A comprehensive poll.

I am going to conduct a poll.

Please repond in the following format:

Question number:
Anwser:

Example:

2
Yes.

Address all coments about a particular question immediately after the question.


DISCLAIMER

The beliefs being polled are a random mix of beliefs.... Don't assume that just because they are in the same list that I think they are of equal merit or, more to the point, the lack thereof.


POLL

Number 1
Do you believe in (a) God?

Number 2
Do you believe in Free Will? (To clarify, subjectively doesn't counts. You need to follow it to its logical conclusion.)

Number 3
Do you believe that a copy of you (down to the last spin state) is subjectively you? (Meaning your consciousness will be carried on in the copy; i.e. you wont die.)

Number 4
Do you believe that you will be able to live forever?

Number 5

Do you believe in life after physical death?

Number 6

Do you believe the universe is predetermined?

Number 7

Do you believe that cryonauts will be revived to their original selves? (Within the parameters of personality and continuity.)

Number 8

Do you believe the singularity (the surpassing of current human intelligence among immortalists) will occur within this century?

Number 9

Do you belive nanotechnology will be significantly developed (being able to manufactor objects with molecular precision) within this century?

Number 10

Do you believe that strong A.I. will be developed within this century?




(EDIT 1)

Added (To clarify, subjectively doesn't counts. You need to follow it to its logical conclusion.) to Number 2

Edited by justinb, 01 January 2006 - 12:54 AM.

1 no
2 you need to be more specific: "free will" is used very ambiguously by different persons.
3 i don't believe that what you probably mean happens during ordinary survival. so why would it happen during "copying".
4 no
5 see 3
6 no
7 personality - maybe; "continuity" see 3
8 singularity - no; surpassing of human intelligence - yes. depending on the measure of intelligence some say we can do that already.
9 we can do that already. you need to be more specific.
10 maybe

(yes = I'd be surprised if not, no = I'd be surprised if, maybe = I really don't know)

I will add two more items to John's succinct legend: irrelevant and probably

as in irrelevant = unknowable or unprovable

probably = the trends and odds favor either a yes or no

1 irrelevant. A deity does not need my "faith" to exist and there is to date no objective criteria with which to make this decision. What I *believe in* should be personally perceived and/or testable. I take perception at face value and testable means an application of Scientific Method not merely logic.

2 "you need to be more specific: "free will" is used very ambiguously by different persons. " ditto

3 "Subjectively" yes
Even if you were *objectively* not the same person you could not tell the difference. Your perception of continuity can be complete. Also the criteria used to define *person* (biologically, psychologically, metaphysically) determines much of how one must answer this question.

4 no (I have been reluctant to counter this one here at imminst because apart from the innate absurdity of the claim it is predicated on a definition of *eternal* and that which is eternal perhaps has no beginning not merely no end. Aside from questions of *immortal souls* that which is *ME* can be said to have a definable beginning.

5 John is correct to point out this question's answer is contingent on how one answers number 3

6 no

7 again see 3

8 "singularity - no; surpassing of human intelligence - yes. depending on the measure of intelligence some say we can do that already."

Good answer John so there is no point to gilding it. )

9 an accomplished fact. "you need to be more specific." ditto

10 probably yes

10. definitely yes.

1. No. Self-enforced god believers believe that the definition of 'God,' most generally, is that it is omniscient, omnipotent, and necessarily an article of faith. By this definition it is empirically unverifiable (it is necessarily an article of faith) and logically incoherent (it is a paradox to be both omnipotent and able to create a rock one cannot lift). Since I think beliefs are justified when and only when they either have empirical utility or are empirically verifiable (some beliefs have empirical utility and are not empirically verifiable, some beliefs are empirically verifiable and have no empirical utility, and some beliefs both have empirical utility and are empirically verifiable), and are logically coherent within a belief system, I do not believe in any god so defined.

2. No. But personhood does not require free will, just a design that produces observable avoidances and procurements.

3. No. One of the necessary attributes for personhood – along with memories and self-referential observer-states – is self-observable numerical identity. 'Self-observable numerical identity' refers to the capacity of a being that can utter the statement (though not necessarily the sentence), "I am here and I am not there." If I was standing next to my copy, it would be a duplicate, and the copy and I would be qualitatively identical (e.g. A is very similar to B) but not numerically identical (e.g. A is B). Each would have its own self-observable numerical identity. Although each would be able to utter "I am here and I am not there," 'I' in each statement would have a referent that is different from the other. Since natural laws easily distort the notion of numerical identity with regard to personhood (e.g. if I am A when I go to sleep and B when I wake up, strictly speaking, A is not B, only very similar to B), personhood, as long as one cares about personhood (and about babies between non-sentient stage and personhood stage!), necessarily has a 'self-observable numerical identity' function.

4. No. But I want to live forever. See 7.

5. No. See 1.

6. No. Currently I believe the universe is probabilistic and therefore indeterminate. (Indeterminism does not imply that we have free will.)

7. I believe they can be and should be. See 3. But there is no reason to believe they will be. There may be empirical utility in valid inferences, but inferences can never be sound, or else they are no longer inferences.

8. I believe it can occur and should occur, if the Singularity means sustaining and enhancing personhoods, in the way personhoods are cared about. See 3. But there is no reason to believe that it will occur. See 7.

9. In terms of the nanotech challenges that have not yet been met but have been articulated, I believe some of them can and should be met. But there is no reason to believe that they will, in fact, be met. See 7.

10. 'Strong AI' is ambiguous. For 'greater-than-human AI,' infer my belief from the predicates in 7-9 (noting that 7 and 8 point to 3).

Edited by Nate Barna, 10 October 2005 - 08:13 PM.

Number 1
No.

Number 2
Free Will does not and cannot exist. Subjectively it does, but objectively it does not. One must follow their logic to the end conclusion.

Number 3
No, this is completely obsurd. Nate said it best. When a copy of me is made, all it is is a copy. If I am standing here and my copy is standing over there, than I am not experiancing the copy experiancing life. There is not a magic substance that "jumps" over into the other body. All the copy is, is a very samilar physical representation of me. There is no soul...

Number 4
No, I don't believe that we will live forever. Since living forever is impossible, as one would have to go beyond the infinite, which is impossible. We may, however, be able to live without the limit of death; "living without limits." We will, though, eventually have to change and life as we know it will go with it. Entropy is, as of now, a completely irreversable phenomenon. We wont know if it is reversable, circumventable, redefinable, etc. until we are MUCH smarter than we are now. Don't think that it is just because are intellects are extremely small compared to what we think we can make them in the future. If Entropy remains a problem, than we will be superintelligent icicles in a few billion to trillion years.

Number 5

No, completely obsurd.

Number 6

I have no idea, I hope not... of course.

Number 7

I wouldn't have the slightest clue. Although once damage to certain areas of the brain have been done, than the entire idea becomes quite dubious.

Number 8

Yes, I do. I believe the singularity will happen. Although it may not happen among current day immortalists such as ourselves.

Number 9

I don't know, it depends on if it is possible to begin with or not. I don't know QM yet. [tung]

Number 10

I believe strong A.I. will be developed eventually, who knows if it will happen within a century.

Edited by justinb, 10 October 2005 - 03:00 PM.

1
No

2
No

3
No

4
No
- Forever is not reachable. Without limits though- Yes.

5
No

6
No
But only because the forth dimension is way too complicated than what it seems, and a simple events causing due the events before doesn't seem to logic to me. And this would have been the only explanation to it being predictable if it was.

7
I've got no background in cryonics at all. I can't yet tell.

8
No

9
No
If you mean like, you could turn to a foxy........... no. )

10
Yes

-Infernity

9
No
If you mean like, you could turn to a foxy........... no.

Not if my intelligence is so insane that I have a digit span of 1000, can calculate 50th dimensional vectors in seconds, earn a Ph.D. (in a hardscience) within a week, learn Latin in two hours, etc.

Image modeling an entire lifetime of a regular human within minutes in your head?

9
No
If you mean like, you could turn to a foxy........... no.

Not if my intelligence is so insane that I have a digit span of 1000, can calculate 50th dimensional vectors in seconds, earn a Ph.D. (in a hardscience) within a week, learn Latin in two hours, etc.

Image modeling an entire lifetime of a regular human within minutes in your head?

Ok, still no...

-Infernity

Number 1
Do you believe in (a) God?
Not exactly, No...

Number 2
Do you believe in Free Will? (To clarify, subjectively doesn't counts. You need to follow it to its logical conclusion.)
Not exactly...

Number 3
Do you believe that a copy of you (down to the last spin state) is subjectively you? (Meaning your consciousness will be carried on in the copy; i.e. you wont die.)
Hell no... Thats just foolish...

Number 4
Do you believe that you will be able to live forever?
Staying awake for the 12 days I just did I was extreamly bored... So I dont think I would beable to stand forever... I only want to live 5,000 *min* years anyway...

Number 5
Do you believe in life after physical death?
I could answer this, But I am not going to...

Number 6
Do you believe the universe is predetermined?
Same as above

Number 7
Do you believe that cryonauts will be revived to their original selves? (Within the parameters of personality and continuity.)
They may beable to be revived, Have SOME of the memories... etc... But they for damn sure wont still be "THEM" They may think they are them however...

Number 8
Do you believe the singularity (the surpassing of current human intelligence among immortalists) will occur within this century?
Sorry, Im too tierd, Dont know what you mean...

Number 9
Do you belive nanotechnology will be significantly developed (being able to manufactor objects with molecular precision) within this century?
No way...

Number 10
Do you believe that strong A.I. will be developed within this century?
... There allredy is VERRY STRONG AI, was so last century aswell...

9
No
If you mean like, you could turn to a foxy........... no.

Not if my intelligence is so insane that I have a digit span of 1000, can calculate 50th dimensional vectors in seconds, earn a Ph.D. (in a hardscience) within a week, learn Latin in two hours, etc.

Image modeling an entire lifetime of a regular human within minutes in your head?

Ok, still no...

-Infernity

[lol]

Yeah, I should try harder next time I nerd out.

Hell no... Thats just foolish...

Hahaha, I love you. A 15 year-old punk that sees the obvious sillyness that 30+ year-olds, with extensive knowledge of eigenvalues and eigenvectors, don't see. Don't you love it?

... That would be 16...

Hahaha, I love you. A 15 year-old punk that sees the obvious sillyness that 30+ year-olds, with extensive knowledge of eigenvalues and eigenvectors, don't see. Don't you love it?

Perhaps *ignorance is bliss* and can allow for a kind of juvenile complacency that we also see as all too often historically verifiable.

Then again maybe the *presumption of a simple answer* when insufficient *reason* exists is just another sign of immaturity. )

Perhaps *ignorance is bliss* and can allow for a kind of juvenile complacency that we also see as all too often historically verifiable.

Then again maybe the *presumption of a simple answer* when insufficient *reason* exists is just another sign of immaturity.  )

The idea of a copy goes back to an idea of a soul. Pure and simple. If you can't see that, than there is no point in talking about anything related to consciousness since a belief in a soul skews everything, or at least has the potential to do so; to skew everything that is. A belief in the soul skews one's view on consciousness to begin with, wether or not a particular someone can also view certain aspects of life through a rational lense or not is up to that someone. Although the foundation will always be schizophrenic.

By the way, the position that all consciousness is just biodynamics is NOT simple at all. On the contrary. It is the most complex thing we have encountered and will always remain so.

Edited by justinb, 11 October 2005 - 10:59 PM.

If a copy could carry on my conscious, than it would also be possible for someone alive today to also carry on my consciousness. If that were true, I would hop into the first hot lesbian I saw. Trust me, if it were possible I would do it in an instant.

Irrelevant.

Address the distinction I made not the incorrect *perception* you prefer to challenge. Saying our consciousness can't leap from person to person is no more complex than a question of conductivity.

Anyway if you could jump into a lesbians' body; would you be *forcing* her from her own?

Another typical adolescent male power tripper. [wis]

First cope with the distinction of *subjectivity and objectivity* by other means than tying it to free will. Disagreeing with free will doesn't mean that objectivity does not exit, in fact *determinism* is predicated on objectivity, that is why it is *logical* positivism.

The idea of a copy goes back to an idea of a soul. Pure and simple.

That is only one interpretation.

A soul is actually a distinction for characteristics of mind; both real and *desirable*, it could even have an *infernal opposite* to be shunned.

A concept of *soul* is not necessary for the dynamic of consciousness to transcend strict physicality with the *self/mind* model. You are perceiving your body by the rules and economics of property and there is value in doing so from evolutionary psychology but your body is a perception of self for the same reason that it is biological *life support* for the brain where the consciousness as the hardware of the machine supports the matrix of the mind.

The computer is as basic in comparison to our mind as the concept of combustion is to Kreb's Cycle. However there is a logical relationship that is parallel. Hence you have the *belief* you express in Strong AI.

For AI to even someday exist would demonstrate the potential for the mind of man to not be limited to our body in the sense that how one defines oneself becomes the expression of *being*. For the *will* to exist (free, determined, chaotic, etc.) so does memetics. So distinguish between the subjective and objective self as an expression of will?

Then try not to make it one of competitive power between copies?

A copy of you is you *subjectively* not objectively and the problem for program logic is encrypting that *variable*. A *soul of self* merely reflects the memetics of the subjective mind *self defining* and saying that this process is not truly objective confirms not denies the point. I for one never said that a copy could be determined to be *objectively* you. IN fact you are aware that some argue that you *live a simulation* already.

I am not confusing the duality of consciousness with a principle of physics or metaphysics. Save that for an analysis of abiogenesis. All that needs to be proven is that this condition exists for it to be true, regardless of being desirable or not. I suggest that the*Subjective Self* exists and you would be irrational to say it doesn't such that the idea that subjectivity is *a property of consciousness* is also not challenged by whether it is a *necessity* to be so.

The real issue is could a *subjective self* perceive its own discontinuity as a copy?

Humans do go *mad* now for just such *reason.*

A subjective self would *rationally* perceive itself to be the *objective self* and that is why the idea appears on its face absurd but it also could be a mere psychological defense mechanism to inhibit functional cognitive breakdown.

If a copy of *you* existed and apart you had led two entirely different lives but upon meeting one of you lived and the other died but together go forward in one body with two sets of overlapping memories how would either ever distinguish who really *owned * the body you would together by your perception be inhabiting?

However if the body inhabited by both *self/minds* (the metaphor are merged overlapping OS's) possessed both sets of memories in that same brain would it matter so long as the perception of *self continuity* is sustained?

Or would you struggle for eternity for dominance within your divided self or merge into a more complex mind?

Justin are you really so narrow now as to be always be of a *single mind* in all your thoughts and feelings?

Who your objective being *is* also results from self-examination and willful adaptive self-definition not merely genetics or theology. You exist because you experience and experience helps define cognitive personality *memory.* Don't be confused by seeing this only as organized higher memory for "conscious recall" information it is also sensory data and emotional association. Emotion is remembered too along with hot and cold. The self is composed of these too.

http://www.imminst.o...f=214&t=8123&s=



One of the long essays that I read that I really felt that was worthwhile...
Um related no?

BTW

No, I don't believe that we will live forever. Since living forever is impossible, as one would have to go beyond the infinite, which is impossible. We may, however, be able to live without the limit of death; "living without limits."

Oh I love that kid

as in irrelevant = unknowable or unprovable

1 irrelevant. A deity does not need my "faith" to exist and there is to date no objective criteria with which to make this decision. What I *believe in* should be personally perceived and/or testable. I take perception at face value and testable means an application of Scientific Method not merely logic.

Laz, the question is whether YOU *BELIEVE* or not... Your answer is quite deterring... [mellow] It's like, you don't believe in one, because this matter is irrelevant, I know, I know... but still hope and wish for *him* to do something when you need it... yuck. Aye?


-Infernity

Edited by infernity, 11 October 2005 - 10:05 PM.

Justin, although (a) there being a set of duplicates (here, an 'original' is also denoted by 'duplicate') does not warrant destruction of any member of that set, (b) it should be regarded as plausible from a functionalist philosophy of mind that there can be a set of duplicates. It seems like you would agree with (a) but at the expense of (b).

Laz, it seems like you would agree with (b), but it seems to come at the expense of (a), and I'm not sure why. Each duplicate would be morally significant. If all duplicates are qualitatively identical, it doesn't follow that all of them are also numerically identical, and it also doesn't follow that each doesn't have a unique 'self-observable numerical identity' function. Even if we can imagine a being that is self-divisible, we also imagine that being to be intimately networked with all of its nodes such that the being, considered together with all of its nodes, still has numerical identity.

It is just sillyness and a waste of time to discuss.

(Nate)

although (a) there being a set of duplicates (here, an 'original' is also denoted by 'duplicate') does not warrant destruction of any member of that set, (b) it should be regarded as plausible from a functionalist philosophy of mind that there can be a set of duplicates. It seems like you would agree with (a) but at the expense of (b).

I have no problem with that line of reasoning Nate. IN fact much of my argument is the same. I am not logically presuming (b) comes at the expense of (a) I am merely observing that it does so often enough as to force recognition for this idea. One reason this might be factually so pragmatically is what I am suggesting and that is merely one more hypothesis from an evolutionary psych perspective as to why.

I do not see the validity of a claim of prima facia (unique originality) existence once the question of copies enters the discussion. All that could objectively confirm such is a chronological determinant predicated on a linear space/time commonality that only locally exists and is somewhat misleading to apply on a universal scale.

For most the issue isn't whether a copy can exist it seems to be they cannot tolerate the idea one exists. I don't share that perspective but it is a fools' errand to deny many feel this way. Justin appears unable to cope in such a manner and I was outlining that dilemma for him.

Laz, the question is whether YOU *BELIEVE* or not... Your answer is quite detering...  It's like, you don't believe in one, because this matter is irrelevant, I know, I know... but still hope and wish for *him* to do something when you need it... yuck. Aye?

No Adi, I believe you mean defer, as in sidestepping not *deter* as in prevent. I am saying that my belief in God is irrelevant, just that and no more. Why predicate an answer on a false dichotomy? Why should I have to believe one way or another?

Just so I can be labelled an agnostic?

Belief is relevant to me in a case like trying to understand your meaning for word usage as it reflects the relativity of communication but it is irrelevant in respect to metaphysics except as a product of logic, observation, explicative analysis and predictive values (i.e. sciientific method). It could have merit from a social perspective for an ethical analysis of behavioral choice too but that also is a relativistic measure.

Why do the memetics of religion even for atheists so often fall into a social delineation issue?

Belief is only relevant if it is forcing me to make a decision regarding my choices for behavior. Does believing a deity exists or not determine how I value right and wrong for any particular example?

No.

It does however imply with some measure of accuracy about whether or not a system of values are shared in a social grouping.

This is a far more interesting analysis to me and why I maintain that religion and politics are essentially derived of the same cognitive processing in terms of socio-psychology. The crutch of the matter is the psychology of dependence; oh I guess that should read crux ) .

Whether a deity exists or not I am not expecting anything since my sentiments are not the basis of this theoretical Divine Selection. I try not to define the myself predicated on a relationship with the divine unless that is perceived as intimate and *two sided*. Thus if this intimacy is between God and I (if at all) then the arguments of others as to how I should understand God are not germane and the sharing of belief irrelevant except as a social recognition function for the organization of cultural subgroups I have to cohabit realty with.

In terms of the beings I share reality with I perceive a competitive Natural Selection at work when we are unable to establish a pragmatic Human Selection paradigm that allows the sum of the parts of humanity to be greater than the whole.

Ask instead if the idea of God merely represents a logical *ideal of me* for individual cognitive function?

A goal for recursive self improvement rather than a demonstrable fact.

If that is the case I can choose to believe or not and the point has only to do with my *perception* of an answer not a belief. Do you believe your perceptions or not? Or do you have perceptions and learn to be as objective about them as possible?

You can believe whatever you want.

It doesn't really matter to anyone else what a particular person believes unless that belief has some sort of significant effect on another's life.

I just hope you don't do something stupid for a chance at immortality, I would hate to loose you.

1. Not in any traditional religious sense. I don’t know on a cosmic sense.
2. Don’t know
3. Yes
4. Probably not.
5. Not unless someone makes a copy of me down to the last spin state
6. No
7. If they are revived at all and the knowledge they had isn’t lost
8. Probably
9. Yes. We can do that to a limited extent now
10. Probably yes.

I just hope you don't do something stupid for a chance at immortality, I would hate to loose you.

That is very kind of you Justin. Thanks [thumb]

What kind of "stupid" thing did you have in mind?

That is very kind of you Justin.  Thanks [thumb]

What kind of "stupid" thing did you have in mind?

Letting yourself be killed thinking that your consciousness will be continued in a copy, computer, whatever.

Letting myself be killed to prove a point would be a stupid thing.

Especially since if copying were possible it is unnecessary to be killed to prove it.

Number 1 No. But it is just a hunch...

Number 2 Yes. Existentially.

Number 3 No. Existentially.

Number 4 No. But I'm willing to die trying...

Number 5 No.

Number 6 No.

Number 7 Yes.

Number 8 Yes. But if we are lucky we won't even notice.

Number 9 Yes. This is safe, since we can do it now to a certain extent.

Number 10 Yes. If it will be developed at all.

I am not logically presuming (b) comes at the expense of (a) ...

Laz, I see it now. Somehow I originally mistook what you meant by 'died' in paragraph 1.

If a copy of *you* existed and apart you had led two entirely different lives but upon meeting one of you lived and the other died but together go forward in one body with two sets of overlapping memories how would either ever distinguish who really *owned * the body you would together by your perception be inhabiting?

I do not see the validity of a claim of prima facia (unique originality) existence once the question of copies enters the discussion.

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean here. Once the question of copies enters the discussion, it seems no less than pertinent to evoke the 'numerical identity' and 'qualitative identity' notions. Each side of a numerical identity equation theoretically is very flexible. The nature of its flexibility shouldn't mean that it's irrelevant in this sort of discussion.

Suppose I am A and B. Suppose my copy is C and D. During pre-mergence, I assert, we both necessarily have unique numerical identities such that (A <=> B) < > (C <=> D). Our locations in spacetime distinguish us and so do our observer-states in recognizing this fact. Very strictly, we're not even qualitatively identical, either, since location in spacetime is an objective property ('qualitative identity' refers to an identity's objective properties).

Perhaps the theoretical nature of mergence is non-obvious, and therefore one might not see the validity in this sort of talk. Nevertheless, if it's necessary to preserve personhoods, then preserving personhoods means preserving self-observable numerical identities. Behold, mergence of my copy and me produces the identity A + C <=> B + D.

I just hope you don't do something stupid for a chance at immortality, I would hate to loose you.

All you Americans type loose instead of lose [lol] quite hilarious.

To the point:
Well, the thing is, if laz will turn his ways and be against immortality for some reason, the problematic thing will be- laz's word can be pretty convincing. And many might follow him [huh]

Yeah laz, I'd also hate to lose you.

-Infernity

All you Americans type loose instead of lose [lol] quite hilarious.

What do you mean "all"?

Ugh come on, there is no 100% obviously. I mean, that the very most of the times where there should be 'lose' I see people type 'loose'.

loose= not tight, released

lose= fail to keep possession of; mislay, misplace; be deprived of; be defeated, fail; be bereaved; suffer a loss; become less effective or valuable, diminish


I see that a lot really. Ok, you are Not... are you satisfied? are you pacified?

-Infernity