From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Wed Sep 04 2002 - 08:13:03 MDT
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, gts wrote:
>
> > Either it will be possible in principle to be exempt from death, or it
> > else it won't be possible. Hand-waving arguments about the theoretical
> > probabilities of achieving immortality do not really answer the
> > question.
>
> Gts, your monumental lack of clue is only exceeded by your arrogance.
> Not a happy combination, especially on this list.
>
> Why are you here?
Eugene, I think thats a bit harsh. I tend to agree with gts.
If one equates "immortal" with "live forever" with "exempt from death"
then I do not believe we can answer the question until we know whether
protons decay (and even they don't, immortality is iffy because one
has to be slanted towards a Dysonian solution to the heat death of
the universe).
So I lean towards the concept that immortality is either impossible
or very very very difficult. However, that said, attaining longevities
of trillions of years does seem possible. So there is a lot of room
in the discussion regarding probabilities since those are based on
the hazard function you select. That in turn relates to the discussion
of how much risk are you willing to expose yourself to in constraining
your current error correction capabilities. Sacrifice reliability and
you gain current era computational or memory capacity. The longer you
want to live, the more "current" life capacity you have to sacrifice.
Of course reduce that "current" capacity too much and you become food
for those who don't. Makes for an interesting economy I expect.
(I think it was Eugene who commented on the Darwinian risks of
extreme longevity. They are a significant concern. Provides an
interesting solution to the Fermi Paradox -- if you want to be
a potential "immortal" you can only be one by yourself -- so best
to get as far away from everyone as fast as you can.)
Now, if Eliezer, or others, are going after *real* immortality then
they are either assuming that protons don't decay and are satisfied
with a Dysonian (circa 1978) view of the universe, or they are expecting
intelligence to trump physics (alter the expansion of the universe,
find a way to tunnel out of it, create a new universe into which their
mind is incorporated, etc.).
I think we need a new term to describe the concept of an indefinitely
long life within constraints imposed by the physics of the universe.
A subset of that may be an indefinitely long life within constraints
imposed by the laws of proability and reliability -- i.e. at some
point you devote so much of your resources to reliability that
you cease to have any resources remaining to effectively retain
a "mind" (which presumably limits your ability to deal with
novel hazards and therefore constrains your longevity).
Perhaps there will be "longevity machines" -- something which simply
dedicates all of its resources to survival. And some humans may
choose to devolve to that level. I don't think we know enough about
the long term hazards in the universe to know whether that will
be a requirement for "immortality" (within the limits of current
physical laws).
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:41 MST