From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sun Nov 17 2002 - 23:15:21 MST
Avatar Polymorph wrote:
>
> Brett Paatsch queried my reference to my "bio" work on my body - I have 2
> sets of dna because I had a bone marrow transplant and my white blood
cells
> are now set number two.
Now I get it..
> The other things are just indications that
> artificial materials are in my body (most people have tooth fillings at
> least). Currently these materials are non-intelligent.
Yep.
> Following insertion
> of cell repair machines and molecular supercomputers (Drexler estimated c.
> 70 supercomputers within each cell)
I'm not familar with this particular estimate. Is it one Eric Drexler made
more recently? The reason I ask is that knowledge of cell biology has come
along quite a bit since Engines of Creation. There are at least three
considerations in loading cells with "supercomputers" one is getting the
computers small enough, another is getting them in there and a third is in
ensuring they don't damage the cell.
> my cellular structure will have an
> artificial "addition", like a set of sophisticated mitochondria.
In principle this seems possible even relatively easy given time. But time
is of the essence. How long do you figure you have? Where do you stand on
cryonics?
> Following
> augmentation my brain will have a variety of inter-cellular nanotech
> electrochemical neural interfaces and a computronium strandframe of some
> sort probably surrounding the brain.
Let's assume time (to develop the technologies) is not a factor and look
only at the technologies.
I confess don't know what a computronium strandframe is. Though I've seen
the word computronium often enough on the list. How do you see your existing
brain being augmented? Would the total volume increase requiring a larger
skull (stronger neck, body re-engineering etc) or would the size stay the
same requiring removal of suboptimal brain material?
> The skull itself will be hardened with
> additional sophisticated materials. There will be a variety of interactive
> communications and storage and failsafe devices and procedures as well. I
> will not however be going down the upload-as-software track.
I'm a bit wary of "uploading" - at least in one leap of faith increment -
myself. Do you imagine augmenting with a series of "bolt ons" perhaps under
local anaesthetic so you preserve your sense of self as a continuity?
<snip>
> Brett makes a lot of points about the stem cell debate and religious views
> on the foetus. The difficulty from the ethical point of view as far as
> secular persons go is that opinion varies. Scientists often define the
brain
> as neurological, feminists define life as starting after birth (thus
> abortion is legitimate), Peter Singer defines life as starting at 2 or 3
> years of age (non-continuous setient awareness, i.e. prior to this he
> defines a baby as being like an [un-conscious] dog).
>From a biological (or scientific) standpoint I don't think its really
debateable that prior to fertilizing a oocyte a sperm is alive, or that it
is entirely human in its makeup. It just doesn't follow, given an
understanding of biology to then hold that all forms of human life are
equal.
My point is that the terminology "human life" has been held up historically,
and mostly appropriately, as being equivalent to the "life of a person"
whereas in fact persons, or sentient persons if you like are a subset of
human life. So are growing human cancer cells and so are embryos. It is
simply not helpful to persist with the use of terminology like "human life",
"human begins", "human dignity" in the context of stem cell debates because
the important moral differences between forms of human life are blurred.
>
> My position has always been that I define life neurologically, and bearing
> in mind principles of continuity.
I think you just defined plants and microorganisms as non-life.
> Thus, for me, once a brain and brain stem
> has developed, after several weeks, a foetus is "alive" and after this
point
> fair or reasonable principles of continuity of developement should be
> brought in, in this instance indicating that it is unethical to kill a
> foetus after brain start/growth. For me, therefore, stem cells
encompassing
> only a few days growth (clusters of a dozen cells or several dozen
maximum)
> are certainly NOT alive.
I agree with your general thrust but I think its a bit more complicated.
> The principle of continuity doesn't yet hold in
> these cases, any more than it would for individual sperm or ova, or
> fertilized eggs that had lodged in the uterus but failed to "take" to the
> uterine wall.
>
> Christians do hold their ground. This assists them politically. The stem
> cell debate itself is a classic example of what I was talking about
before,
> the failure to recognize the IMMEDIATE future. It's like we're living in
> 1932, the first fuel reactor rods have been made and we're talking about
> atomic bombs in a decade but everyone's burying their heads in the sand.
> Well, atomic bombs can be made, even if they can't in this year of 1932.
> Ditto for Drexlerian cell repair machines and molecular computers, and
ditto
> for assemblers.
I think there is a difference between recognizing that something so far as
we can see is not technologically impossible. Acknowledging with Feynman
that there seems to be no laws of nature prohibiting nanotechnology or
molecular manufacturing which is probably a better term.
Let me give a rough example. A native on an island might shoot down a
seagull in flight with an arrow and watch it fall. The native could infer
that the bird is heavier than air and was able to fly whilst alive and
flapping but that does not mean the native can construct an aeroplane on his
island. What the native needs to build an aeroplane is a swag of interum
enabling technologies and probably a substantial amount of social
cooperation. There is a world of difference between knowing something is not
impossible and actually achieving what you want with that insight.
> It's not like an argument for connecting superstrings to
> black holes as power sources, which may or may not be possible. It's a
> purely practical extension of existing chemical and computing knowledge.
I don't think the knowledge for molecular manufacturing does exist yet. I
suspect it is coming, how soon, I'm not sure of, but it is not here yet. I
read somewhere that the element cadmium has different colours at different
sizes. My physics is basic but a change in color is likely to be associated
with changes in the frequency of light bouncing off. Scale can have a
radical effect on some fundamental properties of materials. I think we have
still got a lot to learn about how very small amounts of materials interact
before molecular manufacturing can take place. Better computing and
modelling will help. AI would help. But we don't have these of sufficient
standard yet so we are moving in on the goal of molecular manufacturing with
what seems to me to be more trial and error and less systematic searching
and modelling.
>
> "I'm not sure about this. At various points in my life I've
> fluctuated between almost evangelical atheism and philosophical tolerance
of
> other peoples "brain fog" just as on occassions I've no doubt been
fortunate
> that others have tolerated mine."
>
> I have my own philosophical or ethical or spiritual beliefs set out in my
> website www.paradigm4.com.au/way/
I took a quick look - you have been busy. I'll take a longer look later.
> These involve absolute tolerate around the notion of the principles of
> choice extending to all and protective shielding extending to all
potential
> victims of non-consensual force. By the "notion of the princiles of choice
> extending to all" I specifically include a repudiation of the notion of
ANY
> NON-CONSENSUAL heaven or hell or indeed dystopia containing said persons
> held by force against their will.
Ok.
> This is a generic statement. It may well
> be that the nodal stem of this univese (i.e. the reality or overtuality
> around us) contains elements of a dystopia depending upon personal
> definition, it certainly contains areas of rejection.
Lost me.
> My point relates
> specifically to virtualities. Any Christian community creating a virtual
> reality version of hell would never (in my opinion) be ethically entitled
to
> forcibly place an "offender" into such a thing.
I'm inclined to agree. But what if that "offender" was a voluntary member of
the community and had contracted with the community to accept that outcome
in the event of certain severe breaches on his or her behalf?
> In my view, the "principles
> of choice" also contain the idea of free will
Free will is necessary to choice. But it seems to me we rather assume it as
an operating principle we don't know it as a fact.
> and the ability to self-boost
> being made available to all beings, including children entering maturity.
In
> this situation, for example, any Christian attempting to neurogolically or
> surgically (including molecular surgery if you like) trammel their
children
> [to make them unable to have sex outside of marriage, let us say] would be
> acting unethically.
I agree with your ethic here.
>Or to give one final example, if Dr Tipler ever
> succeeded in a version of his Omega Point theory (see The Physics of
> Immortality) I would regard it as unethical if he attempts to implement
his
> view of leaving the "bad" people behind (i.e. those who have committed
evil
> acts should be punished by a kind of hell of omission, whereby they are
not
> rendered immortal and cannot enter any multiverse - this is a version of
> some present Christian thinking).
I think your saying active punishment is out and also shunning or being
omitted is out. This failing to omit is rarer (and perhaps nobler), in my
experience, but where does it leave you in practice? Do you have a worldview
in which no discrimination is made between "good" and "bad" at all; or that
"good" and "bad" are actions of persons not person themselves? (ie. people
are only bad 'cause they know no better or choose poorly, or are desperate
to satisfy needs etc).
As for myself I can accomodate the second intellectually well enough, but
practically its a different matter. I am not a detacted observed living
outside the "game park" of human activity, I'm in it. If a human predator,
like a lion or a shark, decides to take my leg for its lunch, I can't see
much longevity in philosophically recognizing its nothing personal the poor
brute has to eat. I'm a brute too. I don't want to be eaten and so
practically I have to regard some human behaviour as "bad" and as a
resourcing thing (I've got other things to think about than the poor hungry
tiger or shark). I generalise too. If someones behaviour is repeatedly or
seriously "bad" I'll go way out on a limb and err on the side of regarding
_them personally_ as bad even though intellectually I may realise there is
_always_ mitigating circumstances.
>
> Brett noted:
>
> "As a consequence, out of percieved political expedience, the
> case for therapeutic cloning was never even argued in Australia and
> anti-cloning laws will soon go into effect for at least three years. This
> was an expected outcome and had been deemed to be an exceptable loss in
> order to expedite the passage of other legislation that would permit the
> extraction of ES cell lines from excess IVF embryos. Unfortunately in
> failing to argue the merits of therapeutic cloning at all, the cloning
> prohibition legislation passed unanimously (despite many who would have
> supported therapeutic cloning had they been given the opportunity to
> understand it). This then became a political fact usable by the "religious
> conservatives" in making an argument to ethical consistency."
>
> As an aside, my views on cloning are that - once it is safe, and that's
> probably about 3-8 years away - it's not much different from having an
> identical twin or identical triplet. Logically, the legislation should
> instead ban having large numbers of clones.
I assume you mean reproductive cloning. If so I agree. The principle should
be that you only ban something for a good reason. At present the risk to the
mother and potential child of unnecessary suffering is a pretty good reason.
However this begs the question how is it that society can justify
prohibiting an adult woman, a citizen of voting age, possibly in some rare
cases with the capability and know how to clone herself with her own body
tisses (and a little help from her firends) from doing so. How does society
justify interfering with her "right" to do what she likes with her own body?
One answer may be that some restriction on particular extreme uses of such
rights are the price of belonging to the society at all. That if medical
attention is likely to be required as a result of her poor decision and
society is going to have to bear some of the burden of her poor judgement
then that is itself society's grounds for curtailing her freedom. Dunno.
>
> Generically, however, the ban on cloning stems from a fear of becoming
> irrelevant.
I suspect it is more a fear of losing ones uniqueness. It is based on the
mistaken notion that we are only our genes. In fact our genes interact with
the environment in complex ways. Bull cafe clones of the same age can look
quite different and behave quite different to each other. I've seen TV shows
with identical twin boys aged about 8 yo where one was a head taller than
the other, it was thought because of better nutrition in the womb.
> This fear is similar to the machine fear (fear of machine AI),
> and envisages direct bioligical breeding becoming irrelevant (as in Brave
> New World). Since the 1920s this fear has been strong. The fear of robots
> has been alleviated somewhat because they can be (rightly) seen as big
dumb
> pentium 10,000s with legs. However, it will probably return somewhat once
> military robots are seen to outperform humans (the first robotic fighter
> plane has now been produced in prototype). These notions of supercession
and
> irrelevance of humans are tied to notions of human elites misusing
superior
> tools and restricting benefits.
>
> The answer to such notions lies in a clear understanding of our own
> self-awareness, the forthcoming ability to alter ourselves, our own
> impending amortality or immortality or emortality (phrases are
irrelevant) -
> not just that of our children - and the forthcoming emergence of
> self-reproducing assembler technology (such technology is capable of
> terraforming Mars within a period of 20 years).
Maybe "mere" humans fear aspiring transhumans. Maybe practical people fear
impractical idealistic folk because when they fall they don't always avoid
landing on other people.
>
> Deeper issues lie ahead, more difficult ones, but the initial hurdle is of
> importance now. You can't take about stem cell research without refering
to
> life extension for centuries and youthful appearance for centuries.
Refering
> to DISEASE ALONE will cause defeats.
I'll read "take" as talk. I think you can succeed in getting sensible
legislative regimes in place without invoking all the baggage and to most
people "the unreality" of talking about life extension for centuries. They
did it in the UK.
<snip>
>
> I don't see life as being very relevant, though it is beautiful.
> Neurological systems are what I define as sentient, which is relevant to
me,
> whether that neurology be based on human neurons or a quantum computing AI
> using exotic materials science for its neural nodes.
Ok
>Process theology and
> indeed the matrix of being do include an understanding of connection
between
> rock, hair, insect and human. However, I am not a Buddhist or Hindu or
> Christian. I don't believe in the soul or that a rock is a bit of
> thought-stuff that has been rearranged. I don't believe in reincarnation
> (and CERTAINLY even if such were possbile I wouldn't support it without
> MATURE CONSENT...).
Ok.
> Personally I do believe in the positivity of the ideas
> espoused by Frank Tipler, of splitting the quantum body of a dying person
> and repairing one "half" with technology. That's a great idea. If it's
> possible, I'll support it (without any hiccups about leaving "bad" people
> behind).
When you say "believe" do you mean something other than you "treat it as an
operating presumption but something which you do not actually know"? I'm a
little wary of the word "belief" myself but when I use it I usually mean it
more of less as a shorthand for the above.
>
> I previously wrote: The next issues for me are those such as: guarantees
> for equality of opportunity for all, whether human, artificial, augmented
or
> even (though I don't believe in it conceptually myself) "uploaded" - and
in
> appropriate cases, where a sentient being originates in another species
such
> as a chimpanzee.
>
> Brett wrote: It seems that you look forward to guarantees that have never
> yet existed. Do you think it is possible to guarantee equality of
> opportunity for all even in principle?"
>
> New tech and new science means new guarantees are needed.
I don't think this follows. I don't think technologies alone can guarantee
anything. Technologies are "means" for achieving things. I think we need to
look to societal changes to get better guarantees. To people in other words.
> The freedom on
> think negative thoughts and freedom from thought monitoring for example
are
> now technologically possible and required. I.e. a "Neurological Privacy
> Bill" will inevitably be drawn up in a decade or so - wait and see.
>
I'll take a bet if you want :-) We might have to pin down that "or so" a
bit more to operationalise it. We'd also need to consider whether the bill
was to be called "Neurological Privacy Bill" or if it was simply enough that
its clauses included your concerns. In which case they'd need to be spelt
out more clearly for a bet.
> "Who or what acts as guarantor of the guarantee?"
>
> That's a matter for debate. But one thing is certain, you and I have a
> choice to participate by telling others of our views.
Agreed.
> I do, constantly. I
> talk about facial recognition systems as a primitive form of thought
> monitoring and therefore I say to others I am in principle against it.
I don't get it. Our perception naturally involves facial recognition
systems. The technology to equal even out perception in this area is as far
as I know way behind what people do naturally.
> Not
> because of the specific technology, but because of my generic belief in
the
> new right of freedom of internal (negative) thought and freedom from
> monitoring of thought.
Like Winston in 1984 I guess.
> If the response is "then they will act out their
> negative thoughts" I say negative actions against consent are the problem,
> not negative thoughts.
I agree that actions not thoughts are more likely to be the problem. One
that doesn't have negative thoughts at all would seem unable to wrestle with
ethical dilemmas. I wonder how "friendly AI" might be constructed to be
sufficiently sophisticated in thought if it could not walk through possible
negative scenarios and reject them.
> Negative thoughts are part of free will and free will
> defines our spiritual grace. Without free will, we are nothing. I
personally
> believe free will flows from something within the spirit of the universe
> (it's beauty, if you like).
This seems sort of poetic but it doesn't seem to make much sense.
>This is an emotional understanding as much as an
> intellectual or scientific one, and therefore unproveable, but there it
is.
> It's like love as a positive.
Ok.
>
> "And most importantly it seems to me how do we get from here (equality is
> certainly not currently guaranteed to all) to there? (Treat as rhetorical
if
> you like.)"
>
> As an historian, I strongly advise all commentators on economics and
wealth
> distribution to do effective measurement in one century gaps over areas
and
> dating back to half a million years ago. Then an overview is achieved.
I think the record gets a bit flimsy back 5-10k ago, but if you are arguing
that in the main the human condition has improved, at least over recent
millenium I agree with you.
> Currently I would argue that holding open and extending public
> infrastructure rights
Infrastructure rights - water? electricity?
> should be combined with notions of increased local
> area rights
More distributed government? Less centralisation?
> achieved by democratic consensus (and not denying individual
> rights to leave)
I don't think you can get "consensus" much in a democracy at this point.
> and a thorough awareness of the politics of Drexlerian
> assembler tech (including self-reproducing assemblers).
I'm not sure what you mean by the politics of Drexlerian assembler tech. Do
you mean we should try and foster a greater understanding of the changes and
the dangers inherent to the realisation of molecular manufacturing to
existing society and try and guide it in constructively?
> How do we achieve
> this? Talk. Advertise (just like the Scientologists do). NOTHING could be
> more fundamental to your future. Your mortgage (if you have one) is
> IRRELEVANT by comparison to your rights of access to assembler technology
in
> under twenty years from now.
What do you see as the sequence of events, the milestones if you like, that
would bring assembler technology (I assume you mean molecular manufacture
using self-replicating devices etc) in under twenty years?
>
> Brett comments that: "No disrespect intended but the search for unlimited
> overt growth in the multiverse seems a tad religious in itself. It has a
> certain vagueness about it. I wonder if we can meaningfully seek anything
> that is so non concrete. I can understand how one might seek to overcome
> particular limits on ones growth and even to go beyond what has previously
> been done by others in ones species but I'm not sure that unlimited overt
> growth is even meaningful if one holds, as you seem to, that resources are
> an issue. Though I sort of get
> what you mean. Good luck, I guess :-) Brett"
>
> You are quite right. The search for unlimited growth is religious in a
> sense. It is not finding such which is "religious" it is the decision to
> push the button if you could push it. THIS decision (even if it cannot be
> implemented) is what can free you up, whatever state you wind up in and
> whatever type of sentient being might be making such a decision in three
> decades from now. All I can say is wishing for such a thing (fair
unlimited
> growth in a multiversal situation - this can occur in a variety of
patterns)
> makes you feel extremely happy.
Sounds a bit like Sisaphys (maybe spelt wrong) the Greek mythology guy who
was cursed to push a rock up to the top of a mountain to see it roll down
and have to repeat it indefinatety. Apparently he frustrated the "gods" by
finding happiness in what they considered futile work (and the ultimate
punishment). I guess the point is that if the work has got to be done, you
may as well find a way to be happy whilst doing it.
I think the gods would have derived more satisfaction out of me I'd have
been pretty irked after the first couple of passes.
>
> Avatar
> [previous message a half-written version of this one, sent by accidental
> button push]
Thought so. Been there :-)
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:12 MST