From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 00:43:41 MDT
From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
On Behalf Of Bryan Moss
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 6:07 PM
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: Re: Optimism [Was: flame wars]
>It's fairly easy to call them into question: the status of something
>called "intelligence"
that can be Supersized like so many Happy Meals, the myth of substrate
independence,
understating the complexities of system design.
There's nothing to say that u have to understand the human brain to
augment it; Case in point; car manufacturers are overlaying information
and hiliting segments of vision for workers (who are equipped with
HMDs/cameras) in an attempt to lower the training curve on complex
product assemblies (effectively boosting their intelligence). Why mess
with the brain
when u already have some of the largest bandwith connections to it in
the form of the senses and symbolic thinking...
> "Intelligence," for example, the idea that computers are "reasoning
> machines," better than human, more rational.
More rational or better than human is relative to the domain that u talk
about. Certainly humans are far more useful at this current stage. And
certainly, irrational insofar as we all suffer from rationalizations in
an attempt to make sense out of chaotic world. whether it is better or
worse is debateable insofar as the function tehse rationalizations
serve.
>Moore's Law, a fundamental adage of our philosophy and of computer
>science, despite being a marketing technique of a particular company
that decided to reduce component size and increase speeds, design be
damned. Tape them together and you have Supersized Intelligence:
superintelligence.
Oh I don't think any computer scientist is saying that; although for
certain operations {processes}, design is not a problem, thoroughput is.
>The substrate, another part of computer age mythos: abstractionism. Of
course, there's no physical theory for uploading, except perhaps, if you
might allow, this short, utterly erroneous argument: (1) at the quantum
level reality is discrete; (2) therefore, a quantum computer can
simulate any part of reality; (3) the brain probably isn't capable of
exploiting quantum mechanical effects; (4) therefore, a classical
computer can simulate a brain that is identical to and identifiable with
the original. This, at least, is what I can salvage from my side of
those copy arguments we used to have. (I concede.) And finally, we
shovel all the real problems under that carpet we call "software." This
is part of that larger Myth of the Computer Age: universality. We can
do anything in software, given enough speed. This is not true in any
practical or useful sense, however.
Personally I think FGPA's will be very useful in the future. I was just
contemplating a day ago the flaws with current processor and motherboard
architectures.
I definately do not think you can replicate the human brain functions
identically in hardware, regardless of the speed of the processing. I
could not upload
you for instance :) Might I might be able to replicate something thats
kind of like you (in a system) :) I have a particularly interesting
thought experiment as it relates
to this topic :) As this is the case (for my particular belief set),
most of my research will not be in replicating ur brain functions in
silicon, but rather, a method for
keeping the human brain alive, for restoring neural plasticity, and of
course, some sort of neuromechanical interface to allow for different
sensors, effectors and shells
(combinations thereof).
>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. 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.
Oh I don't know about that. I think that ur average person will hit
their saturation point shortly (if not already); but clever people will
always have a need
for processing power, given that they are the ones truly able to harness
computers to specific tasks. I think eventually think that generic
classes
of computer searches will be implemented in hardware, with a FGPA layer
to interface for the particular data representation required to perform
that
search.. Something like that would be incredibly useful for scientific
computation, in so far as it requires a robust (probably nearly
[sub]optimal) solution be found for a
noisy environment (fitness function) within a given time frame.
>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.
(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.)
I'ld agree with ur last statement, it is just a tool at this stage. As
to designing brains through self-reflection; I should hope not :) There
are some incredibly interesting
permutations on the concept of a self-aware intelligence that should be
explored. Why build another human brain, if you can specialize the
intellect sufficiently
to surpass our capabilities within a limited domain. I think the
challenge in the future will not build a human brain, but sufficient
intelligence of the right type
to handle the environment the machine will be placed into.
>Even if you bracket the three "ultratechnologies" I mentioned only as a
thought exercise, it's interesting to see how the horizon changes.
Without superintelligence, without the technological Saviour-God, there
is no wall over which we cannot see. Without uploading, we're going to
die unless we fight for it. 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.
Hahahaha :) if ur willing to deal with invasion of privacy issues, u
need to redesign the current "ambulance" technologies; something
suitable insofar
as bringing the hospital to the patient, and in a hurry. And yes, I
agree, medicine as its currently practiced (or rather medical knowledge
as its currently
pursued) is idiotic at best, inefficient at worst.
>It's an entirely different attitude towards death and we have to sell
it to the world. 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.
I don't think there honestly is a fix for any of those things. Even if
you engineer crops, educate people, and provide clean water.
I think to do that u would have to exert a significant effort to change
the fundamental nature of the human experiences; something
which is simply not possible to do. Or put another way, you'll never be
able to eliminate scarcity, and ergo, envy short of brainwashing
or reduction of intelligence (and ergo the ability to cognitively
perceive such differences). At best u will simply push such "gross"
occurrences under the surface, aka political correctness.
>Designer babies? Not likely!
I don't about that, why not? I think that somebody will eventually set
up a practice somewhere where u can at least screen
for the charactistics u want in ur kid. Whether or not they'll be able
to manipulate the genes (any time soon) is another issue.
But soon I think, a portion of medicine will either go underground, or
establish itself within a country that deliberately leaves
its rules open to allow such basic types of research. Where there is a
market, there is a will.
omard-out
BM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 00:52:05 MDT