From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Mon Nov 18 2002 - 23:07:58 MST
I've mentioned this offlist to a couple of people already so sorry to them
for the repetition but it seems to me that the ExI list fulfils a number of
functions and not all of these can be completely in accord.
First, despite the improving levels of "awareness" about technology and
change in our communities, extropic types, can often find themselves in
relative isolation or minorities. I think this is particularly the case away
from the US. To some folk the ExI list seems to serve as a sort of social
watering hole. A pleasant place (usually) to drop into to pick up a few tips
on what others have found worth reading and maybe pick up a bit of Spike
humour. Second, the list functions as a sounding board or think tank. Third
it has a marketing function in that potentially interested folk will look to
see what "real" extropians talk about.
Extropians whatever else they are are thinkers, they may not have a monopoly
on insights into the future or problems in the present but they are more
likely to be at the sharp edge of the blade. Argument between those on the
list are doubtless observed by others often who don't post and the net
result is people learn.
Could this learning be better structured? Probably. There could be more
faq's and more briefing and opportunities to bring curious, but sceptical
newbies (like me) up to speed. But why should the old hands spend their time
producing such things? Perhaps they shouldn't. But perhaps the pursuit of
critical mass is worth considering. I think its a matter of balance. If
newbies have to get too near expertise level before they ask questions then
valuable questions (from the stand point of propagating memes to observers)
won't be asked.
Sometime it is in the mullock heaps that have apparently been well worked
over that real gems of mistakes can be found and it may well be the
irreverent newbies that find them.
I have a number of areas where I as a relative newbie would really like to
get stuck into the ideas of some extropian champions. Be it Anders on social
policy. Robert Bradbury on rolling out commercial bionanotech, Or Eliezer on
his notions of friendly AI. Or Greg Burch on extropian ethics. I respect all
these people and realise they have earned through their work the right not
to have to answer idle ill considered questions from novices that have made
no attempt at backgrounding at all. But any new potential extropian worth
his salt will do a fair amount of groundwork before challenging the experts
to defend or elaborate on their views. And if they don't it ain't hard to
nudge them in the direction of the archive or a previous posting. The
"experts", as far as I can see are usually happy to do so, provided only the
questions and discussion are not complete rehashing of what has gone before.
Provided one is genuinely seeking to understand and has done a reasonable
amount of homework, I think its healthy for newbie extropians to challenge
the establish wisdom, to refine it, to help expand its effectiveness, or on
occasion however uncommon, to overthrow it.
I recently spent (probably too much time away form other work I should be
doing) reading up on Eliezer's work on AI and particularly friendly AI. He
has written heaps. It clearly (to me) good stuff. I'm not yet a believer but
I've certainly suspended disbelief for longer than before. My impression is
that much of what Eliezer has written seems to be leading edge stuff but I
haven't chewed it over enough yet to do either Eliezer or myself the
courtesy of attacking it in detail. I will though. The topic is too
important to ignore. And when I do probe the repositories of accepted wisdom
someone will learn. Probably me. But possibly Eliezer or others too.
Possibly both. Whatever, the outcome of genuine discussions between
sceptical enthusiasts and those who have invested much time and effort in
establish expertise can be a good thing for the propagation of stronger
memes.
Its perhaps often hard for casual visitors to the list to differentiate
between debates about ideas and fights between people. We get a bit of the
later. But not enough in my view to be a major concern. I wouldn't like to
see the Exi list lose either of its functions as a social watering hole or
as a forum for genuine debate and brainstorming of ideas.
Brett
[Just my two cents. As usually issued in a bulky currency]
PS: One thing I'd like to see more of are roadmaps and milestones and
justifications for conclusions like the Singularity will be here in 2008
etc. or will take 50 years etc. Rather than sweeping assertions that the
Singularity is going to sweep down and pick us all up at one stage sparked
by the emergence of friendly AI. I'd like to see more discussions as to the
practicalities of how these things that are desirable can be more quickly
brought about. Or how from a multitude of possible future we can act so as
to give those futures which are more attractive the best chance. I get the
impression with a few exceptions that many on this list do more observing
than participating in building the future. Perhaps I am mistaken. And
certainly talk is not nothing.
Perhaps many don't talk about their work because their work has a commercial
aspect to it and it can't really be disclosed. This is fair enough. I would
myself subscribe to the view that some projects that are extropic in nature
could be harmed by discussing them on the list because doing so could harm
their commercial viability. Like the intellectual property regime of not,
its a fact, and trade secrets, are an important part of businesses planning.
----- Original Message -----
From: "gts" <gts_2000@yahoo.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 2:45 PM
Subject: RE: What's Important to Discuss (was FRUITLESS: duck me!
> Personally I enjoy duck-me-like discussions for the same reason that I
> enjoy logic puzzles. I've always enjoyed logic puzzles. If nothing else
> they are entertainment for me. Certainly they're a better use of my free
> time than watching mindless TV shows designed to please the lowest
> common denominators in society. (But then, on the other hand, The
> Soprano's really have my attention these days. I can hardly believe Tony
> whacked Ralphie like that, even if Ralphie really was a bastard who
> deserved it. That scene the week before last where Christopher dumped
> Raphie's head into a bag was really over the top.)
>
> I agree with my friend and nemesis Lee Corbin here about the importance
> of internalizing "the truths about duplicates and selves."
>
> -gts
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> > [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
> > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 1:17 AM
> > To: extropians@extropy.org
> > Subject: RE: What's Important to Discuss (was FRUITLESS: duck me!
> >
> >
> > Robert writes
> >
> > > Are we not rehashing things that have already been dealt
> > > with in much greater depth?
> >
> > Well, Samantha wrote something quite similar in
> > http://www.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians/0211/17161.html
> > on November 13, which you must have missed.
> >
> > I have several questions for you.
> >
> > 1. Why don't you instead rehash things that have not
> > already been dealt with in much greater depth?
> >
> > 2. Or even hash things of greater importance?
> >
> > 3. Or even ignore discussions in which you don't want to
> > participate?
> >
> > Indeed, Samantha wrote, two links later,
> >
> > > Wouldn't it be a lot more interesting though to first work on
> > > the myriad problems of how to do uploads? Or how we effectively
> > > combine and augment our intelligence to achieve some of our goals?
> >
> > which at least shows some effort to confront what a number see as
> > a problem of what to talk about. As for me, like I said,
> >
> > > > I want to internalize the truths about duplicates and
> > > > selves, as I want to internalize mathematical and historical
> > > > truths. Right now, I'm not totally decided about some
> > > > issues involving anticipation (e.g., in the Clock/Torture
> > > > experiment or quite similar thought experiments).
> >
> > Lee
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:13 MST