• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Jesse M. Bering, Ph.D. - Religion and EP


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 11 June 2004 - 02:41 PM


Chat Topic: Jesse M. Bering, Ph.D. - Religion and Evolutionary Psychology
Assistant professor of psychology at the University of Arkansas, Jesse joins ImmInst to discuss the how religion profligates as a result of our evolutionary heritage.

Chat Time: Sunday July 18 @ 8 PM Eastern [Time Zone Help]
Chat Room: http://www.imminst.org/chat (irc.lucifer.com port: 6667 #immortal)

Posted Image

Dr. Jesse M. Bering
Email: jbering@uark.edu

Ph.D., Florida Atlantic University, 2002
M.S., University of Louisiana at Lafayette, 1999
B.A., Florida Atlantic University, 1997

I take an interdisciplinary approach to several core areas of developmental psychology, focusing on the cognitive intersection of mind, meaning, and morality. Recently, I have begun to concentrate on building an empirical program devoted to understanding the relationship between causal reasoning and existential meaning. From early childhood to old age, individuals are busy constructing complex self-narratives where they envision the unique events and experiences comprising their lives as happening to them for some special purpose (e.g., "everything happens for a reason"). As a cognitive scientist, my approach to this brand of causal reasoning is staunchly empirical - experimental wherever possible. I am not concerned with the veridicality of meaning, per se, but rather how and why the human mind is naturally predisposed to engage in this type of thought.

Following are general questions currently under study:

· How did consciousness in humans 'interfere' with more ancient primate adaptations?

· Are there psychological adaptations that are qualitatively unique to humans; if so, how are they related to the evolution of morality?

· At what age do children begin to represent 'random' events as symbolic and declarative?

· Does atheism exist, or does it simply mask intuitive patterns of causal reasoning in the existential domain?

· What is the evolutionary relationship between confession, shame, suicide, and murder?

----

Posted Image

Jesse Bering's response to Paul Bloom's "Natural-Born Dualists" article.

#2 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 19 July 2004 - 02:23 AM

<BJKlein> jesse is bright
<BJKlein> whoops..
<BJKlein> perhaps i should watch the use of that word
<Gordon> yeah, I was just wondering how you meant it
<BJKlein> jesse is quite brilliant
*** Joins: Sim (~Sim@async142-6.nas.onetel.net.uk)
<John_Ventureville> have you taken a class with him?
<John_Ventureville> how did you get to know the prof?
<BJKlein> na.. just read his profile from edge
<Gordon> I don't buy into all this atheist and areligious renaming stuff
<BJKlein> but from his reply, and works, i have good impression
<Sim> Gordon - What do you mean "renaming"?
<Gordon> well, atheist have this idea that they should call themselves by something that hasn't been turned into a dirty word, which I think is nonsense because atheist has a clear, technical meaning
* BJKlein nods to Gordon
<Sim> oh, I didn't realise. What's the alternative term these days then?
<BJKlein> but
<BJKlein> depends on what you're trying to acheive in the conversation
<BJKlein> burning goats = atheist
<Gordon> I have no idea of the history of this, but I recall freethinker, which has a tendency to piss people off because they say "whatever; I'm a free thinker and I freely choose to believe in God"
<Gordon> Sim: `bright' is the newest term
<Sim> lol
<BJKlein> i tend not to come out at first and say i'm an atheist..
<Gordon> it's only been in use for several months, I think; I forget who coined it
<BJKlein> first say.. i don't think there is an overarching entity that is taking care of things
<BJKlein> which implies that there is no god
<Gordon> I don't expect anyone to tell me about their religion; in fact, I'd rather they not
<BJKlein> why?
<BJKlein> Dennett and Richard Dawkins have pushed it..
*** Joins: Jose (~Jose@200.84.34.160)
<BJKlein> welcome Jose
<Sim> So it seems Jesse is going to argue that psychologically there's no difference between aetheism and having a belief?
<Gordon> because unless there's some clear reason for discussing it, I'm just not interested
*** Joins: Guest (~Guest@dial-66-218-14-186.usadatanet.net)
<BJKlein> Jesse?
<Sim> ... am I here on the right day/time?
<Gordon> for example, if it helps to explain why something happened (as in, "because of X in my religion, I blah blah ..."), then sure, it's relevant
<BJKlein> guest you can change your nick by typing: "/nick NewName" (no quotes)
<Jose> Hi guys. Best greetings from sunny Venezuela.
<John_Ventureville> hello!
<Jonesey> hola jose
*** Joins: Videoguy (~Videodude@c-24-16-15-119.client.comcast.net)
<John_Ventureville> Jose, is it true Venezuela is a nation which seems to pump out a great many "supermodel/beauty pageant winners" despite not having a huge population?
<Jose> John, indeed, Venezuela has the world record of beauty queens.
<Gordon> but otherwise, I'm just not interested in hearing those discussions; I have a certain distaste for them, perhaps especially because they are like throwing me in front of a train of confrontation that I'd rather stay off the tracks of
<Sim> Hi Jose, greetings from cloudy London - it's supposed to be summer here, what's going on?
<Jonesey> jose ok i'm coming to visit
<Jose> With only 24 million people, we have had 5 Miss Universes, 4 Miss Worlds, and 4 Miss International.
<Jonesey> for scientific research purposes of course
<BJKlein> Jose what is the reason for this?
<Gordon> sounds like Venezuela got the good end of some genetic drift :-)
<Jose> The beauty contests have become an "industry"
<Jose> And Venezuela has the proper raw materials and good processing:-)
* Coyote_ considers moving to Venezuela
<Jose> Hi Sim. I read that the UK Transhumanist Association has been born!
<Jose> Coyote, indeed, you are welcome in Venezuela, and if you have dollars, my country is dirty cheap:-)
<Sim> Right! We haven't actually, you know, *done* anything yet, but we're getting close...
<kzzch> Now we just need to get the beauty queens to embrace immortality and other transhumanist ideas, and we'll have an excellent future ;)
<Jose> Sim, count on me for anything I can do from this side of the world!
<Sim> Cheers!
<Sim> (that's british for thankyou, btw)
<John_Ventureville> anyone hear the classic story of the beauty pageant contestant who gave a goofball response to the question "should people live forever?"
<Jose> Kzzch, great point. Immortal beauty queens!
<Coyote_> an Immortal supermodel.. how many shoes do you think she might collect?
<kzzch> I think I've heard the response.
<John_Ventureville> a googleplex worth of shoes
<John_Ventureville> at least
*** Joins: TimFreeman (~tim@fungible.com)
<Coyote_> this might destablise the spin axis of the earth
<Jose> John, no. What is the answer?
*** Joins: Lazlo (~Lazlo@ool-182c9f9d.dyn.optonline.net)
<Gordon> super models are already claim they want to save the world; they sound like potential Singularitarians to me
<kzzch> nah, eliezer could make a shoe eating FAI the save the planet
<Gordon> err, s/super models/beauty pageant winners/
<BJKlein> that was quite funny, kzzch
<Coyote_> a shoe eating supermodel would be better
<kzzch> heh, better shoes than me ;)
<John_Ventureville> "people shouldn't be immortal because if they would be immortal they would already be immortal so it's pretty clear to me that it's a good thing that people are not immortal!"
<BJKlein> how about a supermodel creating ai
<BJKlein> Ms Alabama, ya i know
<kzzch> sounds like venezuela might have one already
<Gordon> BJ: we'll save that for the movie after it happens
<Coyote_> that would be a super-duper model
<Jose> John, that sounds like a very shallow philosophy:-(
<John_Ventureville> there are some very beautiful women in science
<Sim> So, did this chat get cancelled or what?
<BJKlein> Jose, that's a quote from Ms Alabama
<BJKlein> when asked if people could be immortal
<TimFreeman> I take it the speaker hasn't arrived yet?
<BJKlein> (my x-girlfriend)
<Jose> Kzzch, We had a Miss Universe who was major of Caracas for 8 years:-)
<Coyote_> Mayor
<BJKlein> Jesse here yet?
<John_Ventureville> cool
<John_Ventureville> BJ, was she really your ex?
<TimFreeman> Any evidence for the Ms. Alabama quote?
<Jose> BJ, your ex girl friend was Miss Alabama?
*** Joins: Lucifer (~vircuser@modemcable192.160-70-69.mc.videotron.ca)
<Gordon> okay, Bruce, you clearly are the alpha male
<John_Ventureville> you have got to be kidding?
* BJKlein has dated many supermodels
<BJKlein> but no playboy bunnies
<Coyote_> ah well
<Jose> Coyote, yes Mayor, and then she run for president. I was her Energy Advisor:-)
* BJKlein waves to Lucifer and thanks him for the generious refund and investment of time
<John_Ventureville> if this story is true, then it will be a great addition to your future biography which I will of course write for you
<Coyote_> well if you have seen BJKlines wifes pictures, you could belive it
* BJKlein rewrites his history on a weekly basis
<Jonesey> such a revisionist
<John_Ventureville> *and I would have to say you UTTERLY FAILED at indoctrinating the gal in immortalist beliefs*
<BJKlein> such is the way of alpha
* BJKlein sadly bows to that fact
<John_Ventureville> and that is why I find the story hard to believe
<Jose> OK, so what has religion got to do with REAL immortality?
<John_Ventureville> : )
<Jonesey> i'm more of an omega point male
<BJKlein> Jose, are you asking about the topic?
<Jonesey> anyone here read tipler's "Physics and Immortality"?
* BJKlein tosses Tipler over my right sholder
<Jonesey> heh
<John_Ventureville> Mike Perry loves that book
<Jose> BJ, yes, about the topic!
<John_Ventureville> anyone ever read "Forever for All"?
<BJKlein> well, religion is a successful meme.. we need to learn from it
<John_Ventureville> sort of combines cryonics with omega point theory
<Jose> What are alpha and omega males? Excuse my ignorance:-(
<Gordon> "Where is Dr. Bering?" Fascinating topic of discussion
<Gordon> Jose: omega male is a greek letter joke
<BJKlein> got a confirmation that Jesse would show
<John_Ventureville> Alpha male- gets with the hottest women, makes the money, dominates other weaker males, top of the social food chain
<Coyote_> top dog
<Gordon> alpha is the first letter; omega is the last
<John_Ventureville> Omega male- leaves the planet to create new worlds and other mega engineering projects
<Gordon> (in the Greek alphabet)
<John_Ventureville> breaks down Alpha males into computronium
<Jose> Jonesey, then why are an omega male?
<John_Ventureville> : )
<Jonesey> tipler's book is quite interesting and scientifically was ok till recent obs astronomy blew it away.
<BJKlein> is getting with a lot of hot chicks is alpha.. then i fail miserably
<Lazlo> Hi folks, the Omega is the silent partner to the Alpha and the power behind the throne though sometimes a eunuch :)
<BJKlein> if alpha male..
<John_Ventureville> Lazlo, interesting point
<Gordon> or, in other words, the omega male can't get any mates, so he goes off and creates some
<Lazlo> taken from the hierarchy of the *wolf pack*
<John_Ventureville> so what is the Beta male
<John_Ventureville> and the Gamma male?
<BJKlein> I will not be a slave to the selfish genes
<BJKlein> I will not be a slave to the selfish genes
<BJKlein> I will only have one sex partner
<Lazlo> big dog passes the genes but the little dog wags the boss's tail with brains. The Omega transmits the memes
<Gordon> ugh, people take the greek letter metaphors too far
<Coyote_> I will only have one sex partner, at a time
<BJKlein> and I will have off spring on my own accord
<Jose> BJ, only one sex partner for immortality????
<Gordon> let's just say I'm glad Aleph is the only Hebrew letter available in LaTeX math mode
<BJKlein> Jose, i'd rather do away with sex alltogether
<BJKlein> distracting
<Coyote_> I will only have one sex partner..... at a time
<BJKlein> and deadly
<John_Ventureville> no BJ, you will have lots and lots of little rugrats
<John_Ventureville> and they will be the sunshine in your life!
* BJKlein has two golden retrievers
<Sim> distracting deadly fun...
<Lazlo> It is always dangerous (and exciting) to be outnumbered in bed
<John_Ventureville> *all except the one who grows up and rebels by running off and joining the Amish*
<Jose> Sex distracting and deadly? Manythings fit that description:-(
<BJKlein> i have to admit though.. i was interested in John_Ventureville's little joke..
<John_Ventureville> oh, no!
<BJKlein> Heff and the girls at Creekside - July 24 :)
*** Joins: Eliezer (~sentience@c-24-99-110-71.atl.client2.attbi.com)
<BJKlein> op.. change subject..
<John_Ventureville> BJ, down the road it might just happen
<Coyote_> helo Eli
<John_Ventureville> really
<BJKlein> Eli is here :)
<John_Ventureville> playmates regularly have Playboy parties in Phoenix
<Lazlo> The danger of copying religion is that it reinforces the wrong behaviors and recapitualtes the meme. The lesson needs to be learned but done better IMHO.
<Lazlo> just to get back on topic :)
<John_Ventureville> so it would not be so hard to have one here
<John_Ventureville> we have to break the image of the nerdy white male cryonicist who is utterly socially inept
<BJKlein> we need to saturate the memespace with messages of hope for longer life..
<Coyote_> John Ive already done that
<BJKlein> that will be receptive and kill religion
<John_Ventureville> Coyote, but you're only one man
<Lazlo> longer life is becomng the OCD of the Boomers but it is not a rational one yet
<BJKlein> look to the Low-Carb meme for example
<BJKlein> it is built on something that works
<John_Ventureville> Bruce, about killing religion....
<John_Ventureville> dream on!
<Jose> Lazlo, what is OCD?
<John_Ventureville> you have to work with it
<BJKlein> immortality will supplant religion.. eventually
<Eliezer> BJ, another no-show chat?
<BJKlein> late..
<BJKlein> have confirmation
<Jose> Isn't immortality a religion?
<BJKlein> depends on the definition
<Eliezer> You really need to get phone numbers for these things...
<Sim> BJ Have you read the Hyperion trilogy?
<Lazlo> I have seen multiple CNN, newsweek, NYTimes and others treatments of the theme but it focuses on cosmetics and lifestyle more than even real options... Obsessive Compulsive Disorder=OCD
<John_Ventureville> transhumanism in general could be viewed as a "religion substitute" by some
<BJKlein> no sim
<John_Ventureville> BJ, what did you think of the latest issue of PI?
<Lazlo> religions address the Immortality meme since prehistoric times but they are not equivalent
<BJKlein> Susan loved seeing her quote and our puppy
<Sim> In it the Catholic church develops to embrace the immortality that they becam e capable of. It seemed plausible.
<John_Ventureville> we dealt with immortalist takes on the religion issue
<John_Ventureville> BJ, cool!
<BJKlein> Facing Cryonics fit nicely
<BJKlein> http://www.imminst.org/facing_cryonics
*** Joins: Jbering (~Jbering@dpc6714255006.direcpc.com)
<BJKlein> welcome Jesse
<John_Ventureville> I wish the Transhumanist Church had not changed their name
<BJKlein> ready for some fun?
<Jbering> Apologies, didn't realize I didn't have Java!
<BJKlein> heh, sorry.. should have made clear.. no problem
<Jbering> Yes, absolutely.
* BJKlein Official Chat Starts
<BJKlein> Jesse M. Bering, Ph.D. - Religion & Evolutionary Psychology Assistant professor of psychology at the University of Arkansas, Jesse joins ImmInst to discuss the how religion profligates as a result of our evolutionary heritage.
<BJKlein> http://www.imminst.o...=ST&f=63&t=3812
<Jbering> Or attempts to, at least...
<BJKlein> cool
<Jbering> So, how does this work, shall I lead, or do I get prompts?
<Jose> Jesse, what does religion have to do with REAL immortality?
<BJKlein> we were just discussing terms used to avoid 'atheism' such as 'bright'
*** Joins: Lucifer (~nemo@modemcable192.160-70-69.mc.videotron.ca)
<BJKlein> Jesse, we'll just shoot you questions.. feel free to answer or skip
<Jbering> I think it actually has little to do with real immortality.
<BJKlein> if it goes to fast.. just ask to slow down, etc
*** Joins: RJB (root@dsl-156-155.atm02.sea.blarg.net)
<Jbering> Immortality, among religious adherents, is a state of mind
<Jbering> The real thing is quite different, I think.
<BJKlein> do you subscribe to any afterlife scenario?
<Jose> A State of Mind. How about a State of Body?
*** Joins: rhino (rhino@212.54.223.117)
<Jbering> None at all. I'm a full-blown materialist, though I can appreciate, and am susceptible to, envisioning my corpse after my own death.
<Lazlo> how about distinguishing between *practical or volitional longevity* versus immortality?
<BJKlein> thus, do you think death = oblivion?
<Jbering> It's unavoidable, after all. As Sarte said in his THE WALL, we seem to be made like that.
<John_Ventureville> Professor, what is your view of transhumanism? Cryonics?
<RJB> But we have lots of technologies to bring to bear on the state of the body.
<Sim> Jesse, from the abstract you seem to be indicating that psychologically, atheism is no different from religious belief?
<John_Ventureville> ?
<BJKlein> we are made of atoms.. to which can be manipulated (materialist) no?
<Jbering> Sim, I think that to take an atheistic stance, one is overriding their intuitive cognitive representations for belief.
* Eliezer says to Jbering: "I'm not sure what you mean by 'envisioning my corpse after my own death'. Of course physics predicts that the atoms composing your body - insofar as quantum mechanics permits particular atoms to be distinguished, which it doesn't, but never mind - go on existing. Simple empirical observation suggests corpses continue to exist after death. Why is this a startling observation?"
<Jbering> Yes, I agree, Bruce.
<BJKlein> excellent
<John_Ventureville> Professor, are you saying the only "realistic" intellectual stance to take is one of agnosticism?
<John_Ventureville> And is that because ultimately you feel the existance of God can be neither proved or unproved?
<Jbering> Eliezer, the trick is not intellectually being aware that a corpse goes on existing, of course it does. But how can we, as materialists, see our own corpse?
<BJKlein> sorry, just to be clear, Jesse, do you think Death = Oblivion?
<Jbering> John, yes. But philosophically, materialism seems on safest ground.
<Eliezer> Jbering: I don't believe there's anything un-Bayesian about making predictions about events after your own death. You won't live to see the hypotheses confirmed, but so what? My model of the universe includes the belief that such things happen whether I see them or not.
<Jbering> Yes, Bruce, absolute nothingness. Not even darkness, as that would imply sensation.
<BJKlein> perhaps physical immortality can be an alternative to oblivion via embracing technology
<Jonesey> the "god" of the bible is incoherent so that's nonexistent just cos of bible contradictions
<Sim> When you say belief is intuitive, are you saying that we're hardwired to form beliefs about the reasons why things happen?
<Eliezer> Jbering, I wouldn't say it's humanly impossible to represent coherent assertions about "what happens to us when we die". First, you can refuse to use theory-of-mind assertions in constructing your account, i.e., talk about atoms.
<Eliezer> Second, since I started reading Julian Barbour, I found that a timeless account of the universe seems to enable me to understand intuitively what happens when we die.
<Eliezer> It's not that there's a single 'us' that moves through time.
<Jbering> Call me Jesse, by the way. Eliezer, I'm in agreement with you. Sim, absolutely, I've been arguing that human beings are unique from other species in that we have an innate explanatory drive.
<EmilG> Maybe you never subjectively die, because there's always another volume in configuration space where you're still alive. Or is that totally wrongheaded?
<John_Ventureville> Jesse, what would be the particular benefits of religion to the individual?
<Eliezer> There are "nows" strung out in a sequence. When you die, there are no more nows with you in them. Timelessness, I would say, is the key to intuitively understanding death.
<Jbering> Emil, doesn't seem wrongheaded, but perhaps unnecessary.
*** Joins: John (~John@66.190.64.41.ts46v-16.otnh2.ftwrth.tx.charter.com)
<John_Ventureville> why has it flourished?
<John_Ventureville> Robert Ettinger would use the term "self-circuit."
<John_Ventureville> *father of cryonics*
<Jose> Jesse, how else are we diffenret from animals, according to you?
<Sim> So if it's innate, do you have a sociobiology-style theory about why it arose, or are you purely empirical observing that that's how it is?
*Lazlo* How are you doing Bruce? How are you coping with everything? I hope that you, Susan and your dad are well.
<Jbering> John, there are lots of alternative views of the evolutionary history of religion. Most scholars view it, these days, as a functionless by-product of other evolved systems. I disagree, however.
<Jbering> Sim, I've been working on this a bit with a colleague of mine, Dominic Johnson, and the argument is essentially that...
<Lazlo> so is that why humans have such difficulty distinguishing the qualitative difference between belief and knowledge pragmatically Jesse?
<Jbering> ascriptions of intentionality to supernatural agents, particularly to aversive life events, serves to promote cooperative tendencies. People are afraid.
*** Joins: John (~John@66.190.64.41.ts46v-16.otnh2.ftwrth.tx.charter.com)
<RJB> One could view religion as something that organizes social groups and promotes survival. It is a way of developing the advantages of a "tribe" after urban cultures developed.
<Jbering> Pascal Boyer would say that religious concepts, such as of gods and ghosts, are cognitively 'sticky' because they violate our innate assumptions about the way the world works. For example, ghosts are people, yet violate our folk physics and can walk through walls, thus making them especially memorable.
<Jose> Jesse, how do you describe religion in evolutionary terms? Do elephants and monkeys have their own type of religions?
<Jbering> These 'ontogenetic violations,' according to cultural epidemiologists, account for the rapidity of transmission between generations, why children are such suckers for gods and spirits.
<RJB> Fear is going to be much more hard-wired in lower animals. The higher you are the greater ability you have to learn from experience.
<John_Ventureville> monkeys belong to a variety of denominations
<Eliezer> Jose: Giving an account of something in evolutionary terms doesn't always mean it will be present in related species. Sometimes it just means that you explain the complex machinery underlying something in terms of an adaptation to an ancestral environment.
<John_Ventureville> *elephants are more prone toward atheism*
<Jose> Eliezer and John, thanks for your comments!
<Jbering> Jose, I don't think so. Jane Goodall has tried to argue for precursors for religion in chimpanzees, such as their 'rain-dancing' displays toward waterfalls and thunderstorms, but lower-level explanataions seem more appropriate. For example, Stewart Guthrie has a theory of religion as essentially animism, whenever environmental events have agentive characteristics, it's better to err on the side of caution.
<John_Ventureville> : )
<Sim> So it's the fear of supernatural entities that causes people to co-operate... Like someone comes up with an idea that a supernatural entity can be appeased by doing some ritual and so everyone does it, and as a side effect the people co-operate more?
<BJKlein> Jesse, in light of your atheism, have you considered cryonics as a form or life insurance?
<Jbering> That is, if you see something on the horizon, and you're not sure whether it's a boulder or a bear, better to bet on the bear!
<Eliezer> Jesse: I'm interested in religious thinking because it shares an underlying mechanism in common with mistakes that people make about Artificial Intelligence - in particular, anthropomorphism.
<Jbering> Bruce, I haven't, honestly. But it's something to consider. I am an advocate.
<RJB> S, not so much "supernatural entities" as things one does not understand and/or cannot control.
* BJKlein nods
<Eliezer> People think about robots the same way they think about spirits.
<John_Ventureville> *the descendants of the "boulder betters" are very few*
<RJB> E, Robots (at least most kinds discussed in literature) do not walk through walls.
* BJKlein just say "I Robot" (ghost in the machine)
<BJKlein> saw*
<Jbering> But in terms of death, specifically, I think we're dealing with different cognitive mechanisms.
<John_Ventureville> I thought it was a good film
<Eliezer> When people imagine robots, they imagine minds that work almost exactly like their own, except that a few startling assumptions are violated.
<John_Ventureville> Eliezer, have you seen "I, Robot" yet?
<John_Ventureville> I'm looking forward to getting your views on it
<Eliezer> For example, people assume that robots, if mistreated, will rebel. That's a social adaptation produced by the operation of natural selection with respect to specific social challenges.
<Jbering> There's an in-press article at Evolution & Cognition, in fact, that includes a content analysis of contemporary horror films. They seem to support Boyer's theory of ontological violations.
<Eliezer> But the lay audience does not appreciate this. They cannot visualize building a mind from scratch; they just take their existing theory of minds and apply it directly to robots.
<Eliezer> It looks to them like a simple explanation - minimum description length - because in English, it's very easy to say, and it requires very few departures from the human theory of mind.
<Jbering> I think that the cultural epidemiology model is a bit short-sighted, though.
<Eliezer> But the human theory of mind only works for modeling other humans, humans who are extremely complicated pieces of evolved machinery.
<Jbering> One of the pressing questions in the field is, which came first: religious concepts or the psychological operations giving rise to them.
<Eliezer> The mistake people make in postulating spirits as *simple* explanations works the same way.
<John_Ventureville> it would seem to me a robot of sufficient sophistication (a self-aware artificial mind which can upgrade itself similar to seed AI) could in time decide it was being treated badly.
<Eliezer> That is, postulating a *mind* is an immensely complex explanation. It requires that you postulate a brain, and the more anthropomorphic the explanation, the more that brain has to work just like our own brain that was produced by idiosyncratic optimization forces with idiosyncratic targets.
<Eliezer> But it *seems* like a simple explanation to us, because it's so easy to state using our theory of mind, which assumes all human complexity as an unspoken background.
<Eliezer> That's why people think that robots will rebel, and why people think that a thunder god is a simple explanation for lightning. Same basic underlying problem.
<BJKlein> Jesse, do you have any plans for a book?
<John_Ventureville> I look forward to Eliezer being proved right.
<Sim> "Lower" species have got a pack instinct co-operating to signal fear to each other and like running away or something (am I right?) - If so, what additional benefit in terms of co-operation does forming a belief about the reason for something happening which you do not understand have?
* Eliezer says to John_Ventureville: "Just because robots won't rebel, doesn't mean that Artificial Intelligences are automatically warm and friendly, either. An optimization process with no goal except turning the universe into paperclips is not your friend."
<kzzch> or women's shoes, for that matter :/
<Jbering> Bruce, maybe, I've been talking about it with someone. But right now I'm trying to focus on my empirical research.
<Jose> Jesse, you have not yet told us your view on religion and evolution?
<Jbering> Jose, I'm in the majority, I believe that particular psychological traits associated with religious behaviors are adaptations.
<Jbering> For example, we just found the first experimental evidence for the "don't speak ill of the dead phenomenon"...
<BJKlein> Jesse, what got you interested in this topic?
<Jbering> People's subjective views of recently deceased others show a precipitous rise once in respone to learning of their death, but only in the moral/prosocial domain...
<Jose> Jesse, what do you call "experimental evidence"?
<BJKlein> brain-scans?
<Jbering> They're more likely, for instance, to say that the dead person is generous, kind, loving, good, etc. after learning of his death than they were before.
<Jbering> Jose, controlled research in the laboratory, where we can rule out alternative explanations and extraneous variables.
<Jose> Jesse, you described yourdelf as being in the majority. Who are then the minority and what do they believe?
<Jbering> Bruce, I'm not sure, honestly. I've always found religion anathema, distasteful, and simplistic.
*** Retrieving #immortal info...
<Jbering> Jose, if I did I made a mistake -- I meant I'm in the minority by claiming religious behaviors (some, at least) to be ancestral adaptations.
<Eliezer> Jbering: Actually, I think Jose has a valid point. Barring brain scans, you can't distinguish between subjects who speak well of the dead, and subjects who actually think well of the dead. You also can't distinguish between a hardwired mechanism and a frequently emergent taboo.
<Sim> Jesse re: "don't speak ill of the dead" - what conclusions can you draw from that? That could be a learned cultural trait right?
<Jbering> Jose and Eliezer, point well-taken. But the measures we used (attributions on variety of psychosocial dimensions over a two-week period), suggest that people were not knowingly alterting their view of the decedent.
<Jose> Jesse, Here it comes again. What are the majority and minority views on this. Since I am new to this topic, I don't know who said what and how many they are.
<BJKlein> Jesse, have you ever considered why there are atheist from an evolutionary perspective? what is the benefit?
<Jbering> We also did a content-analysis of obituraries from the New York Times. Same thing pops up here: people emphasize morality and prosociality, and downplay other positive qualities.
<RJB> The ability to demonstrate one can think semi-rationally.
* Eliezer says to BJKlein: "I'd call atheism a strict spandrel of adaptive truthseeking. That's okay, since rational atheism is a strict special case of rationality."
<Jbering> My guess is that atheism is quite unnatural. There would have been no benefit in the ancestral past, so far as I can tell.
<BJKlein> Eli, can you explain: "rational atheism is a strict special case of rationality"
<RJB> It depends on the degree of rationality within the society. Clearly we fear "crazy" people.
<Jbering> But don't forget that even the atheist's God barks through it's muzzle from time to time.
<Eliezer> I'm not sure there would have been atheists, in the ancestral past. And heretics in general (not atheists in particular) might have been ostracized, burned at the stake, or the equivalent.
<Sim> Surely there can't be an evolutionary explanation for a flash-in-the-pan like atheism? It's purely a side effect of the direction our culture has recently developed.
<RJB> There is clearly an evolutionary advantage to behaving "rationally" rather than "irrationally". But
<Sim> Eli - the soviets did the same to non-atheists!
* Eliezer says to BJKlein: "I mean that an atheist is simply a religionist's name for someone who has an accurate map of the universe in such domains as, "What is the cause of lightning?" It is only a devout believer in the thunder god who would believe that 'electricity' was an unusual reply."
<RJB> before now we never had an external standard (science) with which to compare whether a set of beliefs was rational or simply the "group-think" of ones tribe.
<Jbering> I've had considerable trouble finding atheists for my experiments, but then again, this is Arkansas.
* Eliezer says to Sim: "Yes, that's my point."
<Sim> (well, not burning at the stake, obviously)
<BJKlein> so perhaps atheism is a genetics abnormality (perhaps like being gay)?
* BJKlein lives in Alabama (shakes his head)
<Jbering> I think being an atheist and being gay are qualitatively different.
* Eliezer says to BJKlein: "No, because humans in general are evolved to seek truth, all else being equal. At most you could say that people who are raised religious, and then become atheists as adults, might have an unusually strong tendency to pay attention to rational sources of support for beliefs."
<RJB> Jbering, but aren't there groups of athiests on various net-news / yahoo groups / orkut -- or do you need them present in person?
<Lazlo> Jesse how do you address Dawkin's application of religion as a meme that in essence mimics the selfish gene model of self replication and possessing an imperative of perpetuation?
<Sim> BJ - no of course not - once Darwin gave people a reason to hold atheist beliefs they spread like wildfire - it's purely cultural.
<Jbering> RJB, ideally, I need to get them into the lab. Some of my experiments involve, for example, triggering unexpected events in the laboratory and asking participants why they happened.
<Jonesey> humans have contradictory impulses, the drive for truth often loses out
<Eliezer> What do you mean: <Jbering> But don't forget that even the atheist's God barks through it's muzzle from time to time.
*** Joins: God_Module (~God_Modul@ACC687D8.ipt.aol.com)
* BJKlein loves all of RJB's responses
<Jbering> Lazlo, I think Dawkins (and Sperber and Boyer, etc.) have got it right at one level, in that they've identified how explicit concepts spread intergenerationally, but this doesn't solve the problem of the origins of the concepts.
*** Joins: Ben (~Ben@c-24-12-187-77.client.comcast.net)
<RJB> Now of course -- the acceptance of "science" as an absolute standard is going to be "iffy" if we turn out to be living in a sim...
<Jonesey> science can't possibly be an absolute standard.
<Jonesey> science can't even answer simple q's like "what is science and what isn't"
* Eliezer says to Jbering: "Science spreads intergenerationally, but is nonetheless true, because it is the intergenerational transmission of beliefs that arose for valid reasons."
<BJKlein> Jesse, (on a diff topic) have you looked at the trajectory of increasing artificial intellignece.. as possibly giving rise to something smarter than human?
<Jbering> Eliezer, I mean that, unless you're cognitive phenotype is autistic, you're default stance is to attribute intentional causes to certain categories of natural events, especially those that impinge on your well-being.
<BJKlein> (we'll go on for 10 more minutes on official chat)
<BJKlein> please feel free to stay longer though
<Lazlo> Fair enough so now we are dscussing two distinct issues, one is causality for the phenomenon and the other is explanatory of what we observe.
<RJB> The origin could be "rational" at first glance as well. If someone comes up with an explanation for "thunder" that is better than any of the other explanations available at the time, then that individual becomes 'esteemed" in the eyes of less clever tribe members. People will generally follow such individuals
* Eliezer says to Jbering: "I would deny that this is an insuperable obstacle. It requires training to overcome, but it can be overcome. I emphasize this, because 'we're all equally messed up' may sound nicely egalitarian, but thankfully it's not true. We can improve with practice, if we understand what we're practicing. Why study the failure of mind, if not to repair it?"
<BJKlein> RJB, do you think we are living in a sim?
<Jbering> I was reading a story about a boy in Colorado who was struck by lightning. He was wearing a shirt that read: "God has bigger plans for me." It would take a lot of effort to be an atheist after something like that.
<Eliezer> Yeah, but *it can be done*. That's important to remember.
<BJKlein> did the boy die?
<RJB> In general women like "clever" men who are more likely to be able to provide for their children, keep them safe, etc. This gets into all of the evolutionary choice processes that females use to gain insight that one male may have greater resources or is more clever than other males.
<God_Module> Jbering, what are your views on Dr. Michael Persinger's information regarding stimulating the left temporal lobes to induce higher levels of religiosity as well as ghost hallucinations, UFO abduction hallucinations..etc.?
<Jbering> Eliezer, it's a failure of the mind to the contempory self, not to the evolved gene.
<Lazlo> success is its own reward. Could this be a result of *guilt by association* and the extended power of predictability in an uncertain world? In other words if a given member of the tribe successfully leads and protects the clan from various disasters then by extension some of the more mythical explainations become incorporated into the *Belief structures* of the continuing tribal/clan?
* Eliezer says to Jbering: "Eh?"
<Jbering> "failure of the mind?" explain?
<Eliezer> The mind operating in such a way as to make poor predictions and choose poor explanations.
<Eliezer> Why study malfunctions of the mind, if not to repair it?
<Eliezer> Well, actually a perfectly valid reason is, "Just to know, for curiosity's sake."
<Jbering> Again, I'm not sure that making theistic attributions would qualify, at the level of the gene, as a malfunction. In fact, I think quite the opposite might be true.
<Eliezer> Well, it might have been true in the ancestral environment. Whether it's true today is a completely different issue. And not really a moral issue; I have goals aside from my inclusive reproductive fitness. One of those goals is to know the truth, for its own sake.
<BJKlein> hmm, but the brain is build upon a 'hard drive' that may be predisposed to religious thinking (i think)
*** Joins: mporter (~moii@c210-49-82-219.rochd3.qld.optusnet.com.au)
<RJB> BJK, I'm not in favor of the idea, but at least the physics of this universe seem to allow it (lord knows what the physics of any sim containing universe are if they differ from this universe).
<Lazlo> why can't religion just fulfill a socio-psychological need of the living to fill the void of ignorance and resolve the insecurity of survival experience?
<Eliezer> That which is a failure of the mind to our contemporary self, our contemporary self may strive to repair.
<Jbering> God_Module, I think that neurotheology is a critical area of investigation, but doesn't get at the heuristics, necessarily, of causal attribution, which is where evolutionary pressures were most likely at work.
<BJKlein> well, if we do live in an infinite world... anything should be possible
<BJKlein> as such simulations are just a part
<Sim> Jesse, do you think your theory could explain why sociobiologists try to find "higher-level" or ultimate explanations for the ways we behave? ;)
<RJB> Sure, then one might as well throw out cause and effect in general...
* Eliezer says to BJKlein: "There's an infinite supply of odd numbers, and not one of them is the sum of two even numbers."
<BJKlein> not numbers, Eli.. but space/time
<RJB> Spaces and times...
<BJKlein> and perhaps there are diff. rules in diff other worlds
* Eliezer says to BJKlein: "Same theory. Infinite space obeying the laws of physics doesn't imply that violations of physics are possible."
<Jbering> Sim, maybe not my theory :p, but I do believe that evolutionary interpretations provide ultimate answers to proximate questions.
<God_Module> I wouldn't accept that the brain is predisposed to religiousity just yet. I am not aware of any brain injuries that lead to atheism, yet there are plenty of injury that can lead to extreme religiosity, such as temporal lobe epilepsy, damage to the temporal lobes via car accidents, magnetic stimulation via solenoids that mimicks seizures..etc..
<Jonesey> eliezer spontaneous symmetry breaking might imply different laws of physics elsewhere, on some level.
<Lazlo> >>> slides through a wormhole from the discussion on evolutionary biology of religion into the physics of the Multiverse
<RJB> GM, do you know if these damage the ability to think rationally?
* Eliezer says to God_Module: "There's a million incorrect answers for every correct answer. Why would there be forms of brain damage that magically produce the correct answer?"
<Jbering> I think we have to be careful when we talk of the "evolution of religion," as there are components of religion that may have gone through the sieve of natural selection, whereas others are noise or byproducts and serve no functional role.
<RJB> Its also easy to "make up" a rational explanation when it is simply the laws of chance... People who die in car accidents don't get to make up religious explanations for what didn't save them.
<Jonesey> "religion" is so many things lumped together that i think it'll be hard to find common evolutionary origins for all aspects.
<Jbering> Jonesey, absolutely. Reductionism is a positive word in science, not a sin.
<God_Module> RJB, I suppose that depends on the view of rational. The same damage can cause extremely odd beliefs such as UFO abduction hallucinations, ghost hallucinations, emotions tied to symbols and objects..etc.. I would consider those irrational in most cases.
<RJB> Would you view the evolution of power structures in religion as "functional roles" or simply a case of some individuals grabbing for resources...
<RJB> Such as say the early popes?
<Jonesey> look at the bible, literature, poetry, nationalistic propaganda, legal codes, proto science and history, all sorts of stuff lumped into one "religion"
<Jose> Friends, have a good night. I have to leave, sorry:-(
* BJKlein End Official Chat (please feel free to stay)
<BJKlein> Jose, take care
<Eliezer> Humans evolved, and humans are religious. You can't slice off one piece of the brain, and say, "this is what took perfect Bayesians and distorted them into religionists". The problem is more subtle than that. It's an effect of an architecture, not just a module - even if variance in the effect was subject to natural selection, and even if some of the explanation is modular rather than architectural.
<Jbering> RJB, I see this as certain psychological structures, such as causal attributions to random events, pirating more ancient, evolved social adaptations subserving hierarchical organizations.
<Lazlo> Why can't we see the *need* for faith, as self assurity for a survival strategy and tactics as the source of the genetics of religion. *Faith* does appear to be associated with behaviors involved with the immune system, and religion is just a manner of organizing the best case regionally acceptable memes for that behavior. This is perhaps a result of the same response biologically (thus genetically) as the placebo effect.
*** Joins: Ge (~Ge@AC991F5B.ipt.aol.com)
<Jbering> The president of the Philippines, for example, believes that she was hand-picked by God, and that He shows her his intent through her everyday events.
<Jonesey> jbering the president of the US also believes this, as do many of his fundie followerws
<Jbering> She talks about being scheduled to deliver a speech during a rainstorm, for instance, and just as she was getting ready, the clouds parted and the sun came out.
<BJKlein> heh, good point
<Jbering> :)
<BJKlein> lol
<Jonesey> the superstition portion of religion, the proto science, springs from the same root as "real" science
<Jbering> Jonesey, yes, you're right. It's all about explanation.
<Jonesey> but there is so much more to religion than that
<mporter> if you're one out of seventy or a hundred million, and find yourself in charge, there might be a certain rationality to the idea that some unknown influence had put you there - the alternative being to believe that you are exceptionally lucky
<RJB> But the filter for "real" science is more robust.
<Lazlo> So it seems that Catholicism and the Byzantium may owe its success to the proximity of Constantine and his army to a meteor impact.
<Jonesey> all sorts of ethnocentrism and nationalism, etc
<BJKlein> hmm, it seems many atheist get off on kicking religion.. rather than finding ways to live forever
* Eliezer says to Jbering: "Have you discovered anything that helps to remedy anthropomorphism? Anything that helps people to notice anthropomorphism, realize it's inappropriate, and so on?"
<Jonesey> yep bjk defeatism
<Ben> proto science? - curiousity and attribution of cause and effect from conjuntion of events (or perceived conjunction - the case of witchcraft)?
<Jonesey> yep ben
<BJKlein> why is defeatism so prevelant from an EP perspective?
<Jbering> Elizier, no, not personally. But there are a truckload of developmental psychologists trying to figure this out. Susan Carey and Deb Kelemen, for instance.
<Jonesey> defeatism is common when a problem is hard
<BJKlein> we should all be alpha males/females!
* Eliezer googles
<God_Module> BJKlein, I can see that happening as well. I think it may be due to the fact that many religious views are directly affecting scientific research. Stem cell research comes to mind.
<Lazlo> Jesse what about the charismatic importance of leadership and the ability ot spin negative information into positive outcomes for group action?
<RJB> And desupporting the U.N. funding for population control (I forget what the org name is).
<RJB> L, oh, you mean being a slimey snake...
<Lazlo> The aftermath are self perpetuating *Institutions* predicated on teh original rationalizations with a need to perpetuate their existence for power over the group.
* Eliezer says to Jbering: "That's explaining the function and operation of anthropomorphism. I'm asking whether anyone's tried looking for a *cure*, the way the heuristics and biases program in cognitive psychology sometimes looks for ways to train people to be more Bayesian."
<Jbering> Lazlo, charisma (and leaders, more generally) are certainly a key ingredient of organized religions; perhaps they are successful, in part, in convincing others of the symbolic nature of various events, e.g., what the gods want.
* Eliezer says to Jbering: "I'm not asking for a cure for religion, mind you. I'd settle for a cure for anthropmorphizing Artificial Intelligences, a considerably more urgent and deadly problem than religion."
<Lazlo> Divine reasoning :)
<God_Module> RGB, I am concerned about that as well, but for many industrialized nations such as Japan, US as well as most in Europe, underpopulation is more of a concern due to the low birth rates that have come about for various reasons. One of which is the tendency for women to wait longer to have children due to career goals and the such.
<RJB> E. You forgot to add the "IMO".
<BJKlein> Eli, perhaps we should learn from example : computers
* EmilG wonders why such a small fraction of the population has any talent for math and science.
* Eliezer says to BJKlein: "No one's gotten the darned things to think at all, much less think rationally."
<BJKlein> bahhh
<Lazlo> what genes control charisma?
<Jbering> Elizier, not as far as I know.
<BJKlein> my computer thinks which email is important enought not to send to junk
<Lazlo> however it is vitally important to social organization
* Eliezer says to Jbering: "Darn."
<Lazlo> the group demands leadership
<RJB> L., in part physical structure. Humans are genetically biased to find as most attractive that which is "most" normal (or average).
<Jonesey> EmilG: math and science education varies widely across the planet, equally wealthy societies have quite different levels of math competence. hard to pin down the underlying distribution
<EmilG> Jonesey: No, I mean why do so few people have the mental hardware
<RJB> Presumably because the more one deviates from "average" the more one might be the carrier of bad genes.
<Jbering> Well, this has been great! Really. But I've got to let the dog out, and prepare my lecture for the morning...
<John_Ventureville> nice having you here
<BJKlein> Excellent, Jesse.... great chat tonight!
<BJKlein> please come again
<Lazlo> are we hardwired in this aspect? leader/follower/functionary. I am playing devils advocate here as I think the issue parallels the general debate. I suspect the nature/nurture aspects of charism are both in play
<John_Ventureville> Professor, what kind of religious background were you raised in?
<God_Module> Take care JBering.
<Sim> Thanks Jesse!
<RJB> EmilG, it isn't a lack of hardware -- I agree with J. that education is lacking for most people. Otherwise one is left dealing with simple IQ and a population distribution of capabilities.
<John_Ventureville> or were you raised in a nonreligous home?
<Lazlo> too bad, come back soon it has been wonderful Jesse
<mporter> "what genes control charisma?" - as RJB implies, first ask what phenotypic traits are constitutive of charisma. the 'genes for charisma' are just going to be a bunch of proteins that you've never heard of, and that information wouldn't mean anything to you unless you could connect it to the phenotype.
<Jbering> Thanks much, everyone. I appreciate your comments!
<Ben> Thank you jesse, I'm sorry I missed it, but I will read over the posted dialogue
<Lazlo> I think charisma is an overlap of genetics and memetics
<Jbering> John, my mother was a Jew, and my father was Lutheran -- go figure!
<John_Ventureville> did they send you to church/synagogue?
<BJKlein> RJB would an Aug 22 chat be ok?
*** Joins: x (~nemo@modemcable192.160-70-69.mc.videotron.ca)
<John_Ventureville> if your name is Doug Platt please raise your right hand
<John_Ventureville> : )
<Lazlo> mporter, think Napoleon and Lincoln, some charismatic players are Kennedy's but some are Kissingers using power as an aphrodesiac
<RJB> BJK, for now it is fine but I may have to postpone it on very little notice. I'll try to give you as much as I can.
<BJKlein> np.. do you have a prefered topic?
<RJB> Not really.
<BJKlein> k.. we can leave open
<BJKlein> and simply go with flow
<RJB> Fine
<Lazlo> there is much moer than physical characteristics necessary to explain it as the charism is a reciprocal process of *knowing* and *sensing* the emotions of the body politic and fulfilling collective need
<John_Ventureville> it seems to me some great leaders have a huge amount of that raw magnetic charisma while others do not but are still great leaders
<RJB> L, Granted -- Edwards "knows" the people because he has been there.
<John_Ventureville> the difference I guess between a Kennedy and a Lincoln
<Lazlo> doesn't hurt that he is handsome and self made successful, either
<God_Module> Since the topic is changing slightly, what do you think about the recent statement from Hawking about recanting his views on the black hole information paradox. That has to be a huge step for determinsm. Another wonderful advancement for immoratlity is the recent nanoscale MRI technique that has been announced. Consciousness uploading seems a step closer.
<Lazlo> Addams versus Jefferson
<John_Ventureville> thats a good comparison
<RJB> Kennedy was sold in part by his bravery and in part by family history. Lincoln was generally disliked during his time -- its only significantly after the civil war that he became a hero.
<mporter> the string theorists already disagreed with hawking for reasons of their own. i haven't seen his new argument yet, don't know how it relates to theirs.
<John_Ventureville> Waynick versus Best
<God_Module> mporter, yes, Mathur's string theory application towards black hole information probably lead Hawking to reconsider I believe.
<Lazlo> also they were charismatic to different groups and in different ways but they could cooperate while competing
<God_Module> Hawking claims to have solved the paradox all together and will present his mathematical findings and explanations at a conference in Dublin on July 21.
<John_Ventureville> Klein versus Yudkowsky
<RJB> I don't think Hawking's theory will solve all of the problems -- what I've seen suggests that the "information" isn't going beyond the event horizon and therefore can't get munged.
<John_Ventureville> heehee
<Lazlo> sliding>>>>>> also Hawkings may be working on a different definitionof the concpet of *information*. I am looking forward to the discussion
<BJKlein> ya!
<BJKlein> yeha
<God_Module> Yes, I suppose we just have to wait for the information. I am being somewhat optimistic though.
<RJB> It will be interesting to see how much the public press munges what Hawking says...
<John_Ventureville> munges?
<mporter> can we define charisma? a person has charisma when they make other people feel good in an energized way, when they have confident ideas about what everyone should be doing and it seems like they'll work,... they inspire hope, and (if they have followers) incraese their followers' sense of individual power.
<RJB> Converts into something useless...
<God_Module> Yes, I was a little disappointed about how slowly they began to cover his recanting anyway. I don't think the press will dive into the implications at all.
<Lazlo> His comments should get published after he makes them and I suspect that they will be spun and then some
<RJB> Perhaps charismatic people empower other people.
<Lazlo> I posted on this earlier in the physics forum>>>>>> Sliding back>>>>>
<Ben> *can* empower or disempower people - on Charisma
<Lazlo> charisma is a lot about group empowerment I suspect as well
<Ben> peoiple can also be empowered to overall negative ends - extreme case : Nazi Germany
<Lazlo> that is why I linked it to the developemt of religion as an extension of the social strategies of survival behavior
<RJB> Obviously the more you can empower, the larger the group becomes and the more power it has.
<BJKlein> Ben, what is lastname?
<God_Module> I'll try to find the physics posts.
<Ben> Hyink legal - Hijink ancestoral
<BJKlein> ah, welcome back
<BJKlein> are you german?
<Ben> Dutch
<BJKlein> k
<BJKlein> will be at TV04, right?
<Ben> yep, speaking on consciousness uploading
<BJKlein> ahhhhh... uploading.
<BJKlein> the more i hear the term.. the more i dont like it.
<BJKlein> integrate better
<BJKlein> uploading is misleading
<BJKlein> as Peter Passaro was so kind to point out to me
<BJKlein> but great topic nontheless
<RJB> One has downloading as well (going in the other direction when one wants to be an animal]
*** Joins: Lazlo (~Lazlo@ool-182c9f9d.dyn.optonline.net)
<Ben> yeah, it is sort of a legacy that must be dealt with - though crude uploading really could work, I don't think it is what most people have in mind or would want
<RJB> Why does peter think it is misleading?
<God_Module> The way many are describing it, it may be better called "mimicking"
<BJKlein> it's not like a compter program.. in that it goes at once
<BJKlein> you can't upload the whole biological brain
<BJKlein> but perhaps a nanotech enhanced brain, yet
<BJKlein> yes
<Ben> right... well, it's also a semantic problem
<RJB> One can "upload" software over time. The computer viruses are probably already at the state where once your machine is compromised, they can continue to load in a greater variety of increasingly complex programs.
<BJKlein> wonder who first coined the term brain 'uploading'
<God_Module> Yes, I believe a nanotech enhanced brain is more likely as well. No single neuron seems to be important enough to cause major problems if removed or destroyed, so it has a lot of potential for research.
<Ben> the behavioral algorithms are networked together in a complex way, and the network itself is very important imo, but that's not to say EVERYTHING about the substrate is critical, like quantum states, etc
<Ben> consciousness should be viewed as an emergent property of the network itself
<Lazlo> back to the Mind/Brain duality problem. Is experience critically both? Or is Consciousness oerating on wetware?
<RJB> You don't have to remove neurons at all -- its entirely possible to do a whole brain "tap" and one has the ability (wiith nanotech) to fully map what is connected to what.
<BJKlein> i think it's all to a degree...
<Lazlo> operating*
<RJB> B. I agree.
<BJKlein> to get 99 % aint bad
<BJKlein> but 99.99999 is much better
<God_Module> The other problem about scanning and attempting to reconstructing the brain is that the scans would have to be instantaneous. The brain is dynamic unfortunately.
<Ben> RJB - have you been hacking my computer to see my speech? lol
<BJKlein> replace the damn neruons!
<BJKlein> if youre hacking the brain, might as well make it bullet proof
<Lazlo> upgrade not simply upload ;)
<RJB> No. But I've been thinking about it for a long time... Since I first read Mind Children.
<Ben> God Mod - not if the brain is perfused with nanites at the synapse
<John_Ventureville> BJ, eager to escape your meatsicle?
<John_Ventureville> lol
<BJKlein> yepper
<RJB> Bullet proof is probably in the realm of vasculoid.
<Ben> that can be traced for a n instantaneous map
<RJB> Though you may need a larger head and carbon fiber threaded throughout the sapphire.
*** Joins: Th3Hegem0n (~Th3Hegem0@c-24-98-162-125.atl.client2.attbi.com)
<BJKlein> is diamond good for bullets?
<BJKlein> or shatter
<BJKlein> perhaps make rounded to bounce off
<John_Ventureville> BJ, just walk around with a nanite utility field flying around your body!
<RJB> The brain isn't dynamic if you flash freeze the brain -- then you can scan for as long as you need. You probably don't even need to
<RJB> freeze it -- simply lower the temperature sufficiently that the molecular motors stop working.
<God_Module> Ben, unfortunatly synapses are not the only important component of a nervous system. Glial cells, hormone delivery rates by the blood, heart rate, artery health, etc. are all going to contribute to brain function each second, so all just as important as neuronal information.
<BJKlein> hell, let the bullets fly through the brain.. and fix with nanobackup
<Ben> Neurons can be replaced, but what is important is an integrative approach, both to "soft uploading" and the more interesting, imo, potential for growth into a totally different substrate wirelessly
<BJKlein> or.. detect any bullet coming in the brain and turn the bullet material into more brain material!
<Th3Hegem0n> then you would have an organic bullet instead of metal that kills you
<Th3Hegem0n> lol
<BJKlein> who coined 'soft uploading?
<RJB> GM, beg to differ. Hormones alter gene expression -- that simply doesn

#3 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 19 July 2004 - 02:23 AM

<RJB> GM, beg to differ. Hormones alter gene expression -- that simply doesn't change on a second-by-second basis -- many minutes to hours is more like it. To change the levels of neuroreceptors at the synapses requires days.
<mporter> bjk: yan king yin, i believe
<BJKlein> ah yeah
<John_Ventureville> BJ, people will come up with hand weapons which will blast your body to a point beyond repair
<God_Module> Having billions of people using wireless communication to enhance brain activity would be quite the frequency controlling nightmare.
<RJB> The problem with diamond and sapphire is that they are hard but crystalline -- they fracture easily on impact. You need a composite -- more like an abalone shell.
<John_Ventureville> *because their won't be anything left to put back together*
<John_Ventureville> there
<BJKlein> John_Ventureville, i will come up with detection methods to determin if they are to shoot me or not
<Ben> God Mod - no doubt. gial cells really are critical and the processes of brain activation that are interdependent with blood oxygen and glucose supply must be modeled accurately in a functional modelling program, but it takes 48 hours to convey a message from the synapse to the nucleus and back, so in a very real sense it is the network we must concentrate on and we can to some extent ignore other aspects of the body
<mporter> are we trying to find an eternally durable computational substrate here?
<RJB> G.M. Yes, this is a point where R.K. and I disagree. I think ultimately to handle the bandwidth you are going to have to use fiber (ala the Matrix and/or Andromeda)
<Ben> eternal - why not just have many parallel processing systems scattered over a very wide area?
<BJKlein> jeeez.. biology is slow
<BJKlein> go digital, my friend
<God_Module> RGB, actually, hormones do take more time to reach target sites, but their release alone can alter the hypothalamus witin milliseconds. Also, receptors such as AMPA can be inserted into a synapse via calcium entry from NMDA receptor function and contribute to LTP quickly. (silent synapse hypothesis)
<RJB> Ben, I pointed this out at Extro 3 in '97 -- to become even close to "immortality" one had to have a "distributed replicated intelligence".
<Th3Hegem0n> or use dynamic nano-lines to connect several different "brains" on whatever substrate so that when your current one fucks up you flip to the next
<BJKlein> RJB, i can see your point there.. the air waves will be crowded
<Ben> RJB - great minds and all
<BJKlein> but, perhaps there will be finner dection of waves to infinite?
<RJB> GM, are we speaking about hormone release or receptor action? I will grant that there may be neurotransmitters and receptors that function
<God_Module> RJB, I am afraid that may be necessary as well.
<John_Ventureville> *THIS CHAT HAS A NICE EXTRO CONFERENCE FEEL TO IT*
<BJKlein> or is there a limit there in machinery
<RJB> at the local stage but I don't think that is most of them (this isn't an area where I have a good education).
<Th3Hegem0n> i'd imagine we could come up with some kind of nano tool that will make phsyical lines of molecules from location to location
<Th3Hegem0n> thin enough not to break or if they were to break could fix themselves
<Th3Hegem0n> use those to transmit information
<RJB> This is discussed somewhat in NM V. I. Robert F. goes into all of the kinds of communication methods that one can use.
<BJKlein> such communication links will be valuable and guarded, as they are to some degree now
<God_Module> RJB, I was speaking of both actually. Neurohormones are released into the bloodstream to be dispersed to other targets, but they also are absorbed by the very areas that release them, so they can inhibit future release and affect other areas directly near them very quickly such as the pituitary glands, hypothalamus, pineal gland..etc. Neurtransmitters and receptors have far reaching action. It is very easy for a signal to propagate the brai
<Ben> (looking Backward to God Mod - yes* the synaptic interactions will need to be well modeled - at least at first until transitions are made to an easier system that allows for good processing , if there is one,, but the modeling scales needed are finite- quantum effects are not important imo, for instance
<John_Ventureville> is anyone recording this chat?
<BJKlein> ya
<John_Ventureville> cool
<Th3Hegem0n> i imagined one connected between mutliple consciousnesses so that if your current brain was destroyed they would send an activation signal to another mind in some kind of sensory depravation that would awaken it's senses
<BJKlein> will post to Jesse soon
<BJKlein> link to imminst homepage
<God_Module> Since the viscera sends very important signals back to the brain via the cardiovascular system and nervous system, more than just a brain will have to be recorded. The body will definitely affect consciousness and thinking ability for reasons such as these and much more.
<John_Ventureville> something I witnessed once was a expert martial artist who had been conditioning himself since his childhood...
<John_Ventureville> he hit a coconut with his fist and splattered it as if a metal hammer had come down on it
<John_Ventureville> I began to wonder about the fragility of the human skull
<RJB> Folks, I've gotta go. Nice Chatting. GM, its an area I will need to learn more about -- I do however view most of the mind-body interactions as relatively unimportant as they are not necessary for most of the long term survival situations I envisioni.
<God_Module> Ben, I am still waiting for more information about quantum effects playing important roles in neuronal functions. I know there is building evidence that they play a role in mictrobules in neurons, so we will have to wait for more info.
<RJB> John, pls send me an email note directly. I tried several variants of the mail address that I thought you had posted in the last chat and never could make it work.
<RJB> Thanks.
<John_Ventureville> sure
<BJKlein> Thanks Robert, take care.
<God_Module> RJB, thanks for the conversation. I agree as well. There are probably quite a few possible routes to immortality.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users