From extropians-request@extropy.org Wed Aug 3 03:02:14 1994 Return-Path: extropians-request@extropy.org Received: from usc.edu (usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by chaph.usc.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.4) with SMTP id DAA02052 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 1994 03:02:12 -0700 Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA12250; Wed, 3 Aug 94 03:02:06 PDT Received: by news.panix.com id AA29137 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Wed, 3 Aug 1994 06:01:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 06:01:57 -0400 Message-Id: <199408031001.AA29137@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-8-12 - #94-8-19 X-Extropian-Date: August 3, 374 P.N.O. [06:01:24 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org X-Mailer: MailWeir 1.0 Status: RO Extropians Digest Wed, 3 Aug 94 Volume 94 : Issue 214 Today's Topics: Information-theoretic death [1 msgs] Mental Bootstrapping [1 msgs] MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION [1 msgs] mourning, ritual, and functionality [1 msgs] None [2 msgs] Ritual and Emotion [1 msgs] Your Extropian FAQ [1 msgs] Administrivia: Note: I have increased the frequency of the digests to four times a day. The digests used to be processed at 5am and 5pm, but this was too infrequent for the current bandwidth. Now digests are sent every six hours: Midnight, 6am, 12pm, and 6pm. If you experience delays in getting digests, try setting your digest size smaller such as 20k. You can do this by addressing a message to extropians@extropy.org with the body of the message as ::digest size 20 -Ray Approximate Size: 30854 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 94 18:02:28 -0400 Subject: [#94-8-12] mourning, ritual, and functionality Good party! bdschoon@mit.edu wrote: >Harry Hawk urges us to find a "rational mourning ritual" for dealing with a >loved one's deanimation. We as human beings have all experienced some form of >loss or emotional suffering. How is the extropian to deal with such >situations? In fact, I'm writing an essay about this subject. I can't finds your post. Can you send another copy? My theory of grief has several parts, that I'm planning to try to pull together in some way. One of them is this section from Society of Mind: >We all know the seemingly inexorable time span of mourning, in which it often >takes so long to accept the loss of those we love. Perhaps this, too, reflects >the slowness of attachment-change, though it is only one factor. This could >also be partially responsible for the prolonged psychological disability that >can follow the experience of a physical, emotional, or sexual assault upon a >person. One might ask, since there are so many other devastating aspects of >such an experience, why it should involve any connection with attachment >memory. I suspect that any form of intimacy, however unwelcome, has effects >upon machinery shared by both attachment and sexuality, and is liable to >disturb or disrupt the machinery with which we make relationships in ordinary >life. No matter how brief that violent episode, it may lead to long >derangements in our usual relationships, in part because those agencies are >slow to change. It doesn't help very much for the victim to try to view the >situation neutrally, because the rest of the mind cannot control those >agencies; only time can reconstruct their normal functioning. It is an injury >more terrible than loss of sight or limb, to lose the normal use of the >agencies with which one builds one's own identity. Another aspect has to do with losing access to mental resources that you've come to depend on: Your friendship had functions. Material ones, to help with various problems and projects. Attachment concerns: a person whose esteem you valued and, therefore, was useful in building your own character. Now those goals may never be achieved, and those useful applications are uses are not merely frustrated for the moment, but permanently impaired. Many other agencies may complain about this, search for substitutes, malfunction, and generally cause you to be disorganized and distracted. One part of the brain has access to another part that embodies a model, or a skill-resource, based on what that other person can do for you. Perhaps the lost person was useful for dealing with certain classes of situations -- and now you (some parts of your brain) have lost that resource. Why is this so different from losing a finger. If you lose your thumb, you'll have trouble playing scales, holding a fork, and so on. If you lose your mother, you'll have trouble confronting disappointments, borrowing money, and so on. Hurting-annoyance has a lot to do with "frustrated goals". In the case of ordinary-frustration, you can initiate a search, as they say in AI. But here, perhaps call it "interference-frustration," you *do* know what should be done, but you simply can't do it. Your method, part of your search-tree, has been removed. To be sure, this is always happening, as when you lose a certain tool, or reference book, or whatever. And perhaps those simple losses, too, produce some milder forms of grief. Maybe some people are bad at problem solving just because it hurts them to give up an idea that looked good for a while, but isn't working? And the hurting is somehow connected with not giving up when you really should. ...and so on, .... ------------------------------ From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 94 19:05:31 EDT Subject: [#94-8-13] Your Extropian FAQ Eric-- Thanks for your Extropian FAQ. > Q1: What's an extropian? I think you should say right at the beginning that there are small-e extropians, a circle of people, and there is capital-E Extropianism, a philosophy articulated by one of us, an ideal that fits none of us exactly, and--and this is the important point--we are always confusing the two. You would think this distinction, between a group of actual people and a philosophy written down by one guy, would be clear to people who consider themselves individualists and non-dogmatic. But aparently it's not, and that just goes to demonstrate the distinction. Anyway, this confusion is the first thing newcomers should be told about. I think it's a phenomenon that people can identify with and once you've confessed it, you can proceed to engage in it with gusto, which you do: > A1: When most people come across extropians, a few things stand out in > the image they form. These are not necessarily the most important or > defining characteristics of extropians, but for what it's worth, here > are two things that you will probably notice the most at first. See? You're apologizing for not starting with "defining characteristics." As if there ever could be such things. You could shorten this to just: "The first things you'll notice about extropians are likely to be..." (Good paragraphs on weird technophilia and libertarianism/non-politicalism.) > An extropian is an optimist, a neophile, an explorer. An extropian is > curious, critical, courageous. An extropian takes responsibility for... See? Defining this mythical capital-E Extropian. You end up speaking for hundreds of people in ways that aren't really justified by your personal knowledge of them, but I'm not suggesting a rewrite; just insert the explanation I suggested at the front and your writing becomes a perfect example of what we extropians are like (at least in print. In person we manage to be more laid back and realistic). > Q2: Why do so many extropians oppose the government on nearly every issue? I would rephrase this to: What positions do extropians have about government? Also, that leads naturally to mentioning the concept of "Privately Produced Law." Which mostly means that many of us support achieving many of the things that government is supposed to accomplish, only by voluntary means. Which is a better summary of what THE MACHINERY OF FREEDOM is about, too. > Q3: Why do so many extropians oppose environmentalism? I would rephrase this to: What positions do extropians have about environmentalism? > Q4: Are extropians elitist? (Why are extropians so elitist?) Do you think this is really a frequently asked question? I think there's a similar question that is asked: Q. Are there topics and people that aren't allowed on the mailing list? If so, isn't that censorship or exclusiveness? > Q5: Do extropians live differently, or is it all theory? This one (both Q and A) is good. > What do Extropians think of religion? I would make that: Q. How do extropians relate to religion? A. When "religion" means superstition, dogmatism and resistance to change, extropians tend to be against it. In fact, many of us see ourselves as part of a small minority of rational people in an aggressively irrational world, much of that irrationality related to religion, and so we're somewhat soured against the whole concept. So although some of us are religious, mystical or spiritual in one way or another, the topic of religion can be touchy, and the word is often a code word for "bad things." A particularly interesting example is how we react to the idea: "Science is a religion (or arbitrary belief system)." Although there are interesting philosophical discussions to be had about that idea, many of us find it false and (in bald form) a tiresome point to argue. To get a philosophical background on that one, read THE RETREAT TO COMMITMENT, by William Bartley. -fnerd - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - nutritional information per serving: less than one (1) bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a aKxB8nktcBAeQHabQP/d7yhWgpGZBIoIqII8cY9nG55HYHgvt3niQCVAgUBLMs3K ui6XaCZmKH68fOWYYySKAzPkXyfYKnOlzsIjp2tPEot1Q5A3/n54PBKrUDN9tHVz 3Ch466q9EKUuDulTU6OLsilzmRvQJn0EJhzd4pht6hSnC1R3seYNhUYhoJViCcCG sRjLQs4iVVM= =9wqs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ From: oladapo Date: Wed, 3 Aug 94 03:24:17 EST Subject: [#94-8-14] None (Freudian TechnoRave anyone?) I'm curious about extropians' attitudes. Going to Museums or taking a bicycle ride is a waste of time (when we could be working instead of playing). Should we shuffle off our silly pleasures in our transhumanist ascent, or do we carry with us nostalgic biological memorabelia? -- B. Durant Schoon bdschoon@mit.edu bdschoon@media-lab.media.mit.edu Hurting-annoyance has a lot to do with "frustrated goals". In the case of ordinary-frustration, you can initiate a search, as they say in AI. But here, perhaps call it "interference-frustration," you *do* know what should be done, but you simply can't do it. Your method, part of your search-tree, has been removed. To be sure, this is always happening, as when you lose a certain tool, or reference book, or whatever. And perhaps those simple losses, too, produce some milder forms of grief. Maybe some people are bad at problem solving just because it hurts them to give up an idea that looked good for a while, but isn't working? And the hurting is somehow connected with not giving up when you really should. ...and so on, .... Ive watched the goings on in this group for a little while and thought this is not a particularly interesting group but now just maybe we are coming up to par...this is is my first post...hope ive done it right..ive quoted 2 people on ritual,mourning and functionality The basic problem with brain technology as a whole is it generally simply doesnt work ...i know because ive tried quite a few..i believe brain tech should have only a few ends and ill name them 1.increase IQ by at least 30 points in a 2 week period(if a person wants to be more intelligent then they have the bloody right to be) 2.rest a little.observe your creation(yourself) enjoy then back to work. 3.increase intelligence by another 30 points in another 2 week period.. How do we do this.....By REMEMBERING better..by teaching memory enhancement techniques REAL ones that work not the ones we find in those dumb self help books. We remember the things that SHOCK us the most.that is the way our brains/body work LOUD NOISES...VERY BRIGHT LIGHTS...INTENSE BODILY SENSATIONS...this neatly segues the subject of Trauma and Grief...they hurt so much because the body interprets them as a loss of Function and Ability (function...the good feelings u "FELT" from the person and gave back etc...Ability..What the person DID for you and got you to DO) The human body interprets friends and family as extensions of itself in function and ability and loss of a limb will bring about similar grief to loss of a loved one.Its a relatively simple mechanism.the interesting aspect is how does it help us to increase inteligence..this is the million dolllar question which i will answer in a second post because its 03.18 in london england and i just woke up to check my mail. ------------------------------ From: mlinksva@netcom.com (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 21:17:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [#94-8-15] None > I'm curious about extropians' attitudes. > > Going to Museums or taking a bicycle ride is a waste of time (when we could > be working instead of playing). Should we shuffle off our silly pleasures in > our transhumanist ascent, or do we carry with us nostalgic biological > memorabelia? We (in the royal sense, for I speak for noone else and noone else speaks for me) thrive on our silly pleasures. We want to ascend so that we can experience silly pleasures beyond the imaginations of humans. Silly pleasures stimulate the body and mind, leading us closer to transhumanity by extending our lifespan and spurring innovation. What of super-efficient agents that devote all energy to conquering the universe? Perhaps those who waste some of their resources on silly pleasures will have some advantage. Or perhaps not. Mike Linksvayer mlinksva@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: oladapo Date: Wed, 3 Aug 94 04:44:25 EST Subject: [#94-8-16] MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION I have figured out a process of teaching anything physical to ALL animals including Humans (only PHYSICAL) in a exceedingly short time eg watersurfing,skateboarding,rafting,driving,swimming etc IE in about 10percent of the time it takes at present unfortunately it requires machines which are expensive.the problem is it doesnt work for mental Symbols.(it does occur to me that once one becomes extremely physically able mental symbols might well be a doodle but thats not neccesarily true) Over the last few days i seem to be coming up with some ideas on how to get the symbols into the brain quicker and faster and the ideas are definetely progressing (of course some of these ideas have taken 3yrs to create) Memory is a weird thing.It is the beast that makes us who we are.it gives so much to us and it provides us with all the pain as well.the absolute basic diffrence between us and animals is our memory.we simply remember more "commands".most memories ARENT stored in the brain as we would like to think but in the BODY. This is a very important distinction.the proof is that amnesiacs NEVER forget how to walk,eat or generally move indicating strongly that the BODY is doing the remembering not the brain..I am of course extremely interested in AI as a whole and in fact see humans as artificial intelligence units..since artifi- cial is by def..human made..and we have pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps so to speak. It would be pretty foul if the other animals had to do it that way as well....not to mention how much we could gain from them in terms of knowledge which is the political Imperative. A rational mourning imperative to be tautological can only be achieved .when we all (MOST of us anyway) are at our most rational....which is to say when a death or loss occurs to us and THERE ARE ALREADY mechanisms to take care of the loss eg.losing an arm simply means you go to your local chemist and literally buy a new one AS GOOD as the original.(if u back up reguarly u arent pissed off when your hard drive gets buggered) We can ONLY achieve rational levels in the populace when our science moves at least 2 magnitude levels above where we are....My quest is to INCREASE the speed of it since its inevitable anyway....errrm its 4.30 am here ..GOOD NIGHT Tim ------------------------------ From: kwatson@netcom.com (Kennita Watson) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 23:58:52 -0700 Subject: [#94-8-17] Ritual and Emotion bdschoon@MIT.EDU writes: > >(MOURNING) RITUALS > >Harry Hawk urges us to find a "rational mourning ritual" for dealing with a >loved one's deanimation. We as human beings have all experienced some form of >loss or emotional suffering. How is the extropian to deal with such >situations? I see there as being three basic classes of deanimation: 1) The DeAn had cryonics arrangements, and has been successfully cryopreserved 2) the DeAn had no cryonics arrangements 3) The DeAn had cryonics arrangements, but they were thwarted (burned, crushed, decomposed, massive head wound, etc.) For a successfully-preserved DeAn, the most appropriate ritual seems to be a Bon Voyage party, perhaps with a short segment where each participant makes some sort of commitment, private or public, as to what he/she will do in the near future to hasten the date when the DeAn can be reanimated, even by a little. The value in such a ritual would mainly be the sense of closure of the current life-chapter it would provide, and its emphasis on the future, which could help pull those who are upset about being without the DeAn in spite of themselves into a more positive frame of mind. Interestingly, I'm assuming that all those attending the party also have cryonics arrangements. Those who don't, and who truly expect never to see the DeAn again, may have more difficult feelings to contend with. In the case where the DeAn had no cryonics arrangements, the suddenness of the deanimation becomes a major factor. If the DeAn was aging, or suffering from a lingering disease, there will have been time to emotionally detach somewhat. If the deanimation was sudden, shock to the emotional systems of the mourners will be much greater. In either case, I think that cryonicists will have a slightly easier time of it than non-cryonicists, because at some level they will have detached (perhaps very subtly) from the DeAn long before, knowing that the fuzzy iterated Prisoner's Dilemma of their relationship would have a finite span. In any case, a somewhat more traditional ceremony seems in order, but in two parts: one concentrating on the DeAn and the relationship of the mourners to him/her, what value he/she brought to the world while here, and what he/she might have left behind that the mourners could carry forward; the other concentrating on the mourners themselves and what they have learned from the DeAn and from the entire experience, followed (as desired) by a celebration of the lives that continue on. The third case, that of a thwarted cryonicist would be (I think) the most devastating for fellow cryonicists. In this case, someone whom we hoped, or even expected, to have as friends for centuries or millenia to come is gone. The loss is much more likely to be sudden, happening near, or even after, the time of deanimation, leaving no time for inuring oneself to it. It seems an occasion for a series of rituals. The first would be a little like the Jewish shivveh (sp?) (or at least what I saw of it on B5 and discussed briefly with friends) -- a vigil, held until it's done, where those who knew the DeAn can talk about him/her, express (as before) appreciation of the value he/she brought to the world, express frustration (for example, over things that it's too late to say), anger, and sadness, and in general take advantage of the atmosphere of emotional support to be, well, emotional (for Circuits I and II). The second would be for the intellectual side of the people involved -- a shared meal and discussion/working session, where things like what went wrong, how it can be avoided or ameliorated in the future, what was learned and how that can be used, and other intellectual matters can be hashed over (for Circuit III). The third would be, again, a party: mainly a hedonic celebration of the lives of those remaining, an affirmation of the joys of life, and an expression of optimism for the future (for Circuits IV and V+). I suppose technology might allow us to short-circuit all these rituals, but I don't particularly see the value in that. Mourning may be somewhat inefficient, but it has served a purpose over the millenia, and until we give up endocrine systems for new hardware (and maybe even then, if we choose to emulate the originals), probably will continue to do so. I think that the main purpose of brain/mind technologies in this regard is to keep the mourning from congealing into chronic depression. The rituals I describe can also help in that. My conclusion? An Extropian can best deal with loss by feeling it, by getting emotional support if he/she needs it, by coming to terms with it, and by carrying its lessons into an unprecedented future. Is this a surprise to anyone? Kennita Kennita Watson | The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, kwatson@netcom.com| but of respect and joy in each other's life. Rarely do | members of the same family grow up under the same roof. | -- Richard Bach, _Illusions_ ------------------------------ From: szabo@netcom.com (Nick Szabo) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 00:13:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [#94-8-18] Information-theoretic death Tim's assertion that memory of physical skills lies outside the brain brings up a very important issue for cryonicists. Is storing the brain sufficient for avoiding information-theoretic death? Most cryonicists argue yes (even many that go for full-body for other reasons). Some don't mind so much if they forget typing, athletic skills, etc. as long as they retain their intellectual memories Emotional memories, which are a big part of one's "identity" and may be partially stored in the hormonal system outside the brain, are a major unresolved issue. In general, how much distortion (information loss, including loss of all redundancy for that piece of information) in which "subsystems" can we accept before we are "information theoretically dead"? Can we so easily define separate "subsystems" such as intellectual, physical, and emotional, or are these irrevocably intertwined? > Tim Can folks sign with their full name and e-mail address? The list server does not forward this information with messages. Thanx. Nick Szabo szabo@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: szabo@netcom.com (Nick Szabo) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 01:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [#94-8-19] Mental Bootstrapping Tim's post also reminded me of the technique of bootstrapping. In my article "Boundless Constellations" in the current _Extropy_, I outline a method for bootstrapping the use of native materials: mine comets for propellant, use propellant to transport more extraction equipment to the comets, etc. After a few cycles the cost of propellant for interplanetary transport comes down several orders of magnitude. This serves to effectively "self-replicate" 80-90% of the mass of current interplanetary missions (propellant and tanks). We kind of sneak up on self-replication, by tackling the first 90% of the mass (tank & propellant) and reaping the economic benefits of that, then tackling another few percent (structure, shielding, some industrial inputs), etc., until we have only a tiny fraction of the space economy that must be launched from Earth. What Tim reminded me of is the possibility of _mental_ bootstrapping. Take the most promising current and near-future brain tools: * Smart drugs (Hydergine, Deprynyl, Cognex, Ampakine, etc.) * Neural growth factors (for expanding brain size instead of merely replacing lost neurons) * Software tools of a wide variety, but especially software for designing smart drugs, simulating effects of brain expansion, etc. The main goal of the smart drugs and brain expansions can be to increase the faculties related to, you guessed it, designing better smart drugs and brain expansions. These raises a number of fascinating issues: * What are the largest barriers to this process -- do they kick in at IQ 200, 300, or where? * What kind of software tools would such geniuses (say, IQ 300) use? I suggest the following broad points: -- Since most current software is designed for 100-130 IQ, they would eschew most current tools and roll their own. -- Since they're designing their own tools, ease of implementation is as important as ease of use. I suggest a genius would eschew GUIs and instead expand hard-to-learn, easy-to-use, high-level languages like Perl, Mathematica, and SQL. These contain the most important "reusable parts" built in to the language. Alternatively, a genius might use C (the most efficient language, short of assembly), and make use of the large number of libraries available. To this basic set the geniuses would add code for simulating complex organic molecular interactions, neural interactions, and the like. -- All these features would probably be rolled up into one language; since they are for personal use (and the use of other "Renaissance Geniuses"), integration wins over breaking up into well-defined functions for marketing/distribution purposes. * Will the bootstrapping process be faster taking place among a few people, or will the improvements have to spread to a large number of people before the next step is enabled? * If a small group, what social forms would emerge? I suggest that a few strongly networked geniuses would soon tire of regulatory red tape and set up a well-hidden offshore operation. They might fund themselves by acquiring patents, making biotech investments, and other work that requires a maximum of genius but a minimum of time. * Many technologies important in their own right (space colonization, nanotechnology, etc.) would lie out of the scope of mental bootstrapping, and be treated as secondary until the process is well along, or until it hits a difficult barrier. Note that even if they are secondary, some of the technologies might be easy enough for a few IQ-1000 geniuses to implement in their spare time. Final question: we might measure, it bytes, the entire starting information set needed to set up this bootstrapping process (smart drug designs, software, knowledge, etc.) What is the smallest set of information needed to enable or start this process? (In theoretical terms, this is the "Kolmogorov complexity" of mental bootstrapping, practically this also has a time limit, eg "process that increases IQ 10 points/year within 10 years"). How close are we to having that set today? Perhaps the information is already out there, all the basic capabilities are in place, but the simply haven't been gathered together in a way that would start off the bootstrapping process. Either way, how difficult will it be for us pre-geniuses to identify and acquire this minimal set of information? Nick Szabo szabo@netcom.com ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #214 *********************************