Bill Joy at World Economic Forum: vote on research
from the what-world-leaders-heard dept.
In an International Herald Tribune item we learn more about what happened at WEF: "Mr. Joy discussed his thesis at a remarkable seminar during the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. He urged scientists to renounce research that could lead to what he considers 'a clear danger of extinction'…At least, he said, there ought to be a democratic opportunity for ordinary people to vote on whether they want this kind of research to continue. That is obviously impractical. We voters don't know enough about the subjects, and at the rate things are changing we will never have a chance to learn in time to make a sensible decision." CP: Technology is also developed in countries where the people don't get to vote. Read More for additional excerpts. "A dozen famous scientists were present at the lively discussion, and for the most part they disputed both his pessimism about the future of humanity and his argument against the classical scientific belief in the virtues of the search for truth. They did not agree that robots with artificial intelligence would lead to the elimination of people, that genetic novelties and molecular devices which could be used for terrible weapons as well as wonderful improvements would surely bring evil…And yet it is right to raise the issue, right to be aware of the tremendously increased responsibilities that this generation and the ones immediately ahead have for humanity.."
March 2nd, 2001 at 1:49 PM
Voting on Research
Perhaps we should allow voters to outlaw religions that they feel are dangerous. Religions have killed more people than research after all….
March 2nd, 2001 at 8:10 PM
killer zealots
Not religions, but extremists, zealots, visionaries and revolutionaries of religion, politics, and now, technology. All those who put such strange loves above ordinary human values. The cult of technology is now the most dangerous religion of all.
March 2nd, 2001 at 8:20 PM
There he goes again..
There he goes again. Always looking at the darkside.
March 3rd, 2001 at 5:21 PM
Re:killer zealots
Perhaps you're right. As Isaac Asimov said, "It is the chief characteristic of the religion of science, that it works." A religion that works… now THAT is revolutionary.
March 3rd, 2001 at 5:37 PM
Humanity dosn't have any future in the past either
I posted these ideas at the other nanonews site, and it got deleted?
So, I'm posting here on this thread as well.
Humanity won't survive for long as hunter gatherers because it wont' get anywhere living like that. The maximum survival time for humans as hunter/gatherers would be whenever the sun get's to hot when it turns into a red giant. Maybe that's a long time, and some people will be satisfied with that. But, for me and others, I'd like humanity to learn ever more.
My idea that humanity won't survive stuck in the industrialism of today has to do with the problems technology and aquiring knowledge makes. With each piece of knowledge gained, and each piece of technology developed, more questions, better technology possibilies arise. Eventually, the amount of knowledge becomes so much, specialists are needed to digest and use the knowledge within a single lifetime. This situation presents a problem in that eventually the logistics to coordinate all the specialists activities becomes to large. This is assuming no molecular nanotechnology, MNT for short, is developed. Also, the amount of humans to possess all this knowledge would lead to environmental stress and collapse. Is there any evidence for this? Many civilizations have fallen for a variety of reasons. One reason is the environmental reason, but the environmental reason is not alway's manmade. But, I look to the mexican chaco canyon, north africa, the middle east as places that were turned into deserts because of humans. They did learn how to live in those deserts, but the reason why they were able to is because they had rivers(nile, euphrates) to make hugh irrigation digs.
I'd suspect that after the B. Joy's of the world ban the development of MNT, they'll ban automation because of the mechanization of society they fear.
All in all, the current and past civilization structures are hardly sustainable.
March 3rd, 2001 at 7:57 PM
Re:killer zealots
Science does not "work" when it is allowed to turn into a religion.
At its heart, science is based on the philosophy of the scientific method, a way of approaching the investigation and explanation of natural phenomena. It's not an original idea, with groups such as the Sufis having expounded similar philosophies for centuries. It is a good idea because, if it is applied judiciously, it emphasises repeatable experiment and falsifiable theory. The problem arises when the scientific elect turn themselves into an exclusive priesthood that is not prepared to consider anomalous data.
I'm not talking about ghosts, UFOs, ESP or any other bit of mystical wishful thinking, but repeatable, obervable phenomena that often take decades to get accepted by the orthodox establishment. Take sprites, for example. These transient electrical phenomena that flicker briefly above thunderheads and reach into the upper levels of the atmosphere have been reported for decades by high -altitude aircraft pilots, but their observations were largely ignored because they didn't fit into any current theory. It was only after they were captured on video that many scientists were forced to come to grips with them. A nineteenth century scientist, confronted with the testimony of an entire town that a meteorite had showered them with rock, stated that he would rather believe that an entire town would lie than that stones fell from the sky. The list goes on. Plate tectonics is another one that springs immediately to mind.
My point is not that we should be creduluous about reported anomalies. I think that cold fusion is a load of twaddle. But in order to remain true to the principles of the scientific method, we need to treat such claims the same way we would treat any theory – test it by experiment, rather than pooh-pooh it and dismiss it as unworthy of investigation. Scientists, particularly older scientists that may be averse to data that threatens the basis of their entire career, need to be careful not to become inquisitors or enforcers of dogma. Perhaps one of Arthur C. Clarkes's laws is true: Scientists beyond a certain age are only good for board meetings.
One of the other "religious" problems about science is when it is turned into a moral philosophy. Scientists are not, by and large, ethicists. They work with physical theory and technical possibility, not "spiritual" issues. There is the ever-present risk that technical competence may be equated to moral right. It's like someone's .sig on Slashdot: [Scientists] are so enamoured of the fact that they can, they seldom stop to think if they should. There is perhaps less difference between scientists making decisions on issues that affect us all and councils of bishops doing the same thing than many true believers would like to think.
March 3rd, 2001 at 9:31 PM
Re:killer zealots
Some ethical principles the religious can learn from science: Openly consider other ideas, honestly put down an idea that proves wrong, and cherishing the works of others, no hanging some person who proves the main body of thought wrong(although this did happen way back in Pythagoras's time, science has been the best about this out of anyone). Scientists and engineers have become affraid or even find it cool to not even think about religion because of all the horrors religion has done, but the fact is these people do science because of a magical feeling they've felt sometime in their lives and constantly try to get that feeling again by making another discovery/creation. That's religious. Many will talk about how making a contribution to science makes an eternal contribution; something that will make their lives worth living. That's religious folks. Many will even point out that humanities survival depends on science and technology which points to a purposefullness. That's religious! Religion is a problem when it fears being wrong and shuts up anyone who can prove it wrong. Unfortunaitelly, nothing in the old ancient religions say's anything about putting down the religion when proven wrong. Instead it plays mental games like "you'll go to hell forever if you don't believe in their god". Don't even think Christianity today is playing nice. From what I've heard, the Vatican knows perfectly well all the savior gods that they plagarized so long ago, and Eusebius's chapter on why he thinks it's OK to feed peoples minds with wrong ideas, and the passage about how all the early evangelists were killing each other, performing character assasinations because they knew that whoevers ideas become Romes number one religion becomes Emperor. Why don't they care? Because there's to much money involved they say. While I'll admit that scientists/technologists need to start looking into the religious(spiritual, ethical) dimensions of what they're doing, the old savior religions failed horrifically and purposelly. They do not even come close to deserving a shot at power again.
March 3rd, 2001 at 9:58 PM
Humanity dosn't have any future
Humanity won't survive long, period. Like it or not, we are on the way to the Singularity, at which point everything changes. Humanity will loose it's importance and if anyone continues to be part of it ve will be assured death. I think that Bill Joy is showing that he's only at Shock Level 1. The difference between him and me (other than Shock Level) is that he is respectable amongst certain circles (I still respect him for vi, but not for these kinds of speeches). This is basically the problem most Singulartarians face, few of us are very respected in wide circles. Mostly, I think that many of us don't really care. Joy is dangerous because he could mount an offensive against Singulatarians (though he's going to be hitting Transhumanist and Extropians first, because I doubt that he even really understands what the Singularity is to know to attack it) and he could rally enough people to do something about it. He can't stop the Singularity, but he can certainly slow it down enough that he'll be dead before it happens.
Just think of how poetic it will be when his dead body is converted to computorium …
March 3rd, 2001 at 10:09 PM
Defining religion
Okay, let's get one thing straight: religion is not what you are writing about. Religion is something very specific. Even dictionaries will agree with me. Here is a generic definition that any dictionary will contain, more or less:
A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
Now, if science is somehow involved in the supernatural (it's not) or in the powers that control human destiny (no such thing exists, so it can't), then let me out! All of those things that you describe are assotiate with some religions, not with others. All in all, they're just emotional responses. By your definition, almost anything is a religion. If I feel the way about snails that I feel about science, would you call it a religion? Well, you'd really have to, but I doubt that you would: it's just a hobby or an interest, not a religion. Have you ever seen a serious scientist worship an idol of Einstien or Hawking in earnest or pray to the Universe for the Answer to the Question? Hopefully not. If you have, go smack that person on the head and tell ver to get ahold of verself.
Now, ethics is an important issue. But, we don't need to *start*, just continue. We've had this discussion before about engineers, but the same times 10 applies to scientists. I don't have a link handy, but the discussion more or less came out to "engineers know what they are doing and are the most ethical people on the planet when dealing with technology, so all the laymen can go home and leave it to the engineers to figure out what's okay".
March 4th, 2001 at 6:41 AM
Re:Defining religion
From Dictionary.org:
The last two definitions hint at a wider use of the word that leads to much misunderstanding. Philosophies like Confucianism and Buddhism, with few or no positive references to gods, would be considered as "religions" by a lot of people. And, from definition 4, if you interpreted "spiritual leader" broadly, science would definitely fit.
Again, a rather narrow view of religious observance. Muslims don't worship idols, yet Islam is a religion. And many people, particularly the only semi-scientifically literate, believe the pronouncements of science with very little understanding of the principles involved. Also, many scientists are well aware of this, and are just as prepared to use a little mumbo-jumbo to impress the hicks as any travelling preacher.
I didn't participate in that discussion, but I feel uncomfortable about the way you've paraphrased it. It should never be forgotten that engineers and other professionals are, at least in theory, doing their thing for the benefit of said laypeople. It is all too easy to assume that you know better that the average person and take actions that you feel are in soemone's best interests without their consent.
March 4th, 2001 at 7:39 AM
Re:Humanity dosn't have any future
Gee, what a cute phrase. Is it anything like the Scientologist concept of Operating Thetan Level x?
As I outlined in a previous post, I feel a bit uncomfortable with glib phrases that serve to reinforce a feeling of separation or superiority, like mysterian, gentile, suppressive person, etc. People are more complicated than simple labels. Try not to reduce a person to a cypher. Saying that someone who disagrees with your rather extreme position is suffering from Stress Level 1 is like saying that someone whose arm you are twisting is suffering from Pain Level 1. It might, by some arbitrary and subjective scale, be considered true, but it doesn't have any inherent meaning.
Do you ever stop to wonder if there might be a reason for this?
A rather agressive turn of phrase. Spoiling for a fight?
How far would you be prepared to go to achieve your current goals?
Oh, please. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp. I don't agree with most of Mr Joy's views, but he's obviously an intelligent man, and has probably done more reading on the subject than most people, not that that would be difficult. Try not to belittle him just to make him seem less of a threat.
March 4th, 2001 at 9:10 AM
Re:Defining religion
The Dictionaries that say religion is just about supernatural beliefs are just as wrong as those dictionaries that say paganism is not a christian, jew; someone who is a heathen. The fact is that the whole bible plagerizes from all those earlier more ancient pagan religions.
I urge everyone to read Jacob Bronowski's "The Origin of Knowledge and Imagination" to learn just how bound up humans are with mental ability. Humans destiny is with science or no destiny at all. The problem with most people is that they are nobodies. Meaning, they don't have an activity that they are quite competent and live doing, which defines them, so they are empty and more often than not feel they need to be "saved". If they do live an activity which can define them and believe in those astrological savior religions, it's alway's because they don't know and understand that those savior religions are made up, christianity is a total plagarism of all those earlier savior religions, and that christianity destroyed the roman empire, and like a parasite that kills itself by killing the victim, almost killed humanity. IMO, that's why the church's 1926 book "The Lost Books of the Bible" has priests writing in the prefaces and into's that the book is made up, but with the qualification; "but maybe this is the way it should be?" Ya, right! I'd say the church is feeling guilty as hell.
S. Hawking alway's talks about Galileo and his birthday coincidences which certainly sounds religious to me.
March 4th, 2001 at 9:18 AM
Re:Humanity dosn't have any future
Yes, I didn't mention that I agree with B. Joy that MNT will destroy humanity, but at the same time, humanity dosn't have a future in its current form either.
About transhumanism, seems that taking a wait and see approach to what life is and how it works is a better strategy than downloading yourself into a nanocomputer with the first daimondoid MNT. My understanding of life suggests life is a process, a stable non-equilibrium structure and not some equilibrium structure. Transhumanism can occur by means of furthering the development of nanomachines throughout the body. They would be like an exoskeleton. Eventually, more and more of the body will become molecular nanotechnological till the brain gets molecular nanotechnologized to the point of being able to control the MNT coursing throughout the body. Basically, my idea is cyborglike, not merelly softwarelike.
March 4th, 2001 at 9:50 AM
Re:Defining religion
March 4th, 2001 at 8:49 PM
clarification
Technology works, though not always and not always as intended. Science is nothing more or less than the organized accumulation of knowledge.
The cult of technology is neither science nor technology; it is a cult which idolizes technology. In its extreme form, it raises this idolatry above ordinary human values. It argues not that technology exists to benefit humans, but that humans exist only to create technology.
March 4th, 2001 at 8:50 PM
Re:Humanity dosn't have any future
No.
Well, an SI will be superior in many ways to a human. No one's trying to hide that fact and many of us want to enjoy the benefits that being an SI will bring. In a few weeks or months, there will be a good paper coming out on Friendly AI. I'm working through a draft of it myself (the paper is not ready for general consuption just yet, though). While I don't agree with all of the paper, I think that it will make people like yourself a lot less afraid.
Yes. Basically, it is because it takes time for folks on the bleeding edge to get respected by a more mainstream crowd. This has long been the story of theoretical physics and it continues to be with futurism.
I do not seek to fight Joy or anyone. I hope that I will be allowed to transcend peacefully. But, if someone tries to stop me, I would not be unwilling to fight in some capacity to save the future. After all, we're talking about whether I end at some point due to my biology or get to live on as long as I care to.
The idea of what the Singularity is is not hard to grasp, but coming to terms with it's full implications is still beyond many Singulatarians because are little monkey minds can only think up things that are as smart as we are. Ultimately, it's going to take AIs that program themselves to get us to the Singularity, and along the way maybe they'll clue us in on some of their ideas.
Now, I'm not trying to make him seem like less of a threat, just trying to point out that he will be a threat to lower Shock Levels first. Also, if you like, do a search on Google for 'future shock levels'. The first return should be the site that you want. While classifications are never strickly ridged and people do move between them, they serve as a useful tool for guaging how much future shock a person can stand.
March 4th, 2001 at 10:25 PM
Re:Humanity dosn't have any future
Again, your choice of language seems to indicate a desire to downplay the objections of others by using words or concepts that belittle them. I am not afraid of the things you mention, in the same way that I am not afraid of someone choosing to use heroin. I am, at best, wary that they may try to rip me off to feed their habit, and I have a vague well-intentioned concern for their health and safety.
And it will hopefully be a long while before it is no longer true for groups like home trepanation enthusiasts, Raelians and Pat Buchanan supporters. Just because you can mention yourself in the same breath as "brave pioneers" doesn't mean you necessarily deserve the appellation.
Care to or dare to?
I have previously been part of discussions about the similarities between concepts of the Singularity and those of the Rapture. It seems to me that, for Singulatarians, AIs fill the role of guardian angels and tutelary spirits. The talk might be of neural nets and uploading instead of pentacles and seances, but perhaps at heart the desire to evoke one or the other is not as different as you may believe. Both may stem from a desire for the intercession of an otherworldly genie/oracle/parent figure, rather than relying upon oneself to set and achieve goals within the parameters of life as it exists in the here and now.
Level-based categorisations are also good ways to reinforce feelings of being more "advanced" or "enlightened". In a way, it reminds me of playing Dungeons and Dragons back in school: "Ha, ha! I've reached third level! Fear my mighty magic missile!"
I could very easily come up with a similar level system for categorising, say, sexuality. Level 1 might start with willingness to have sex with a member of the opposite gender in the missionary position, slowly escalating to level 5 for fetishes of dubious legal status. Just because I have categorised sexual activity this way does not mean that higher levels are more "enlightened" or "open-minded". It depends on how you strucutre the levels, and for what personal purpose you choose to arrange them this way. Perhaps I am just a pervert trying to justify some of my less savoury proclivities and make them seem less objectionable.
March 5th, 2001 at 1:36 AM
The human race
Humanity may survive – it is all probablistic (and we are doing our best to put the odds in our favour). Presently we are on a race to conquer nature and reality as we know it – in fact, this is the race that humans have been on for several hundred years now. However, the advent of science gives us a larger perspective with which to view our place in the cosmos, and therefore a keener understanding of how fragile we are in light of cataclysmic events. The flip side is that science also provides us with the technologies to counter these problems – such things as asteroid defence shields and so on. So in our arms race with nature, we have scaled up in both directions.
We need new technologies to survive. Several hundred years ago, we did not have advanced levels of cognitive development, but now alpha-humans are aware of, and enjoy, cerebral stimulation unlike that known in the past – and enjoy aesthetic pleasures and other sensorial experiences. There's a feedback relationship between new technologies, people and progress that builds upon and evolves itself – the bigger picture (say, the result of all of this) in a hundred years time is not easy to forsee, and if we could see into the future, it may seem like a strange future, but that would be from the unenlightened perspective we have now. For me, the goal then is to navigate towards the future in an organic fashion – experiment/create, test, alter, -feedback- experiment/create – being aware that safeguards need to be built every step along the way. And this approach should equally apply to MNT.
And extinction ? Is it always such a bad thing ? Working around this debate is no short task.
[Visitors to London this summer may wish to take in 'Copenhagen', playing in the West End - which delves into Bohr's visit to Heisenberg in Copenhagen during WW2 - exploring interesting issues around science, ethics, progress and people -- quite entertaining.]
March 5th, 2001 at 3:04 AM
Re:Voting on Research
This is nothing new
When technology that may change the way we do things is being researched, people panic. Then once the tech is in place, people sabotage, then adapt.
Choosing to not act on research may stop some places from developing technology, but it will be developed elsewhere (in places that we would rather them not develop such advanced technology) and we would sit back while others use the tech for whatever they want…is this what Bill is going for? I would almost suggest a alternative agenda Bill is trying to bring in…not to push it into conspiracy catagory…he is reacting out of fear.
I personally think that we presently will destroy the earth if these techs he is scared of are not developed…There are too many people on the earth and we must either kill alot of people or develop green tech to stop us from being so heavy on the earth. our brains are limited and we need help (ai). We need something to clean pollution, colonize planets, etc. This will not happen if key tech areas are halted. Is bill scared enough to bring on the senario he fears? that is what indirectly he is doing.
Uploading/downloading brains is just one matter…who cares what people think about that…fact is, stop AI and we miss out on a tool as incredible as a computer itself…
Wake up…we are already at the worse case senario and we need to build better tools to get out of it.
March 5th, 2001 at 9:08 AM
What is everyone afraid of?
I do not understand; what is everyone afraid of? Anyone who knows math knows that the future is unavoidable no matter what anyone does about it. (i.e. (F)x=1,2,4,8,16,32,64,,,infinity) – so regardless of what Bill Joy and his loyal followers do to 'try' and stop the research of powerful technologies, they will never succeed, due to the fact that the numbers are stronger than the people who are trying to control the numbers.
Singularity is VERY real, and I can see how many people feel threatened by it – considering they wish to continue to live in a world with invisible lines called boundries, and to continue to have the egotistic need to say to someone else 'I'm better than you are', 'I'm superior than you are', 'You'll never be as good as me' – even though those statements were never true and never will be. With Singularity, there is no such thing as 'the individual'; there is no such thing as 'seperation'. I think it is actually people's egos that are afraid of the transition that is to come, and not their actual intellect, because I truly believe, that deep down inside each and everyone us, (yes, even Mr. Ego – Bill Joy), we all desire to achieve Singularity in one way or another.
Quote for the Day: 'You shall be as gods"
March 5th, 2001 at 3:24 PM
Re:There he goes again..
Do not underestimate the power of the Emperor…………… You do not know the power of the Dark Side of the force, consume you it will.
March 5th, 2001 at 3:32 PM
and what rough beast
Have you heard the news? The gods are dead.
March 5th, 2001 at 3:35 PM
Re:Defining religion
Have you ever seen a serious scientist worship an idol of Einstien or Hawking in earnest or pray to the Universe for the Answer to the Question? Hopefully not. If you have, go smack that person on the head and tell ver to get ahold of verself. Vat about a MAD Scientist, HAHAHAHAHAHA. Vith my momentous discovery ov the lost Tesla Papers, I have constructed a magnivicent Destructo Ray. I vill take over the vorld vith it! HAHAHAAHA ALso, ever seen Dexter's Laboratory. Dexter is always praying to Einstein. "Oh holy father of science, please help me to beat Mandark this time."
March 5th, 2001 at 4:26 PM
Re:and what rough beast
Nope – the ones who died are the ones not worthy due to their negative attitudes.
March 11th, 2001 at 7:26 AM
everything is related;
hence, everything is on topic. Think about it; you can never separate anything from everything else. Once again, Read J. Bronowski's "The Origin of Knowledge and Imagination".
March 11th, 2001 at 8:09 AM
Re:everything is related;/also
hypertext comes from the recognition of how everything is connected.
March 11th, 2001 at 11:59 AM
Re:Humanity dosn't have any future
The heroin example is poor. The problem is more like worrying that someone is learning more than you and therefore might one day keep you from getting the job you want. The solution for you is obvious: learn more yourself. Bringing down the other person hurts you and all of society (becasue you miss out on whatever the genuis might have done) and you can be compacent and not do much and still earn a living.
The Singularity is about the future. It is theoretical. Theoretical physics is about the future of physics. Some physicists go down blind allies, others are laughed at, some are just plain wrong, and a few are right. Personally, I think that I'm right. The future will let us know who.
The difference between Rapture and the Singularity is that Rapture is based on something that doesn't exit. With the Singularity, all we are saying is that, in a world with super intelligence, it will be up to the SIs to figure out issues that they bring up by existing. If humans can do it on our own, we'll have it figured out before we seed SIs, but if not we'll need some SI help. Also, I don't know about you, but I plan on becoming an SI as soon as possible.
I will reiterate that the levels are only a tool. When I meet people, I don't think about what their level is and decide to treat them differently. Most of my friends are very low level compared to me, which just means that I don't talk about the Singularity to them.
Also, you seem to be implying that I am juvinal in thought. I assure you, I know the difference between actually classifying people and using tools to gain a view as to what they think, in general, on a specific topic. Again, this is just tool, nothing more, and nothing less. Stop reading so much into it. It's not like someone at SL4 is going to toast an SL2er with fog or something.
March 11th, 2001 at 12:03 PM
Re:Defining religion
I just wanted to write that, after having some time away from my post, I must admit that I was a little brash and not very careful in my choice of words. I guess I was excited and just wrote away. Happens to the best of us, I guess. Luckily, there were some other posters around to clarify my craziness. Thanks folks.
March 11th, 2001 at 10:19 PM
Re:and what rough beast
No. The gods have always been and continue to be here. Just look more closely at the person next to you.
March 12th, 2001 at 8:26 AM
Re:Humanity dosn't have any future
No, it's more like trying to convince someone that investing their life savings in junk bonds will very probably end in tears. Or like telling someone getting a garish tattoo that they can't just get it laser-removed later, that scars remain and they have to live with their choices for the rest of their life. Or like watching Heaven's Gate-filled body bags stuffing the morgue.
Hmm. Your choice of language doesn't exactly disincline me away from my drug metaphor ;-P
Or saves you from what is folly, not genius.
The Singularity is about wishful thinking.
Nor does the Singularity. Your faith in its immanence is based on little more scientific fact than Hal Lindsey's visions of suddenly teleported fundamentalists.
I do not feel insecure enough to want to devote appreciable periods of time fantasizing about becoming a supposed superbeing. I enjoy life quite enough as it is. I do not want to spend several decades of my life working myself up into an irrational state of romanticised wishful thinking that may blind me to the true implications of the choices I may eventually be presented with. Basically, I'm not in a hurry.
You obviously subject them to some form of assessment if you are capable of concluding that they are "lower level" than you. You may deny that this affects the way you react toward them, and this may even be true on a conscious level. But it's still a very simplistic, self-defined, elitist way to categorise people. Are you sure that on some level you aren't smug of your exalted status?
March 12th, 2001 at 6:35 PM
Re:Humanity dosn't have any future
Well, I see the same things coming up as before, so my guess is that most of this discussion is just going to go around in cricles, wasting yours, mine, and everyone's time. There are two things I would like to address.
The Singularity is not believed in blindly. There is the key difference. If I did not believe that sufficient proof existed to make me believe that the Singularity will happen, I would not. It is that simple. You may not be satisfied with that postition, but I can respect that, so long as you do not interfer with what I want to do. Unless what I am doing constitutes an immediate threat to you that will have no way to avoid hurting you, you lack a really valid reason to stop me. I would hold the same standard for you.
The second issue I would like to address is the levels. First off, the link is http://sysopmind.com/sing/shocklevels.html, for anyone who didn't know. Secondly, I am absolutely sure. I don't know why you keep trying to provoke me when I have already given you an answer. There is nothing to be smug about. It is only that I accept some concepts that things that will actually happen while others consider them day dreams or possibilities, as you seem to with the Singularity. Of course, some will view an idea as evil, because they have been shocked too much. Again, it is just a tool for evaluating how much shock a person can take, not a way of creating a caste system for futurists.
March 13th, 2001 at 12:53 AM
Re:Humanity dosn't have any future
Really, I thought we were engaging in robust debate. If you can't convince someone to totally agree with you in two or three exchanges, does that mean you give up? As I have said before, the "You're obviously not one of the Enlightened Ones, so I won't 'bother' to talk to you" syndrome is a classic element of religious thought. I do agree that it's best, in a forum like this, not to monopolise a given thread, but I am going to repeatedly make these claims in future. If you have no firm rebuttal, then that does not necessarily mean that I am wasting anyone's time, even yours.
People believe in the Rapture because they honestly feel that the information contained in the Bible is profoundly meaningful, and that the 'fact' of the resurrection of Jesus 'proves' the validity of their claims. What experimental evidence, or other falsifiable statements, do you base your belief upon?
And, as I keep saying, your arbitrary level system serves merely to reinforce the belief that your 'acceptance' of these concepts is more 'advanced'. If I am Pixie Level 3 because I regularly talk to the tiny inhabitants of my garden, that does not mean that Pixie Level is a valid way of assessing someone's arguments against the existence of pixies.
Or because it is evil. To use my initial 'sex level' metaphor: If a paedophile classifies himself as 'sexual level 5' then it does not mean, by the standards of the rest of society, that people who consider his actions evil are just easily shocked. It means that he has set up a system designed from the ground up to reinforce his prejudices and make his actions and choices seem less unreasonable.
Please note that I am in no way equating your views to something as abhorrent as child molestation. I am just attempting to show you that your classification system serves more to reassure you of the validity of your position that it does to 'evaluate' how much 'truth' a person can handle.
March 15th, 2001 at 1:58 PM
Re:Humanity dosn't have any future
Well, I wrote that I wouldn't but you brought up some new arguments to be addressed. In some cases, I have nothing more to add, since my old arguments stand, in my opinion.
"Or because it is evil. To use my initial 'sex level' metaphor: If a paedophile classifies himself as 'sexual level 5' then it does not mean, by the standards of the rest of society, that people who consider his actions evil are just easily shocked. It means that he has set up a system designed from the ground up to reinforce his prejudices and make his actions and choices seem less unreasonable."
But a paedophile is doing something immediately evil: rape. This action has an actual effect (as opposed to futurist say "hmm, I believe that this will happen and I want it to"). Sex Levels would just be a way to justify doing something evil. The Shock Levels seperate ideas based on their logical progression (one must accept nanotechnology before the Singularity, since the Singularity requires the existance of nanotech or some similar technology) and how much social impact they are expected to have. SL4 ideas are no more true than SL2 ideas, since none of them are manifest yet. All I can tell you is that I don't use the Shock Levels to put people down or make them look stupid. I have no idea what RMS's Shock Level is, but let's say it's 2. This by no means makes him stupid, because he is in fact a very smart man, but simply does not think that certain ideas will manifest in the future. I think no less of him for it. I even accept that there are very smart Luddites, even though I do not agree with them at all on many issues and often consider them oposition who might try to stop the Singularity.
"… show you that your classification system serves more to reassure you of the validity of your position that it does to 'evaluate' how much 'truth' a person can handle."
I have never claimed that it showed me to know the truth, and if I did it was an accident. Sorry. The SLs are a progression of ideas and I agree with them, more or less, so I use them as a tool in my discussions. I don't know what I can write to you that would make you understand how little importance they have, but if you choose to continue on your current line of reasoning I am not going to stop you (unless you actually attack me).
March 15th, 2001 at 10:02 PM
A modest proposal for a new millennium
A modest proposal for a new millennium As I watch the news and read the newspaper. I am bombarded by some new image or piece of information, which shows some child committing an act of violence against society. I soon become fearful that my happiness and safety as well as my cherished way of life are at threat of a growing population of violent children. There seems to be no clear solution to this problem in the near future as more and more ethically unguided parents spawn these ticking time bombs. Because if they are bringing firearms to school and killing their classmates, it will only be a matter of time before one of the little monsters hacks a defense agency computer an unleash nuclear holocaust upon a naive world. As I see it these children represent a clear danger of the extinction of the human race. So I humbly propose that all people relinquish the capability of having children. Or at least governments should have their citizens vote upon the proposal. For those states that do not need to resort to democracy to implement such a proposal then I implore them to set up sterilization programs at once. I understand this might seem very radical to many people and maybe very difficult to implement but I point to China's population control program as my proof that such a proposal is very reasonable and possible. I am also aware of a group people that feel it is their human right to have children. They simply assume this based upon the fact that they have the capability to create them. To easily label them we shall call them Potentialparantals. These people claim that the potential for children to make the world a better place clearly outweighs whatever danger they represent. Clearly they must have been at one time dysfunctional children themselves to have such a strong support for children. These people should be the first we round up and sterilize to insure that they to do not create any more dangerous children. Maybe one day the world will be a better place for child creation. At that time we can discus the possibility of controlled and closely monitored child production. Sincerely John A. Montgomery
March 15th, 2001 at 10:33 PM
Re:Humanity dosn't have any future
I agree that we appear to be arguing at cross purposes here, so this will be my last post on this thread.
Part of the whole problem we have been having centers around semantics and implied meaning. You appear to have a very physical interpretation of "evil", for example. If a monster looks at a child and thinks "hmm, I believe that I could molest this child, and I want to", is he not contemplating evil? What if he merely advocates performing evil acts, rather than committing them himself?
Please note that I do not necessarily believe that Singulatarianism , transhumanism, extropianism or any other -ism discussed in this forum is inherently evil. Misguided, yes. Simplistic, naive and headed for a rude awakening, yes. The possibility for evil arising from such philosophies is ever-present, but the philosophies themselves are, in my opinion, merely mistaken.
Logical according to who? The list you quote lumps acceptance of medical immortality in with interplanetary exploration, and nanotechnology in with uploading. This is an arbitrary list assembled, as I keep saying, according to the prejudices of the already converted.
To use another invented example: If I created a similar technology shock level list in the 1920's and 30's, I might place "knowledge of the implications of genetics and inheritability" into shock level two. Fine. But if I also place "acceptance of the rightness and necessity of compulsory sterilization" (which happened in the US, not just Germany), then we have a whole new ball game. To lump technologies you feel are inevitable in the same class as applications of said technology you wish developed biases the way the artificial distinctions are viewed by both the elect and the hoi polloi.
I would say that he is more unsettled by the possibilities of future technologies, and questions our rush to embrace them. Acceptance of genetics is different from acceptance of the application of eugenics. Mind you, if he or anyone else said that there was no evidence that the Singularity was anything more than the erroneous extension of growth curves to a nonexistent asymptote, I would have to agree.
Which is fine, as long as you don't use your categorisation of a person to dismiss the logicality or defensibility of thier arguements. If someone raises an objection, particularly a moral one, then their objections should be dealt with by debating the merits of the respective positions, not by dismissing them as easily shocked. If they refuse to change their mind in the face of what a "reasonable" person would consider compelling arguements, then maybe the appellation would be appropriate.
Good luck finding an an impartial, reasonable person, though :-/