IMMINST CHAT ARCHIVE<BJKlein> Official Chat Starts Now
<BJKlein> Human Frailty - SARS & Other Biological Threats
<BJKlein> I'd like to discuss the current SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) in a little detail.. what to look for.. death toll... and then get into a general discussion of the frailty of biology in general in comparison to the alternative: ie: transhumanism..
<BJKlein> DEATH TOLL:
<BJKlein> World Total: 90+/-
<BJKlein> China: 51
<BJKlein> Hong Kong: 20
<BJKlein> Canada: 9
<BJKlein> With more than 2,400 casses worldwide reported
<Utnapishtim> pretty grim reading...
<BJKlein> yeh.. i'm looking for a percentage of death/incident
<BJKlein> To date, the illness has caused death in about 3.5%
<BJKlein> probabl cause, unknown virus
<Lukian> okay, so what's the speculations on what it's come from?
<BJKlein> spread by inhalation of droplets expelled by infected person caughing or sneezing
<BJKlein> Lukin: On November 16, 2002 an outbreak of what is believed to be the same disease began in the Guangdong province of China, which borders on Hong Kong
<BJKlein> Of the 806 people reported infected, at least 34 died. China notified WHO about this outbreak on February 10, and the outbreak peaked in mid-February 2003.
<BJKlein>
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS<BJKlein> it is believed that 'respiratory precautions' can safely protect people form the virus
<Michael^2> 3.5% is a quite high percentage, it's scary that there are even diseases with that high of a kill rate
<BJKlein> yeh.. I think it's higher than the 1918 influenza outbreak
<BJKlein> which killed btwn 20 - 40 million
<Michael^2> ouch
<Michael^2> are you sure about that number?
<BJKlein> I've also heard where a 'cure' will take more than 1 yr to create..
<Michael^2> that sounds like more people dead than the plague
<BJKlein> cure = immunization I belive
<Michael^2> hey PD
<BJKlein> i've read where the government is trying to get the ball rolling on this and then will pass it over to the private sector to develop a product
<PD> Hello.
<PD> ;\
<BJKlein> an important note.. the war has diverted much attention from this...
<Michael^2> it would have been a far bigger deal otherwise, I'm sure
<BJKlein> more people may? die from SARS than from the war in Iraq
<BJKlein> this would inclide Iraqi soldiers of course.. I have no clue how many that will/would be
<Michael^2> several k
<BJKlein> but.. more importantly.. this reveals a serious weekness in residing in a biological form
<PD> I'm not sure about several k.
<BJKlein> and would be used as an example for the importance of augmentation...
<Utnapishtim> It comes down to the level of risk you can live with
<BJKlein> heh, more like 10's of k
<Utnapishtim> in the short term
<Lukian> lmao
<BJKlein> who make the best case our there for transhumanism because of biological risk...
<BJKlein> makes*
<Michael^2> the thing about augmentation
<BJKlein> out*
<Michael^2> is that the public's attention will always shift to what causes the most deaths
<Michael^2> the causes of death will always be seen as "diseases", regardless of how minute we consider them to be today
<Michael^2> "accidents" will count too
<BJKlein> and this is a result of our e p
<BJKlein> evolutionary psychology
<Michael^2> if all diseases are cured, then the focus of attention will go to other things and "cures" will be demanded, "cures" which include completely transcending humanity
<BJKlein> we're trained to watch the 'car wreck'
<PD> Incidentally, I've been arguing about evolutionary psychology on physicsforums again.
<PD> I should probably go and post a reply but I'm not sure what to write.
<Michael^2> you're probably wasting your time
<PD> Well...
<Michael^2> I've seen your posts though, they're great
<PD> What recently?
<Michael^2> A few months ago
<PD> Ah.
* BJKlein is proud of his sexual enhanced ornamental brain
<PD> I try.
<Utnapishtim> What??
* Michael^2 understands what Bruce means
<BJKlein> re: geoffery miller
<Michael^2> our brain is sort of like a peacock's plume, in many ways
<Utnapishtim> Nice analogy
<Michael^2> On all of physicsforums, PD is the only person who really impresses me, though
<BJKlein> Geoffrey Miller says is best.. but yep.. our huge brains are basicly a fitness measure
<Utnapishtim> Then how come physics majors don't get more action?
<PD> MA, that's only because I don't get into the physics too much. :D
<Michael^2> Right
<PD> Anyway, I seem to have encountered a new common theme in people who rail against evolutionary psychology.
<BJKlein> that's be an interesting experiment.. but I would guess.. smartness correlates rather well to successful mating
<Michael^2> You know, I used to be interested in physics, but in retrospect, so much of it is just sensationalism
<Utnapishtim> Not sure that it does, Bruce. I see an inverse relationship between intelligence and number of offspring
<Michael^2> "There are soo many exciting particles! Woooo!"
<PD> Apparently, they think that if you endorse reverse engineering approaches in biology or cognitive science, you also endorse the Pinker/Chomsky/Fodor linguistic program, and vice versa.
<BJKlein> PD can you expand on that
<Michael^2> I do pretty much endorse the Pinker/Chomsky linguistic program, what's wrong with that?
<PD> MA, well, it's neurologically unrealistic, evolutionarily implausible, and philosophically unsound.
<Michael^2> I'm sure they must have more fundamental objections than that
<Michael^2> Can you explain?
<PD> MA, well, the particular idea I'm talking about is Fodor's language of thought, which Pinker and Chomsky both seem to endorse.
<Michael^2> By "fundamental", I mean "superificial"
<Michael^2> superficial*
<PD> I don't think one ought to confuse this brand of nativism with the idea that brains are modular.
<Michael^2> Oh, I know less about that than I know about what Pinker and Chomsky have had to say about linguistics
<Michael^2> So we're talking about different things, which is rather odd especially since I only said "Pinker/Chomsky linguistic program"
<Michael^2> But the people on physicsforums must have other objections unrelated to this language of thought business
<PD> MA, the Pinker/Chomsky linguistic program assumes that something like the language of thought hypothesis is correct.
<Michael^2> Evolutionary psychology can be applied in scores of areas outside that
<PD> MA, I agree, that's my point actually.
<BJKlein> is the linguistic model the current trend would you say?
<Michael^2> Can you explain why you see this "language of thought hypothesis" is neurologically unrealistic, etc?
* Michael^2 isn't sure what exactly the "language of thought" hypothesis is
<BJKlein> me neither
<PD> Anyway, the LOT hypothesis basically says that there are computational structures in the brain that mirror human linguistic practices.
<Michael^2> Are you sure you aren't mischaracterizing it? Are you sure they aren't arguing that there are lingustic precursors which are simply used as preproccessing in actions, and which coopt the same neurological machinery used for formulating words before we speak them?
<Michael^2> When you say words in your head before speaking them, you can learn things
<BJKlein> fwiw:
http://plato.stanfor...e-thought/#What<PD> Sorry, someone was at the door
<Michael^2> Yeah, I think I've heard of stuff a lot like this
<PD> Anyway
<PD> No, what they're saying is that there is a general symbolic system realized in brain architecture that serves as a foundation for all natural human languages.
<Michael^2> What's wrong with that?
<Michael^2> Okay, I agree that that is harder to defend
<PD> Propositional attitudes like "x believes y" can be translated into this mental language. Fodor calls it mentalese, I think.
<Michael^2> Yup
<Hugh_Bristic> Helllo
<PD> Well, the evidence for this is bad.
<Michael^2> Heya Hugh
<BJKlein> welcome Hugh_Bristic
<Hugh_Bristic> What've I missed?
<Anand> Hi
<BJKlein> I need to listen to your new song
<BJKlein> Welcome Back Anand
<Anand> Bruce, could I bug you for a sec?
<BJKlein> yep
<Anand> Or a min even
<Hugh_Bristic> I added several today actually.
<Anand> k, thx
<PD> The evidence that Chomsky uses to defend something like this doctrine has to do with linguistic universals and with language acquisition.
<Michael^2> PD, can you give me arguments for an alternative view?
<Anand> Bruce,
<Anand> Oh, OK, PM
<PD> MA, well, semantic holism is one.
<Michael^2> And what is that?
<PD> *digging up a link*
<Hugh_Bristic> Is it just me or is the chat moving very slowly?
<Utnapishtim> Not a heck of a lot of people in here Hugh
<Utnapishtim> Things sort of slif offtopic pretty quickly
<Hugh_Bristic> Oh. Okay, I thought there might be a bug or something
<Michael^2> Hugh, let me repaste what I had to say about SARS and human biological frailty
<Michael^2> [Michael^2] the causes of death will always be seen as "diseases", regardless of how minute we consider them to be today
<Michael^2> [Michael^2] "accidents" will count too
<Michael^2> <BJKlein> and this is a result of our e p
<Michael^2> <BJKlein> evolutionary psychology
<Michael^2> [Michael^2] if all diseases are cured, then the focus of attention will go to other things and "cures" will be demanded, "cures" which include completely transcending humanity
<Hugh_Bristic> Cool. I'd appreciate it.
<Michael^2> My point is that long ago, if SARS had emerged, it wouldn't have been a big deal in contrast to all the other crap already out there
<Michael^2> But now we're paying attention
<Utnapishtim> Because our risk tolerance diminshes as our lives get safer
<PD> MA, semantic holism is basically the idea that the content of propositional attitudes is determined by the role they play in a complete theory.
<Hugh_Bristic> I think we know more about how infectious diseases spread too and so that contributes to the alarm.
<Michael^2> Even the most hardliner traditionalists will be forced to consider making bigger and bigger changes to their own bodies, through therapies, and write checks to research companies doing research against "diseases" which involve more fundamentally changing the human form, maybe not anatomically at first, but in other deep ways
<PD>
http://www.nyu.edu/g...nticHolism.html<Hugh_Bristic> Sounds like Gattaca.
<Michael^2> PD, can you explain how LOT is "evolutionarily unplausible"?
<Michael^2> In Gattaca they had a superhuman obsession and paranoia about health, that is somewhat different
<Michael^2> I'm just saying that the front page stories will be about the processes killing the most people
<Hugh_Bristic> Sure.
<Michael^2> No one needs to be obsessed; it's just that the things which today are more trivial will begin to get their turn in the spotlight
<PD> MA, well, people like Pinker and Chomsky tend to say that their program addresses semantics as well as syntax. The problem is that there must be LOT modules that represent concepts that evolution could not have "foreseen" humans acquiring, such as cars... or singularities.
<Hugh_Bristic> Eventually it will be headline news when someone gets hit by a bus, because death will be so infrequent.
<Utnapishtim> Hmm not sure that accidental death is anywhere near beign eliminated
<Hugh_Bristic> Sure, but once diseases are eliminated, accidents will be more noticeable.
<Michael^2> Why can't LOT modules be configured in such a way that they way their pieces add together allows us to consider cars and Singularities?
<Michael^2> Uth, what sort of reading have you done on nanotechnology?
<Michael^2> Heard of "utility fog"?
<PD> MA, because it doesn't appear that human language works that way. For example, there is no set of general scientific terms into which any scientific theory is decomposable.
<Utnapishtim> Yes I have
<Michael^2> Diseases will certainly be in the focus for longer
<Utnapishtim> I am not familiaer with the details
<Michael^2> But PD, that's because the pieces aren't words themselves, they're mental symbols
<Hugh_Bristic> I think it is interesting, the relationship between belief in the prospect of immortality and the degree of inconvenience we are willing to put up with in order to be safer.
<Michael^2> Mental symbols that we can't put into words
<Hugh_Bristic> If you think immortality is possible in your lifetime, how careful will you be to live to see that day.
<Hugh_Bristic> ?
<Utnapishtim> I think that radical life extension will very probable in my lifettime
<PD> MA, that's just it. Mentalese symbols *are* human concepts. That's how human thought and language is supposed to work.
<Hugh_Bristic> Are you willing to do CR?
<Utnapishtim> No I am not
<Hugh_Bristic> Live in the country to avoid risk of SARS?
<Michael^2> They don't have to be consciously held human concepts, they can be nonconscious precursors that combine combinatorally to create the library of concepts we're familiar with in introspection
<Hugh_Bristic> Spend money on cryonics insurance?
<Michael^2> Oh, you're saying that Chomsky and friends are claiming that you can hear your own mentalese and put it into words..?
<Utnapishtim> I have a reasonably high risk tolerance
<Deltree> the amount of carefulness depends on how strongly I believe in the possiblity of immortality soon
<Michael^2> All you need to do to halve your risk of death is spend less time in the car
<PD> MA, I'm not sure what consciousness has to do with it.
<Hugh_Bristic> Utna. Probable in your lifetime depends on how long you expect to live.
<Utnapishtim> this is more of a temperament issue than one with any true right or wrong answers
<PD> And of course Chomsky isn't saying that you can hear mentalese. Mentalese is the computational structure underlying natural language.
<Hugh_Bristic> Deltree--exactly
<Hugh_Bristic> Utna--sure
<Michael^2> PD, by "conscious", I mean, we shouldn't expect to be able to consciously grasp and hold our mentalese word-precursors, because that would have been a heck of a waste of attention time, from evolution's viewpoint
<PD> I should the alleged computational structure.
<Michael^2> So there *can* be a LOT that we can't put into words
<PD> *say
<Utnapishtim> I like bungee Jumping. I want to get into parachuting. I love watersports. These are all quality of life issues for me
<Michael^2> Uth, none of those are more dangerous than driving a car
<Hugh_Bristic> Yeah, but I bet you'd be kicking yourself all the way to the bottom of the ravine if your bungee cord broke! ;-)
<Hugh_Bristic> Michael, do you drive?
<BJKlein> or wishing you would fly
<Utnapishtim> Well driving a car is not that much a choice though
<BJKlein> could
<Michael^2> Yep, I've driven around
<Utnapishtim> It is pretty essential in todays world
<Michael^2> I've been lazy about getting my license, though; don't really need it in the city
<Hugh_Bristic> Get a Volvo!
<Deltree> heh
<Michael^2> It is essential, I agree
<PD> MA, I think we're kind of talking at cross purposes.
<Michael^2> But if you cut back on your car time 5%, I'm just saying that that would do more to save your life than not taking up bungee jumping, water sports, or living in the country to avoid SARS
<Utnapishtim> How much inconvenience will you put up with for what amount to relatively minor safety improvements on an already very safe life?
<Utnapishtim> Michael: Good point
<Hugh_Bristic> BJ has a link on his site about how long you could expect to live barring diseases and it is something like 600 years, so accidental death is probably not as big an issue as you think.
<Michael^2> PD, maybe; can you name a fundamental difference between semantic holism and LOT which makes you lean in favor of one versus the other, say?
<BJKlein> I wonder what the Bayes Theorm would look like for the trade off for living a low death risk life to the risk to depression from lack of excitment
<Michael^2> Bruce, depends on how much positive moral value you assign to an immortal future
<Hugh_Bristic> How many here practice CR (and for how long)?
<PD> MA, well the fundamental difference is that LOT assumes atomism, and I don't think atomism makes any sense.
* BJKlein raises his hand halfway
<Utnapishtim> Nope.I love food way too much
<BJKlein> for more than a few years now
<PD> Incidentally, I'm also a semantic externalism. And semantic externalism requires that content is fixed by things outside the brain.
<PD> *externalist
<Michael^2> A Bayesian reasoner who valued a year of future life equally to say, the next year of their life, would make remarkably foreign choices to all of us
<Hugh_Bristic> BJ, how much do you miss eating an average amount of food?
<Michael^2> In human society you're allowed to take action to protect your life in the next few years, but never much longer than that, except for a few exceptions
<PD> I get most of this from Quine and Dennett.
<PD> Hilary Putnam also has an argument from Godel's Theorem to the incoherence of the LOT hypothesis.
<Michael^2> Most of semantic externalism makes evolutionary sense
<BJKlein> Hugh_Bristic.. i've basically come to realize that I will never practice the perfect CRON diet.. but I do expose myself to a level of restriction that i've become somewhat 'comfortable' with
<Utnapishtim> Hugh Bristic: What are your own feelings on personal risk?
<Michael^2> I'm very, *very* suspicious of arguments from Godel's Theorem, but can you describe how atomism doesn't make sense?
* Michael^2 googles putnam+godel+language
<Hugh_Bristic> Utna, I take supplements, and have tried to work out more, but I haven't developed the disciple to do much more than that.
<PD> I have a lecture by Putnam that explains that argument and his problems with Chomsky and computationalism.
<PD> You can find it online somewhere.
<Hugh_Bristic> I am going back to school part time studying biochemistry, which is a bit of a deprivation that I am willing to put up with to improve my odds on life extension.
<PD> Actually, here it is:
<PD>
http://spazioinwind....g.html#Immagini e audio
<Utnapishtim> How likely do you see the development of radical life extension and in what sort of timeframe do you see this occuring
<Michael^2> I guess atomism in linguistics doesn't make sense too much either, I guess I think more in terms of blurry parts which lock together in different ways
<Michael^2> PD, do *you* have any arguments?
<PD> It's not at all like the Penrose argument though.
<PD> Not any original ones, no. lol
<BJKlein> Utnapishtim is that to all of us?
<Hugh_Bristic> Utna, I'm hoping as my understanding of biochemistry grows I'll be able to make a more informed estimate, but my impression is that it is going to be damn close.
<PD> I'm also a bit distracted now.
<Utnapishtim> Hugh Bristic: Will your invidual contribution really imporve the odds of life extension any more than voting say meaningfully effects the outcome of an election?
<Michael^2> Okay, no problem; you're probably better read in this area than I am, so it would be my responsibility of sorts to read somewhere near your level so I can at least argue this language philosophy using the same language
<PD> Maybe I should start a thread about this
<BJKlein> PD, please do!
<Michael^2> Okay, np
<PD>
<Utnapishtim> Bruce: I'd be happy to get your thoughts on that too!
* BJKlein is into understand and reworking his inner thinking
* Michael^2 brbs
<Hugh_Bristic> Utna, well even if I can't make a contribution to research, a deeper understanding of the science will be make a more educated consumer, and thus improve my odds of choosing the proper interventions.
<PD> I recommend you start by listening to the Putnam lecture. It's pretty nontechnical.
<PD>
http://spazioinwind....nam/puteng.html<PD> Click on audio resources. It's "misconstructing the mind".
<BJKlein> I think negligible senscience will be a reality in a few short decades.. however.. my focus is on building a bridge from wet to dry
<Utnapishtim> Hugh Good point. There is an interesting debate lurking here between the efficiency of relying on the expertise of others vs learning things yourself
<Hugh_Bristic> BJ, yes that is the end goal.
<Hugh_Bristic> No matter how long we extend the lifetime of the body, we will still be subject to accidents.
<Hugh_Bristic> True immortality will only come with uploading oof some sort.
<BJKlein> I think we're all young enough to take the biolocal risk and focus more on the transhuman aspect
<Utnapishtim> Not optimistic about true immortality
<Hugh_Bristic> Utna, you mean uploading?
<ravi> what dp u mena Bj to take the transhuman aspect
<Utnapishtim> I am undecided on the issue of uploading
* BJKlein is starting a one man campaign to change 'uploading' to 'augmentation'
<Michael^2> It's exactly the same thing
<Michael^2> lol
<Utnapishtim> But do not believe that we will live endlessly in any case
<Utnapishtim> given enough time something will go wrong
<Hugh_Bristic> I think uploading will happen evetually, but I have no idea when.
<BJKlein> uploading scares the heck out of my wife
<Utnapishtim> either to us or to the computer we are stored on
<Michael^2> Uth, that's true, because someone could always be simulating us and that someone could always pull the plug, maybe
<BJKlein> ravi.. biological life extension is a short term bandaid.. we as the younger sect should be focusing on bci
<BJKlein> brain computer interfacing
<Hugh_Bristic> Well, even digital copies of ourselves won't outlast the heat death of the universe, so sure.
<Michael^2> It may be possible to tell we aren't being simulated, or that the being simulating us will never pull the plug, but I can't think of how right now
<Utnapishtim> Michael: Are you familiar with the work of Nick Bostrom?
* Anand spakes for Michael
<Anand> Yes, he is
<Anand> Any other questions?
<Michael^2>
<BJKlein> Hugh_Bristic, this is a key key point :: heat death needs a work around
<Hugh_Bristic> BJ one step at a time.
<PD> By the way, there's an argument from semantic externalism to the effect that we couldn't possibly be simulated. It's not very good though.
<ravi> we shopuldn't focus on the heat death right now...we have to focus on surviving long enough to meet the heat death
<Utnapishtim> I think us worrying about heat death is like a toddler worrying about his future PHD thesis
<Hugh_Bristic> I try not to get too far ahead into the furture, because I have no idea what it will be like after a certtain point.
<BJKlein> yeh yeh.. but without a work around.. life to me is useless
<Utnapishtim> BJ Why. Isn't the present its own justification?
<BJKlein> nope
<PD> You still there, MA?
<Utnapishtim> It is to me. This is were we have a philosophical difference
<Hugh_Bristic> I think immortality is not really as important as undertsanding and perhaps changing the nature of our consciousness.
<BJKlein> life is it's own justification.. death is complete failure
<Michael^2> Yes
<Utnapishtim> death does not invalidate having lived
<ravi> bj when do u think uploading will occur
<PD> Did you get my link?
<Michael^2> I'm about to listen to this Putnam
<Hugh_Bristic> I think we may find that when placed in proper perspective our sense of self will be vastly different than it is now and thus our appreciation of time and death.
<BJKlein> jan 3, 2034
<PD> Ok
<Michael^2> Document not found
<PD> Click on the cache one
<BJKlein> ravi just kidding.. I havent a clue
<BJKlein> but I do know we're just seeds.. just the beginning..
<BJKlein> and our future transhuman state is near.. not hundreds of years.. but a few decades
<Utnapishtim> I am not confident in our ability to achieve anything. All I can do is guess at outcomes
<Utnapishtim> I really want to be right about the proximity of a cure for aging
<Hugh_Bristic> I think we have no idea what we will be like in a posthuman state, and so, while avoiding detah is a neccessity to reach that state, after that, all bets are off.
<Utnapishtim> but the very compelling attractiveness of that prospect makes me suspicious of my own belief in its proximity
<Hugh_Bristic> Utna, right on. Its easy to lose perspective.
<BJKlein> I know one thing.. we'll look back at these chats and have a big laugh
<Hugh_Bristic> If looking or laughing have meaning at that point. Ha ha.
* BJKlein laughs just to be safe
<Utnapishtim> If we do not develop effective anti aging remedies for whatever reason we may look at these conversations and cry
<Hugh_Bristic> Unless we're dead. ;-)
<Michael^2> Thankfully, our future selves actually might not be interested in this ignorant, boring dribble
<Hugh_Bristic> Ouch.
<Michael^2> Yes, unless we're dust
<BJKlein> Hugh_Bristic do you practice le methods?
*** Retrieving #immortal info...
*** Spell checker will now replace le with life extension
<BJKlein> li
<BJKlein> life extension
<Hugh_Bristic> Just supplements and a little exercise. Hope to improve one day.
<PD> Which ignorant, boring dribble? ;\
<ravi> so i was just wandering if we uploading...does that give us immortality...what about our bodies...are u hoping nano tech can build that
<Utnapishtim> Right now I am not interested in making particuarly radical alterations other than turning off this stupid aging thing
<BJKlein> ravi: when we have the ability to upload.. nanotech will most likely be quite easy
<Deltree> you'll have to turn of birth too
<Hugh_Bristic> I love chatting with y'all, but I've gotta get some work done.
<BJKlein> and having a physical body may not be useful
<Hugh_Bristic> WARNING: Shameless self-promotion. Visit
http://www.iddl.vt.e...rfentres/songs/ to listen to some cool transhumanist music that I've written!
<Michael^2> PD, our words, in contrast to our future selves which will hopefully be far smarter and more enlightened
<Utnapishtim> See ya hugh
<Deltree> later hugh
<Hugh_Bristic> See ya!
<Michael^2> I wouldn't be interested in listening to the grunts of cavemen, except out of anthropological curiousness
<BJKlein> Ok..Take Care Hugh_Bristic
<Michael^2> Bye Hugh
<ravi> we have to buid better bodies then nature gave us...
<PD> MA, that's rather extreme, I think.
<BJKlein> I'd like to post a few Threats....
<Utnapishtim> Remember there are arch conservatives like myself
<BJKlein> 9 in all
<Utnapishtim> who will be happy to spend a few more centureis kicking around as they always have
<Michael^2> Rather extreme that modern day humans would find the conversation of hunter gatherers uninteresting?
<Michael^2> Or extreme that we'd progress far enough to find our present conversation uninteresting?
<PD> No, it's rather extreme to call human discourse boring and ignorant.
<PD> Your antihumanism is showing again.
<Utnapishtim> boring and ignorant are subjective value judgements
<Michael^2> I am not antihumanist!
<Michael^2> Yes they are
<Utnapishtim> for a sufficiently intelligent mind they would undoubtedly be so
<Michael^2> human discourse might not be boring and ignorant to me now, but that's because I'm a human like everyone else
<BJKlein> we're state of the art
<Utnapishtim> badly put. Our conversations WOULD be boring and ignorant I meant
<Michael^2> if a fish could get puffed up and proud about the puffs of air it released through its gills, then I'm sure it would
<BJKlein> that's our novelty vaule at this point in time
<BJKlein> value
<Michael^2> a puffer fish :D
<BJKlein> heh
<BJKlein> ok.. eat on these risks....
<BJKlein> Threats from Human Technology
<BJKlein> 1. Antibiotic Resistant and BioEngineered Plagues
<BJKlein> 2. Nuclear War
<BJKlein> 3. Rampant Nanotechnology
<BJKlein> 4. Artificial Intelligence
<BJKlein> 5. Totalitarianism with Mind Control Tech
<BJKlein> Terrestrial
<BJKlein> 6. Emergent Plagues
<BJKlein> 7. Radical Climate and Ecosystem Change
<BJKlein> Astronomical
<BJKlein> 8. Asteroids
<BJKlein> 9. Gamma Ray Bursts
<Michael^2> Physics Accidents
<BJKlein> car wreck.. yep
<PD> I was going to rant. But I'll just say that human discourse is important to humans, and that's what's important.
<Michael^2> "existential" means "global"
<Michael^2> Yeah PD, but it's also important for us to acknowledge that it would not be important to transhumans; that way we can have a more realistic worldview for pursuing our *own* goals, even as humans
<PD> MA, I don't see the connection. It reminds me of people lamenting how pointless human lives are "in the scheme of things" or "from a gods eye view". I frankly couldn't care less about that.
<Utnapishtim> I don't see the source of your disagreement. All Michael did was point out that our current discourse probably wouldn't interest a vastly superior mind. I really didn't see any value judgement there
<Michael^2> That's because the people usually happen to be coincidentally pissed off about something in their human life
<Michael^2> But others can be perfectly happy and satisfied with things as how they are and still realize that humans are nothing compared to What Can Be
<Michael^2> not nothing morally, but nothing in the sense that we would consider our own conversation as boring
<PD> Ut, see, that's a value judgment. I think the comparison is just vacuous.
<PD> MA, your problem is that you're already trying to get outside of your human mind and think like some unimaginable posthuman.
<PD> Since I am not a posthuman, I don't see why I should be particularly interested in what they would think of our discourse. And anyway, I think the speculation is largely unfounded to begin with.
<Michael^2> Nah, I realize I have a human mind, I just realize that smarter-than-humans *would* consider us boring
<Michael^2> It helps to dispel irrational anthropocentrism!
<Michael^2> Just like how I consider racism to be bad, I also consider anthropocentrism to be bad; it seems to limit the worldview
<PD> Not all anthropocentrism is bad.
<Utnapishtim> Its interesting. Even though I agree with Michael on this observation we radically differ in our eagerness to embrace radical intelligence increase
<Michael^2> Just because I happened to be born into a society of humans doesn't mean I should have an anthropocentric worldview, just like how if I was born into a society of caucasians shouldn't mean I should have that kind of a worldview; I might meet new friends which count on my understanding them
<Michael^2> PD, name a bad type of anthropocentrism, and I'll show how it's the emotional aspects that *go with it* that you actually think are bad
<PD> MA, well I can't tell how narrow your conception of anthropocentrism. It is not anthropocentric to say that human discourse is interesting. It's just human.
<PD> In fact, I would say it's xenocentric (for lack of a better term) to use your rhetoric.
<Utnapishtim> There is nothing intrinsically wrong with being uninteresting to a higher intelligence.
<BJKlein> Existential Risk :: Deal with existence,
<BJKlein> opps
<BJKlein> has daylight savings started?
<Michael^2> I didn't say that *I* didn't find human discourse uninteresting; why would you assume that I did?
<Michael^2> did find*
<Michael^2> :D
<PD> Actually, I think you said something very much along those lines.
<Michael^2> I said my *future self*
<Michael^2> I conversation was about future selves
<PD> Well, maybe it's best not to impose the views of "our future selves" on our activities in the here and now.
<Utnapishtim> Who was doing that?
<PD> MA was doing that!
<Utnapishtim> I disagree
<PD> Well, nevermind.
<Michael^2> And I don't think this speculation is unfounded, btw, it's morally important, etc
<PD> I'm getting too excited.
<Michael^2> You are, relax :D
<PD> I don't think it's morally important at all, actually. But I'll save it for later. ;\
<PD> Did you get that file to work?
<Utnapishtim> Bruce predicted that our future selves would laugh at these chats... Michael predicted we'd find them boring
<BJKlein> do you PD or Michael^2, ever find yourself selective changing your thought patterns?
<Michael^2> You do think it's morally important if you're trying to make such a big point about how it's morally unimportant
<Michael^2> Bruce, of course
<BJKlein> and you also Utnapishtim..
<BJKlein> do you do it with words?
<BJKlein> internal words?
<Utnapishtim> can you give me an example of what you mean?
<PD> I think most metacognition is done with "internal words".
<BJKlein> say.. you find yourself thinking bad thoughts about a person...
<PD> ***Which has nothing to do with the linguistics discussion from before, by the way***
<BJKlein> thinking they're being sturborn.. etc.
<PD> I don't think that's a bad thought.
<BJKlein> and then you say...'no.. I don't want to worry about this'
<BJKlein> but what if it's a waist of time to be thinking this thought in the first place/
<Utnapishtim> I do that all the time. I think it is a prerequisite to being a fair and reasonable person
<Michael^2> PD; I deleted RealPlayer for more room, I'm redownloading it ;\
<PD> lol
<PD> !
<PD> You don't have much space, do you?
<Michael^2> two comps, 10 gigs each
<Michael^2> I just never used it
<Michael^2> Reading is faster than listening
<PD> Ah
<PD> Yeah
<PD> I tried to find a transcript
<PD> But sometimes I'm too lazy to read. :(
<Michael^2> :(
<PD> And sometimes it's impossible to find nontechnical material that I need to explain. And I
<PD> 'm too lazy to do that.
<PD> *I mean I *don't* need to explain.
<PD> Hmm, there's one on functionalism, too. Didn't listen to that one.
*Michael^2* today I was doing lots of research
*Michael^2* after this chat I will actually start writing
*Michael^2* there isn't a lot of material on there on the stuff I want to talk about
<Utnapishtim> My dog is gettign very close to death
<Utnapishtim> it is absolutely crushing to me
<PD> :(
<Utnapishtim> to know that this creature I love is about to be anhilated
<Utnapishtim> all is memories and habits irretrievably erased
<PD> I had a cat that died.
<PD> But I wasn't really affected by it.
<BJKlein> I had a cat that died as well..
<Utnapishtim> Cats are different, generally speaking
<Utnapishtim> They don't bond in the way that dogs do
<Utnapishtim> I have had a cat too
<BJKlein> I think one can rationally separate emotion is desired
<BJKlein> if*
<Utnapishtim> I disagree
<Utnapishtim> I think we are incapable of perfefct rationality
<BJKlein> I find is useful to me personally to look at life from more of a rational perspective
<PD> Bruce, actually I only seem to notice what's wrong with death on an abstract intellectual level. That's probably not very immortalist of me.
<Utnapishtim> nor is perfect rationality particualryl desirable in most instances
<BJKlein> PD.. you know this is probably another key human fault ..
<PD> Ut, I think rationality is inherently normative and value-laden, so I don't think "perfect rationality" in that sense is any good a notion.
<BJKlein> in terms of immortalist thinking.
<BJKlein> it's similar to why soldiers do to war..
<BJKlein> we tend to not think about the ourselves or see ourselves in harms way..
<BJKlein> take flying in an airplain for instance..
<BJKlein> airplane..
<Utnapishtim> Flying is a very safe activity
<BJKlein> we seem to dissaciate or think it only happens to others
<BJKlein> dissassociate
<BJKlein> as humans we're great at that..
<BJKlein> and when one of us has a fear of flying..
<BJKlein> you'll find many humans willing to step in with advice and helpful hints..etc.
<Utnapishtim> The risk of dying in an airplane accident while flying as much as (say) the average amercian is negligible to me
<BJKlein> but the ultra rational fact remains that death by flying leaves nothing to existence
<BJKlein> there's your Baysian Risk Anaylsis
<BJKlein> Analysis
<PD> Bruce, I don't think it would be rational of flyers to dwell on that fact every time they got on a plane.
<Utnapishtim> Yuo need to balance a negligible increase in risk with the serious inconvenience of not flying
<BJKlein> yep..
<BJKlein> but to me the negligible risk is of oblivion is infinitaly more important than the inconvenience
<Utnapishtim> I think a life lived entirely for minimum risk would not be particularly rewarding. I do not share your belief that my death would invalidate my having lived. Furthermore I am not particualry confident in the inevitability of my own immortality
<Michael^2> I don't think any of us are, about the last one
<Utnapishtim> Bruce: That line of thinking ultimately compromises your effectivenes and enjoyment of every area of your life.
<Utnapishtim> if you follow it to its logical conclusion
<BJKlein> hmm.. all subjective
<Utnapishtim> are you really williong to subordinate every other impulse to safety
<Michael^2> it's not subjective
<Utnapishtim> Why do you live in the USA?
<Michael^2> not if you derive the highest value from that feeling of safety
<Utnapishtim> It certainly isn't the safest country in the world to live in I would say
<ravi> freedom
<Michael^2> probably is; more medical technology nearby
<Michael^2> less crime
<Utnapishtim> Sacandinavia has excellent health care.. low crime
<BJKlein> the risk of moving would outweight the potential benefit
<Michael^2> what's the risk of moving? planes are like sanctums compared to cars
<Utnapishtim> Bruce: Come on.. That si nto why you live where you do!
<Michael^2> planes just behave in ways that defy our intuitive grasp of the laws of physics
<ravi> i would have to agree with bj here...if u are thinking from an immoralist perspective
<Utnapishtim> I dactualyl do not think this is a subjective issue. You can quantify the risk of an airplane accident
<ravi> and that is where he is coming from
<Utnapishtim> and what would you be doing in the time you are not flying?
<Utnapishtim> you better nto get in a car
<BJKlein> hmm...
<Utnapishtim> Not flying could potentially decrease your opportunity to aquire wealth quite dramtically
<PD> lol@"immoralist perspective"
<Utnapishtim> and being poorer than you might otherwise be increases the risk to your life more than flying
<BJKlein> Utnapishtim that's an important point.. b
<BJKlein> if I knew that 1 million dollars was waiting on the other side of a plane trip..
<BJKlein> I may very well be worth the .0001 risk to life....
<Michael^2> but do you drive to the store to pick up food?
<Utnapishtim> Why do you single out flying?
<BJKlein> thus we could use the funds to better ensure the success of physical immortality for all of use
<BJKlein> us
<Utnapishtim> How do you justify riding in a car
<BJKlein> yep.. "I" drive..
<Utnapishtim> But that is not rational
<BJKlein> there's another point..
<Utnapishtim> you are not the best judge of your own driving ability
<BJKlein> I can't fly the plain ..
<Utnapishtim> are you assuming that your competence at driving is higher than that of everyone you know?
<Utnapishtim> What you are actually seekign is the illusory feeling of control. And that, my friend is an emotional not a rational need
<BJKlein> in terms of understanding where i'm coming from ..
<Michael^2> you're saying your own competence at driving is thousands of times higher than everyone else, if you want to outweigh the statistics
<Utnapishtim> not that I am knocking emotional or even irrational needs
<BJKlein> I don't know of anyone else who takes life and physical immortality as importantly as I do
<BJKlein> thus I wouldn't trust them to drive me
<PD> I find that a bit unsettling.
<Michael^2> right, but you're still a human, and humans suck royally at driving, even more than they suck at flying aircraft
<BJKlein> yep..
<Utnapishtim> You are making the assumption that the importance you place on immortality makes you a better drivetr than everyone you know
<BJKlein> but let's say I crash..
<BJKlein> and die in a car crash..
<BJKlein> NOW
<Utnapishtim> ok
<Utnapishtim> go on
<BJKlein> let's say we crash in a plane..
<BJKlein> what's left for Alcor?
<BJKlein> chard bones?
<Michael^2> nothing, but brain damage in a car crash is also likely
<BJKlein> or a brused limp biobag?
<XxDoubleHelixX> you could invest in a parachute, if thats how you spell it
<XxDoubleHelixX> <shrug>
<BJKlein> heh.. x
<Lukian> lmao
<XxDoubleHelixX> I mean it
<Utnapishtim> Ok lets just talk about death in a manner that leaves behind a body with a zero risk of recovery
<PD> It is more likely that you will get into an irrecoverable car crash than that you will get into a plane crash.
<XxDoubleHelixX> now in landings you could get in a circular metal ball
<XxDoubleHelixX> couse you would have to revamp air flights
<Michael^2> Bruce, just to let you know, if we were somehow in a car crash together, and your skull somehow cracked and your brain flew from it on to the pavement, I would still try carefully to pick it up and take it to the proper authorities >.<
<Utnapishtim> even counting only those deaths I would almost gurantee you that the risk is STILL higher in a car
<BJKlein> thanks Michael^2
<BJKlein> same here.. i'd do everything to put your chard bones in a bag for dna 'tipler' revival
<PD> Did you download rp yet?
<BJKlein> boy it's great having a dialogue with intelligent humans
<BJKlein> even those with a death wish
<Michael^2> no, they want my credit card number; I'm going to now download it on my second computer, which has windows media player
<Michael^2> lol Bruce
<Utnapishtim> Bruce: We convinced you to take flights yet?
* BJKlein is ready to go skydiving!
<Michael^2> for Tipler revival, you can crush my bones into powder; it would make no difference ;\
<BJKlein>
heh
<XxDoubleHelixX> you need to fly somewhere?
<Lukian> heh
<Michael^2> skydiving is probably less dangerous than riding in a car with the most competent car driver on earth, maybe
* Michael^2 may be wrong about that one
<celindra> You place your faith in other drivers to not kill you everytime you drive.
<Utnapishtim> I submit that if you analysed every aspect of your life for risk as thoroughly for risk as you analyse the risk of flight your quality of life would be dramatically reduced
<BJKlein> wonders how detrimental chating with people who want him to fly may be for his life
<celindra> In skydiving, just make sure the chute works
<Michael^2> we want you to be rational about risk analysis; that is all
<BJKlein> the flying example has gotten a lot of milage
<BJKlein> Utnapishtim.. I submit that immortalist should examin ALL risk with such scrutiny
<XxDoubleHelixX> could pour your flight money into getting titanium roll cage in the care...
<Michael^2> flying is a classic irrational phobia, so you should be suspicious that it is actually more dangerous than walking down some stairs, say
<Utnapishtim> I think that is practically speaking impractical
<XxDoubleHelixX> *car
<Utnapishtim> You spend a not unegligible amount of your time devoted to analysing risk
<Utnapishtim> so you will have to make major sacrifices in efficiency
<BJKlein> XxDoubleHelixX heh great idea
<Lukian> haha
* BJKlein purchases a hummer
<XxDoubleHelixX> we i wasnt meaing a hummer
<XxDoubleHelixX> *well
<XxDoubleHelixX> anyways...
<XxDoubleHelixX> you get my email?
<Michael^2> a hummer would probably be safer ;D
* BJKlein me purchases a M1 Tank
<BJKlein> XxDoubleHelixX yes..
<Utnapishtim> the M1 tank would probably piss of a bunch of treehuggers
<Utnapishtim> pissing off people increases your risk when walking to and from your ride;)
<BJKlein> lol
* BJKlein wears a helmet
<BJKlein> and a breast plate
<BJKlein> and has a cannary
<Michael^2> if newspapers published sensationalistic articles about you, that would be bad also, lol
<Utnapishtim> lol
<BJKlein> pet canary that tests his food
<Michael^2> "check out this freak!"
<BJKlein> crocky!
<BJKlein> what do they say about news..
<BJKlein> all news is good news?
<Utnapishtim> they have been known to be wrong
<Michael^2> they make things sensationalistic
<Utnapishtim> I would say that notoriety is definitely a negative as far as your risk level is concerned
<BJKlein> no I agree..
<BJKlein> I do my best to stay away from news people..
<BJKlein> only submiting articles to groups we have control over
<BJKlein> or rather some control within
<Utnapishtim> Is your need for control a rational one?
<Utnapishtim> or an emotional need?
<Utnapishtim> and does it being the latter invalidate it in your mind?
<BJKlein> with 6 billion people in the world.. there's probably one out there that'd be happy to kill me
<XxDoubleHelixX> oh yea.
<BJKlein> control over media?
<BJKlein> or risk?
<XxDoubleHelixX> i work with people to promise to try and kill me
<Utnapishtim> control over the safety aspects of your own life
<XxDoubleHelixX> "if the exponetial life extention works out"
<BJKlein> ahh.. if the result is physical immortality.. then no measure is irrational
<BJKlein> however.. I can think of things one could do that would be irrational
<Utnapishtim> Well how would you define the scause and effect chain
<Utnapishtim> If both of us ended up immortal for arguments sake
<BJKlein> the successful models within my mind..
<BJKlein> and how closely the relate to the real world
<Utnapishtim> and I took marginally more risks during the opening few decades of my endless existence
<Utnapishtim> actually.....
<BJKlein> if we're both immortal... we're both successful..
<Utnapishtim> scrap that
<Utnapishtim> It wouldn't be a genuine example as I don't believe in the possibility of my own immortality
<BJKlein> so you're ok with the possibility of oblivion
<Utnapishtim> well maybe the possibility.. but I don't consider it remotely liekly
<Utnapishtim> Bruce: Know I am not ok with it
<Utnapishtim> I intend to exist as long as possible
<Utnapishtim> I just don't expect that to be forever
<Utnapishtim> I do not think that we will ever reduce existential risks to zero
<BJKlein> suicide councling
<Utnapishtim> and as long a they are above zero then it is a mathematical certainty that something will come along to wip me out
<BJKlein> thus you give up in your mind?
<Utnapishtim> No
<BJKlein> maybe.. there's a chance that we'll reduce the risk exponentially
<Utnapishtim> Why am I giving up?
<Utnapishtim> I want to live
<BJKlein> but you're end game
<BJKlein> your
<BJKlein> Death Equals Oblivion
<BJKlein> information lost
<Utnapishtim> that prospect sickens me. But it doesn't make my present life intolerable
<Utnapishtim> I intend to rage against the dying of the light as long as I can
<PD> So do I, but I intend to have fun doing it.
<BJKlein> symantics... change 'as long as I can' to 'forever'
<Utnapishtim> me too
<Utnapishtim> Its not semantics. They are too very different things
<Utnapishtim> two very different things
<BJKlein> there's a great example of changing ones mental processes.. and self speak
<BJKlein> the mind is a powerfully suggestive tool ...
<BJKlein> give it the right input and the body can do anything
<Utnapishtim> But I will not attempt to internalise soemthing I believe to be false
<BJKlein> me neither...
<BJKlein> that's lying to oneself
<Utnapishtim> and the body can do 'more' with the right input but certainly not everything
<Utnapishtim> I believe in the conquest of aging
<BJKlein> I
<XxDoubleHelixX> what do you mean by that?
<Utnapishtim> as far as I am concerned the jury is out on the other technologies that will hopefully help to extend our life
<XxDoubleHelixX> as in ammounting experience?
<Utnapishtim> Imean that I am pretty convinced it will happen
<BJKlein> i'd say we as humans are a great example of the ability to anything.. with enough time..
<BJKlein> we started from small microscopic blobs
<Utnapishtim> I think we don't yet have sufficient information to judge how much we can and can't do given enough time
<BJKlein> with a few billion years.. who's to say all et will be eliminated to a negligible level
*** Spell checker will now replace et with existential threats
<BJKlein> existential threats
<Utnapishtim> but.... given infinite time.. an negligible risk is no longer negligible
<BJKlein> yep yep.. but given infinite intelligence to dance around the threat..
<Utnapishtim> it gets us in the end
<BJKlein> we're trying to up into words concepts that dont' have terms yet
<BJKlein> put
<Utnapishtim> any nonzero possibility will occur given enough time
<Utnapishtim> we should keep dancing.. but I think we may as well be aware that the dance will end one day
<celindra> Not neccessarily, Utna
<Utnapishtim> How will we beat the laws of probability Celindra?
<celindra> The probability of something NOT happening in an infinite universe is low, but is still non-zero
<Utnapishtim> I disagree with that assertion
<XxDoubleHelixX> mmmm, i dont think there is enough info to consider to finish this
<XxDoubleHelixX> but thats just me
<celindra> Consider: I could flip a coin for eternity. The chance that I will never flip tails is low, but still possible
<Utnapishtim> Well its been a cool chat!
<Utnapishtim> no it isn't
<celindra> Yes, it is
<Utnapishtim> it is certain that you will eventually flip tails
<celindra> How?
<celindra> It's probable you will flip tails.
<celindra> But not CERTAIN
<Utnapishtim> It is certain given enough time
<Utnapishtim> it could take any finite length of time you could care to name
<Utnapishtim> You are not distinguishing the staggeringly long/large carefully enough from the infinite
<celindra> If each flip is independant from the others ...
<celindra> The odds of tails is 50/50
<Utnapishtim> yes of course
<celindra> Therefore, it is possible to never flip tails
<celindra> UNLIKELY, but possible
<Utnapishtim> The instruction you have set is basically repeat until tails comes up
* BJKlein afks
<Utnapishtim> and given that you have endless time for tails to come up it is a certainty
<Utnapishtim> endless is utterly different to staggeringly large
<Utnapishtim> It is not a certainty that tails will come up in a millions flips
<Utnapishtim> or a billion
<Utnapishtim> but it is a certainty that it will come up in an endless series of flips
<Utnapishtim> celindra?
<Utnapishtim> you still here?
<Utnapishtim> anyone else want to chime in on this?
<celindra> I'm looking for some source material to back me up
<XxDoubleHelixX> i do
<XxDoubleHelixX> sorry my mom came in and she cant learn of this interest
<XxDoubleHelixX> heh
<Utnapishtim>
<Utnapishtim> well what are your thoughts?
<XxDoubleHelixX> but i do want to say that even though what you state is correct I do think that since we are different from the quarter flips more "counters" to the "death flip" can occur
<XxDoubleHelixX> thus if we continually extend or strengthen the counters then we could extend the life for X ammount
<XxDoubleHelixX> but your right I think, we cant say it will always hold true
<XxDoubleHelixX> but it will be the great quest to keep the counters going
<Utnapishtim> I really think the whole endless thing is kind of a red herring
<XxDoubleHelixX> define red herring
<Utnapishtim> I mean how do we know when we arrive there?
<XxDoubleHelixX> or tell me what it means
<XxDoubleHelixX> heh
<Utnapishtim> I think it is a mental deadend
<XxDoubleHelixX> arrive where?
<XxDoubleHelixX> to the point where we think we can "avoid death" no matter what comes up?
<Utnapishtim> at 'immortality'
<Utnapishtim> yes
<XxDoubleHelixX> can I go off on a blab?
<Utnapishtim> sure
<XxDoubleHelixX> I understand what you say though, I will be a point when I think I understand -molecular biology- enough to be able to evolve and thus avoid...lets say death due to increase in radiation.
<XxDoubleHelixX> So, I say its my...
<XxDoubleHelixX> agreement that I have mastered a certain trade
<XxDoubleHelixX> that will afford me the ability to avoid death
<XxDoubleHelixX> so its emotional on one part
<XxDoubleHelixX> and objective when I asses my situation of "how am I doing?"
<celindra> Oh well. I can't find anything.
<XxDoubleHelixX> What do you think Utnap
<XxDoubleHelixX> and by the way I dont think your wrong, that I could ever say I can "beat it all"
<XxDoubleHelixX> but I do know I will work my hardest to "beat it all"
<Utnapishtim> I think we actually agree on a lot of things
<XxDoubleHelixX> ok, well I wasnt sure what we where arguing about anyways
<XxDoubleHelixX> heh
<Utnapishtim> Endlessness as far as time is concerned will always be a philosophical concept as long as we are here
<Utnapishtim> whatever it is we are arguing about I hope we cat continue to do it for as long as possible!
<XxDoubleHelixX> So, you agree that it would be a point in which we think we are settled and "know we can counter anything that comes"
<Utnapishtim> I don't think we will be ever be able to absolutely define 'anything'
<XxDoubleHelixX> keep in mind being in a stable area
<XxDoubleHelixX> ok, yea I agree. Problems can be anything
<Utnapishtim> I think existence without randomness, might vwery well be meaningless
<Utnapishtim> we shall see
<PD> Ut, why would you think that?
<Utnapishtim> nor do I conceed that this is even achievable
<PD> *is reminded of Nietzsche&
