brent.allsop at canonizer.com
Sat Apr 21 22:47:21 UTC 2012
On 4/21/2012 2:55 PM, Alan Grimes wrote:
> Brent Allsop wrote:
>> And I think it's still going to take a bit more than a $billion to discover
>> and fully achieve phenomenal mind uploading.
> Google just confirmed that is the first time anyone has used that phrase
> so therefore I don't know what you mean by that "phenomenal" adjective.
I don't know what Google you're using, but I see the top hit in Google
for "phenomenal uploading" being the canonizer camp that concisely
defines just what it is, and which indicates how many people are in
this, and the parent uploading is good camp. It also makes reference to
the emerging "scientific consensus" camp that describes that most
experts believe more than simple uploading to an abstract ones and zeros
based computer is required. But if you're a "software = qualia" camp
guy, then I just use the term 'uploading' so we can agree, as that is
what is most important.
>> (which, by the way would
>> solve all world problems, including aging, disease, expensive, risky,
>> space travel... making these early space efforts still a complete moral
>> waist of time leading to the damnation of how many more people
>> unnecessarily rotting in the grave?)
> I completely disagree on all points.
Is that because you think uploading isn't possible? Or do you think it
is possible and just think such would be immoral?
>> At least this latest effort is more than one gazillionare working
>> together. Do you think even a handful of gazillionares like this will
>> be enough to do something real, like mining of asteroids? I have my
>> doublts, they'll likely quickly find some minor issue to disagree on and
>> take a my way or the highway path. But if we could get everyone on
>> board, knowing and doing what everyone at the bottom truly wanted, in an
>> amplification of the moral wisdom of the crowd, consensus building way,
>> then we could all work together to really accomplish something great.
> Probably not. There are definitely some serious structural flaws with
> our society such as all the invasions of other countries that no sane
> person wants yet continue to get started at horribly regular intervals.
> Most recently Libya was bombed back to the stone age, now it's Syria's
> turn. =(
No democracy has ever gone to war against any other democracy. The only
'structural flaw' I see is all the fear mongering all the remaining
hierarchies are bread to do towards any competing hierarchy. All the
money the world spends on weapons, because of such easy we've been bread
to support such, fear mongering bastard leaders is the only problem.
If we had the ability to go into Syria, North Korea... and survey for
what the general population really wanted, it'd be trivial for them to
just ignore their selfish leaders. And the same goes for the 'Arab
springs' that are now suffering through the 'Arab winter' The only
problem is, nobody is able to efficiently know what they all want,
concisely and quantitatively, in an amplification of the wisdom of the
entire crowd way. Once you can know that, all wars and contentions
stop, and everyone can finally, instead, co-operates and easily gets it
all, for everyone.
> But there probably aren't that many people who would/could actually
> strive for something interesting given vast resources...
You don't see wikipedia as proof this assertion is wrong? I sure do.
The only reason people spend so much time still doing things like
watching "Gilligans Island" and "Who's got Talent"... is because it is
no fun being someone else bitch or fighting edit wars on wikipedia, or
dreming about when they can be a billionair so everyone else will be
their bitch. But imagine if everyone could do what they wanted to do,
and work on and support what they wanted to get done? Achieving the
millenium is easy, given all the resources and technology we now have.
The only thing lacking is the ability to build consensus, find out what
everyone wants, concisely and quantitatively, so we can finally stop
fighting, bickering, fear mongering, and finally just get it all done.
> Furthermore, I have a tree of technologies that I want to develop. My
> willingness to cooperate with uploaders is strictly limited by the
> overlap of my tree and your tree.
And the overlap of everyone else out there. You'll never get any of
that done yourself, but if you canonize what you want, there is bound to
be millions of others that share you're values, and interested in doing
the same thing, even if I, or any other uploaders, aren't some of them.
> Furthermore, I do not trust uploaders
> to respect my values and therefore would not risk attempting to start a
> mutual back-scratching session with them.
No back scratching or compromises (as in being a bitch for some selfish
leader of a hierarchy) required. You just need to find the millions of
people out there that want to do the same thing you do and work
together. What would you like to do that a million people that share
you passion couldn't do? The only important thing is that nobody get in
the way of what anyone else wants. And of course, if you don't
'canonize' what you want, it kind of makes it impossible to keep in mind
what to others may be a very 'immoral or mistaken' idea.
> My reason for this mistrust is that when I express my point of view I
> don't get in reply "oh, that's interesting, my point of view is
> different" but rather "You're wrong and your philosophy is bad."
What, you don't want to know, concicely and quantitatively, when people
think you're mistaken and your philosophy is bad, and how this is
trending, according to all your chosen experts? We created
Canonizer.com, precisely because we want to have a place where we can
fully communicate where experts think naive people are making mistakes,
while still valuing what they believe, and if not fully supporting, at
least doing all they can to not get in the way of anything you may
want. I may be saying you are wrong and imoral, but I'm still asking
you to 'canonize' just what it is you still believe, so I can help you
in any and all ways possible.
> Furthermore I have consistently opposed taking steps that would unleash
> a process that would render the universe incompatible with all known
> forms of DNA based life. The uploaders don't seem to recognize that as a
> priority at all.
It sounds like you are saying you're going to try to do all you can to
stand in the way of what the expert consensus uploaders want to do? It
seems to me it'd be much more productive if you'd just concisely state
what it is you want, so us uploaders will be sure not to get in your
way, and get started, with all the millions that surely share your
passion, for getting what it is you want, rather thin spending so much
time and effort fighting against us in such a fear mongering way?
More information about the extropy-chat