for a start. See Gregory Chaitin's elaborations on
why unknown mathematical truths will always outnumber the
finitely many known ones.

Another approach is simply to use Godel's theorem, and observe
that every axiom system implies the existence of truths that
cannot be demonstrated from within that system, and that while
adding an axiom fixes that and may extend the system of 
provable truths quite a bit, it still provides an induction
proof that the number of mathematical facts is at least aleph
zero.

Lee