Re: Optimism [Was: flame wars]

From: paatschb@optusnet.com.au
Date: Sun Jul 20 2003 - 11:26:05 MDT

  • Next message: Hubert Mania: "Re: Obligation for personal attack? (was flame wars)"

    Bryan Moss writes:

    > I say the following with complete confidence: there will
    > be no Yudkowskian Singularity, the copy is not the
    > original, the creation of the first assembler will not cause
    > an immediate revolution in manufacturing.

    I'm a singularity sceptic. What do you take to be the
    Yudkowskian Singularity? I am curious if it would overlaps
    with Eliezer's view of the Singularity.
     
    > These
    > are science fiction pipedreams. They're not even very
    > good ones. Further, we need to "deconstruct" our
    > relation to the computer revolution. We're on
    > the other side now, I mean this in complete seriousness,
    > the computer revolution is played out. All that is left is
    > for computers to recede; not in the hip, ubiquitous
    > technology "computer in my doorknob" sense but in the
    > "everybody stopped caring" sense.

    Well leaving aside the impact of computing in genomics
    and proteomics. I am in the middle of reading Kevin
    Warwick's book 'I, CYBORG' (pub 2002).

    According to the blurb, Kevin Warwick (professor of
    Cybernetics) has been using himself as a guinea pig
    recieving, by surgical operation technological implants
    connected to his central nervous system.

    I haven't yet got to the part where he succeeds or fails
    in sending a nervous signal over the internet to a partner
    but it is clear that the what is know in detail about
    the human nervous system is limited and that there may
    be exciting possibilities in medicine and in adding additional
    sensors (perhaps as mitigators for those who have
    disabilities) using electronics and new uses of computing.

    It seems to me that the biological revolution will ensure
    that people will "not stop caring" about computing in the
    near future.

    Then there is the matter of quantum computing and
    quantum encryption. I think it unlikely that privacy or
    the underpinnnings of the global financial system will be
    a matter of indifference and so in another way people
    will care about computing.

    > This may mean they'll take different shapes. But that's
    > it, that's your revolution. Now it's time to look back
    > and ask ourselves what was real and what was hype.
    > A lot of it was hype. But that's our origin and we need
    > to pick it apart to understand where we came from.
    > Artificial Intelligence, of the CS kind, of the kind that
    > assumes we can design Minds (not brains) through
    > some sort of hokey self-reflection, is the sort of hubris
    > we must now only find humour in.

    Well I'm sceptical but I'm not laughing. Whats the joke?
    Are you suggesting Artificial Intelligence is impossible?

    > (Which is not to say computer simulation won't play a
    > big role in the brain sciences or any other science, but
    > it's a tool now, nothing more.)

    Okay, this answers my points about biotech enabling.
    But much is said when a quantum computer or an
    algorithm for determining how proteins fold is described
    "as just a tool".

    > Even if you bracket the three "ultratechnologies" I
    > mentioned only as a thought exercise, it's interesting to
    > see how the horizon changes. [With]out superintelligence,
    > [with]out the technological Saviour-God, there is no wall
    > over which we cannot see.

    This criticism is good imo.

    > Without uploading, we're going to die unless we
    > fight for it.

    I concede this but with the reservation that cryonics
    *might* offer some chance. Though I've never yet heard
    a satisfactory operational explanation for the reassembly
    process.

    > Curing aging is only a first (incredibly
    > difficult) step, the way we value our lives will have
    > to change, the medical practise will have to change.
    > Nobody wants to live to 400 and slip in the bath,
    > crack their head open on the faucet. It's an entirely
    > different attitude towards death and we have to sell
    > it to the world.

    It is not that simple. There are important questions of
    triage. The world does not make decisions, individuals
    do, and individuals confront mortality personally.

    A solution for everyone aged 40 or less now if fixed
    as an operational objective would ostracise the over
    40's. There may be *no* effective political place to
    draw the line for *any* organisation that starts with
    the priority of confronting individual mortality first,
    unless that organisation decides to pursue its goal
    deliberately leaving some part of the human species
    outside its considerations.

    > Without drexlerian nanontechnology
    > (and I speak more of the supposed time frame than
    > the technology itself) there is no sudden "fix" for the
    > poor, the starving. We need to engineer crops,
    > educate people, provide clean water. None of this
    > is going to be easy. We're not going to get off-world
    > soon either, so, yes, we're stuck here amidst the war,
    > the famine, those evil fundamentalists.

    For now yes.

    >
    > > People who complain about our slow progress,
    > > question whether things will work, point out flaws
    > > in existing plans, etc., are the real heroes of tomorrow.
    > > They are the engineers of the future. People who
    > > don't know enough technology to see the flaws, or
    > > who are so optimistic that they don't see any need
    > > to address the flaws, are the people who are delaying
    > > progress. Dynamic Optimism was never intended to be a
    > > faith-based position.

    Excellent point. Belief *itself* strongly suggests a form of
    pathology. Belief and reason are incompatible where one
    is happening the other is not.

    > We were supposed to be optimistic that everything
    > > was possible so that we would continue working
    > > toward a solution while others had long since given up.
    > > Optimism should be an excuse to work harder for
    > > the future, not an excuse to sit back and do nothing.

    Optimism as pragmatism without abandoning hope.
     
    > Yes, and as well as realising that this stuff requires
    > hard work, we need a *critical* approach to technology.
    > We need to take our heads out of the sand, lose the
    > ridiculous "luddite" talk,

    This "luddite" talk could have an important political
    purpose. We should remember that it is up to those
    who wish to change the status quo in democracies that
    have the burden of making the case. The luddites are
    the conservatives. They don't have to work so hard
    to sell their message - its the default.

    > and realise that, yes, technology does effect peoples
    > lives, and that, no, not all technology effects all lives
    > in a positive way.

    Good.

    > Technophilia doesn't cut it.

    True.

    > Technology is ideological in the strongest sense.

    No this is a non-sequitor.

    > The telephone has something to say about personal
    > space, personal time, about availability, about distance,
    > it embodies certain attitudes towards these things.

    Bulldust. The telephone is inanimate. Any attitude you
    see in a telephone is your projection.

    > Technology is not neutral. It meets the world in the
    > form of products or govenment programmes;

    Ah you mean particular instances or embodiments
    of technologies not all technology per se. What is
    developed or realised in particular as opposed to
    what is not.

    > if
    > science has a claim to neutrality, its realisation in
    > technology has long since lost it.

    This I don't follow.

    > And we must always keep in mind that science only
    > makes a *claim* to neutrality: universality is the target
    > of science, not its immediate achievement. We can
    > be critical of science, we must be.

    Bollocks science has *no* aims. Scientists do. Your
    anthropomorphising.

    > We must be able to be critical of some research,
    > some applications of science, some technologies in
    > order to make a fair argument for others.

    Yes.

    > To take a specific example: with genetically modified
    > foods our fight is to move the field of battle from the
    > general, from the sweeping accusation, to the specific.
    > We have to acknowledge that, yes, there are some
    > negative uses here.

    You make a good general point but what do you mean
    "we" white-man :-) What is the glue that you imagine
    binds *us*? The ExI Principles? A shared desire to
    avoid death?

    > However, the mistake we don't want to make is t[o]
    > focus on the catastrophic. That's the mistake Foresight
    > made. Nobody references Drexler because he's the
    > grey goo guy.

    Actually Foresight is bigger than Drexler and it is referenced.
    Glenn Fishbine author of "The Investors Guide to
    Nanotechnology and Micromachines" is no disciple of Drexler,
    but specifically acknowledges the influence of Foresight as a
    player in setting the larger scene of policy around nanotech.

    > You can think on whatever timeframe you choose, that's
    > your prerogative, but you can only act on a human
    > timeframe.

    Good point. And further action if it must be coordiated between
    multiple agents (to be effective) requires planning cohesion and
    shared objectives. The prioritisation of these is not easy to agree
    on in practice because we all bring our own egos and timetables
    to the table.

    > What's funny is, a lot of fears could be alleviated if we just
    > admitted how difficult this stuff is.

    Some.

    > Designer babies? Not likely!

    Bad example. Choosing a child sex could be engaging in
    designer babies and it has already happened at least once
    in an IVF clinic. I understand dwarf couples have also been
    alloud to have a dwarf child - which incurred a backlash as
    it was considered that dwarfism is accompanies by other
    health defects.

    Clones as copies of the self - that is a good example of
    a furphy.

    Sorry for the forensic criticism. I thought this was
    an excellent post.

    Regards,
    Brett



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 20 2003 - 13:06:46 MDT