From extropians-request@extropy.org Fri Oct 14 21:03:26 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 VAA06103 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 1994 21:03:22 -0700 Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA03881; Fri, 14 Oct 94 21:03:18 PDT Received: (from exi@localhost) by news.panix.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id AAA11145; Sat, 15 Oct 1994 00:02:12 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 00:02:12 -0400 Message-Id: <199410150402.AAA11145@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-10-209 - #94-10-220 X-Extropian-Date: October 15, 374 P.N.O. [00:01:08 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org X-Mailer: MailWeir 1.0 Status: RO Extropians Digest Sat, 15 Oct 94 Volume 94 : Issue 287 Today's Topics: Bionomics Institute [1 msgs] Challenge to uploaders [4 msgs] Challenge to uploaders/Mind as Book [2 msgs] fwd: LONGEVITY list [1 msgs] PHILANTHROPY [1 msgs] Ritalin and ADD [2 msgs] Vinge talk [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: 26059 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 2:07:11 GMT Subject: [#94-10-209] Challenge to uploaders "L. Todd Masco" wrote: > >In article <199410111847.AA07804@panix.com>, wrote: >>Imagine having a chat with an upload, who tells you about the interesting >>virtual world she lives in, discusses her loves and hates and aspirations, >>and earnestly claims to be conscious. Do you believe her? > This reminds me of a bit (possibly from a PKDick story) about devices that followed people around and nagged them about unpaid debts. A man is about to destroy one of them when it explains that it's conscious due to a manufacturing error. When it begs for mercy, the man lets it go--and then a friend of his explains that the claim of consciousness is just something that's built into the devices so that people will be less likely to destroy them. Of course, that *could* have been the one device that was really conscious..... Nancy Lebovitz ------------------------------ From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 2:23:36 GMT Subject: [#94-10-210] Ritalin and ADD Just a thought about IQ and ADD--ADD is supposed to correlate with high IQ, but I suspect that IQ tests select for ADD--they offer varied little contextless problems which might be easier for someone with ADD to focus on than more useful larger projects would be. Nancy Lebovitz ------------------------------ From: sw@tiac.net (Steve Witham) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 00:03:45 -0400 Subject: [#94-10-211] Vinge talk Fred Hapgood writes- >Apologies for my tardy replies. Netcom ate my connection for a >few days. Fred, did you get our replies? [About how a Victorian could have described our technology as autonomous and out of control, and how Langdon Winner did write such a description.] >The lesson is that it is always possible to describe >technology in ways that make it sound as though it had a mind of >its own -- especially when people try to imagine the machines of >the future -- but that those machines never look that way to >people actually using them at the time. At least not to people >with an engineer's perspective. Winner doesn't count. But doesn't it make sense to look at people as if they had minds of their own? To look at them as something other than tools? With something other than an engineer's perspective? Because Vinge is not talking about fast tools, he's talking about machines become people. Or at least as different from tools as people are. Once we get to that point, all the little bits of out-of-controllness we take for granted now may look totally reckless and insane in retrospect, a line of safe steps straight to hell. Sure, people can exaggerate dangers, but they can also learn to take absurd situations for granted and put risks out of their minds. I say the engineer's perspective also doesn't count. The engineer is co-opted by the system, both economically and in terms of his professional self-image. So how do we look at the situation realistically? --Steve - - - - - - - - - - So you sayin' we oughta take next exit off info-way & *think* with our *own* li'l brains? --a toadette in Zippy ------------------------------ From: sw@tiac.net (Steve Witham) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 00:03:36 -0400 Subject: [#94-10-212] Challenge to uploaders/Mind as Book Me, Steve: >>Uploads will either be noticably different right away or conscious. >>... The idea doesn't make sense to me because the consciousness I'm >>interested in isn't so wispy or peripheral that it could fall off the >>truck without being missed. But the philosophical issue will never be >>settled, of course. Robin: >Steve's belief is reasonable, but so is the contrary belief that a >mind could be simulated without evoking an internal "what its like to >be a X" life. *We* won't *know* until only one view becomes reasonable. Hmm. As long as it's clear that I *don't* see your alternative as reasonable, given my meaning of consciousness. To me consciousness is something easy to check for, if we except things like trickery or obvious brain damage. I think there are much more interesting definitional issues than empirical ones. Harey Newstrom says- >But to continue with the book analogy, what if we record all information about >me in a gigantic book with billions of pages. Is this me? I don't think so. Sorry, I didn't mean a mind is a book, I meant that the relation of a mind to a brain is like the relation of a story to a book. They're meanings-of. A book was written, holds still, and is meant to be read. A person grew, lives, and means to live. So the kind of meaning enacted a brain is different from the kind of meaning encoded in a book. Also, with books, there's a clear separation between content-form (like ink put there on purpose) and form-form (like blemishes in the paper). The story was *put* onto the paper. With a person, every blemish contributes part of the story perforce. Something about self-reference and sensitivity to initial conditions being part of the game. So with people it's a little harder to decide which ink the silly-putty should lift off the page. But just like with books, people experience the story and the physical copy together and don't spend too much time thinking about one as the meaning-of the other. Harvey, I especially wasn't saying that an upload of you is necessarily you. That's a whole different set of issues. I was just saying it would be conscious. --Steve - - - - - - - - - - So you sayin' we oughta take next exit off info-way & *think* with our *own* li'l brains? --a toadette in Zippy ------------------------------ From: John K Clark Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 22:55:45 -0700 Subject: [#94-10-213] Challenge to Uploaders -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Like me Hans Moravec has little patience for those who claim that something can act conscious bur not really REALLY be conscious. About a year ago he responded to somebody on comp.ai.philosophy who criticized Turing and said Searle ( of Chinese Room fame) would someday be as great as Einstein. John K Clark johnkc@well.sf.ca.us ************************************************************************** From: hpm@frc.ri.cmu.edu (Hans Moravec) Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 17:12:10 GMT Subject: Re: Why want AI to fail? Pursuit of Turing's ideas will lead to computers exhibiting ever more complicated behaviors, ultimately even passing the Turing test. However, if Searle can be likened to Einstein, then these seemingly intelligent computers will still lack consciousness. Alas, the proposed extension of the analogy is woefully imperfect. Since Searle's argument makes no sense on paper, and since the thesis that conscious-acting robots lack consciousness is utterly untestable, almost no one will ever appreciate Searle's brilliant contributions. Robots will move around in the world, acting and talking as if they consciously understood what they were doing, and only the pitiful remnants of the Church of Searleology will know the truth by faith, passed in a credo from acolytes to dwindling numbers of initiates, that what the robots have is False Consciousness, not the One True Consciousness. The rest of us fools will interact with the robots on the strength only of what we can observe, and Seale and his theories will, unfairly, never gain the recognition that was Einstein's. Searle will have been right, but in time everyone will have forgotten him, and never suspect. Quel domage! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCzAgUBLpzGpH03wfSpid95AQGb5wTsCkinbv7yiD7ErPkXxq0DZSF9WI0xEfNl PBeox+HiI+euKT2301GnGJ59oL5IEoNGRsmS2hN9aZiO6o49G0MRcIKYn25/Hp2x sw9vx3XPvAosbgX7VSfCBmiMbx71LL/JCYxfijaDs+z4iwSV3YWK3mpUi39Fhs/S q1b7Q02Y3QkRVP3l5tLX8rNqnm8UmicH3TsO4r4NMeB2++m519M= =jwET -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ From: mcpherso@lumina.ucsd.edu (John McPherson) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 00:31:17 -0700 Subject: [#94-10-214] Bionomics Institute I don't know yet if anyone has posted about the Bionomics Institute, but I sent off a query and received the following response: ==================================================================== >From: SLGibson@aol.com Thanks for your inquiry. While bionomics.org is up and running, we're not quite there yet with a WWW home page, etc. Meanwhile, I've appended our FAQ, and would encourage you to surf on over to bionomics.org in a few weeks. Also, there was a response that Michael wrote to a critique of his _Liberty_ article a couple of years ago that addressed Hayek and the Austrian school. It will be put on bionomics.org, or we could snail mail/fax it to you. [...] Regards, Steve Gibson Executive Director The Bionomics Institute 415/454-1000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * "The Economy: It's Alive!" Thank you for your interest in The Bionomics Institute. The following is some background material on the Institute and its activities, as well as information on how you can learn more, or get involved. OUR MISSION The mission of The Bionomics Institute is to replace the conventional mechanical model of the economy by disseminating bionomic thinking. We teach that the economy is a living ecosystem, not a static machine. By emphasizing the economy's properties of life and growth, we sharply distinguish our viewpoint from the "economy as engine" philosophy that still holds sway. We seek to discredit, and ultimately destroy, the mechanistic zero-sum mythology that forces public policy to focus on redistribution instead of growth. The shift to a bionomic outlook will lead to positive-sum public policies that nurture free markets, individual choice, sustainable growth, and limitless prosperity. WHAT WE DO The Institute has a variety of ongoing activities, from regular columns in Forbes ASAP and Upside magazines, to an annual conference, audio tapes, speeches and executive retreats. Special programs are highlighted by the production of a one-hour Bionomics film, targeted for the Discovery/Learning Channel audience and scheduled for completion this Fall. Translations of Bionomics into Chinese and Spanish are also underway. Finally, we have a special mailing/outreach program for perhaps the least "bionomic" of organizations, the U.S. Congress. AN INVITATION The second annual Bionomics conference will be held October 21-22, 1994 in San Francisco. True to the spirit of bionomics, it will be a highly interdisciplinary affair, bringing together the most innovative thinkers in economics, high-technology and biology. Contact the Institute for more information. TO LEARN MORE o Read , "Bionomics: Economy as Ecosystem" (Henry Holt, 1990). If not in your local bookstore or library, it's available from the Institute for $15. o Put your name on our lists. We have regular electronic and snail mailings. To receive either, or both, send the appropriate address(es). o Become a member. The Bionomics Institute is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation. It receives no government funding and all contributions are tax-deductible. The overwhelming majority of our funding comes from interested individuals, like yourself, so please join us. The Bionomics Institute (415) 454-1000 voice 2173 E. Francisco Blvd. Suite C (415) 454-7460 fax San Rafael, CA 94901 -- John McPherson ------------------------------ From: thomas.knox@index.com Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 03:00:26 Subject: [#94-10-215] PHILANTHROPY Since everyone in this base seems to be working on "grant money", I am wondering if anyone can help me find out who to ask for a private grant to explore computer technology and art. If anyone has a list of philanthropists, please post it here, and also to my email address (otherwise, I might miss it): thomas.knox@ptonline.com Thanks...now if I could only figure out what an extropian is! (does anybody have a one sentence definition that's less than 30 works???) :) ------------------------------ From: "Jon 'Iain' Boone" Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 12:39:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [#94-10-216] Challenge to uploaders/Mind as Book > >Steve Witham writes: > >>I think I disagree with Robin's statement: > >> > >>Uploads will either be noticably different right away or conscious. > >>... The idea doesn't make sense to me because the consciousness I'm > >>interested in isn't so wispy or peripheral that it could fall off the > >>truck without being missed. But the philosophical issue will never be > >>settled, of course. I'd like to posit the idea that consciousness is an operational phenomenon -- if all of an entity's observable characteristcs match (within some degree of fuzziness) those of something which we assume is conscious, then that entity *is* conscious. However, uploads *might* be noticably different right away *and* conscious -- it may be the case that humans have souls and uploads will not. Of course, this muddle-headed thinking contains no definition of what a soul would be, nor how it (or the lack thereof) would be detectable. Also, it is not clear what, if any, purpose having a soul would make. I'd just like to help dis-engage the idea of a soul from the idea of consciousness. Just because old-time philosophers *assumed* that the soul was responsible for consciousness doesn't mean either of the following is true: * non-human entities will never be conscious (in particular, no computer program would ever be conscious, no uploads, etc.) * humans do not have souls Remember, though Occam's razor suggests that we ditch things which do nothing to further explanation and simply complicate matters, it doesn't mean that they don't exist! /***********************************************************/ /* Jon 'Iain' Boone Production Engineer boone@prep.net */ /* (412) 268-7874 PREPnet iain+@cmu.edu */ /***********************************************************/ ------------------------------ From: hanson@hss.caltech.edu (Robin Hanson) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 11:02:42 -0700 Subject: [#94-10-217] Challenge to uploaders Ed Regis originally wrote: >... the idea is that some fab computer of the future will run a >simulation of your total brain/mental structure, thereby bringing you >to consciousness in and among the computer chips (or their >successors). My problem is that simulations normally don't produce >the physical attributes of the things simulated: a simulation of a >hurricane, for example, isn't wet inside the computer; there's no rain >and/or wind in there. So how do you know that your simulated mental >structures will give rise to consciousness, or anything like it? I responded: >We don't know. ... It may be quite some after uploads overwhelmingly >dominate the economy before we really know if they have the same sort >of internal life we now do. Steve Witham responded: >Uploads will either be noticably different right away or conscious. I responded: >Steve's belief is reasonable, but so is the contrary belief that a >mind could be simulated without evoking an internal "what its like to >be a X" life. *We* won't *know* until only one view becomes reasonable. Marvin Minsky responded: >We'll never "know", in the sense that someone can always claim that another >person has no subjective experience, and is just lying about it -- even if >all internal brain measurements are identical. But only the most stubborn >philosophers and theists would consider such unoperational positions to be >"reasonable". It seemed to me that Ed is willing to consider a non-operational view. Is Ed an unreasonable stubborn philosopher? What do you think, Ed? :-) You have to be careful what operations count for "operational". It could be that an upload acts so much like an ordinary person that you could interact with it closely for ten years, as you would with an ordinary person, and never know it wasn't an upload. But there might be some careful physical measurement, perhaps requiring delicate instruments, by which you could systematically tell that this entity didn't have an internal conscious life. The inference from this measurement might be based on some new physical theory which we would have some other evidence for. I agree that given the former evidence, I would guess the latter situation to be unlikely. But I still think it is a logical, even reasonable, yet unlikely, possibility to consider. Robin Hanson ------------------------------ From: "Phil G. Fraering" Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 17:47:07 -0500 Subject: [#94-10-218] Ritalin and ADD Just wondering, Karl, but do I know you? Phil ------------------------------ From: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 15:51:22 -0700 Subject: [#94-10-219] fwd: LONGEVITY list > LONGEVITY on LISTSERV@vm3090.ege.edu.tr > > This list discusses ways to extend human life. Medical and > Health-Related issues will be discussed. Among the proposed topics > are: Importance of diet, vitamin supplements, new discoveries in > science and more. > > To subscribe send the following command in the body of e-mail to > listserv@vm3090.ege.edu.tr > > SUB LONGEVITY firstname lastname ------------------------------ From: fcp@nuance.com (Craig Presson) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 08:05:59 -0500 Subject: [#94-10-220] Challenge to uploaders At 11:02 AM 10/13/94 -0700, Robin Hanson wrote: [...] >You have to be careful what operations count for "operational". It >could be that an upload acts so much like an ordinary person that you >could interact with it closely for ten years, as you would with an >ordinary person, and never know it wasn't an upload.[...] Another sort of Turing Test. One thing to reflect on about the TT is, what sort of criteria are we using, consciously or not? I would think that what we look for in a conscious entity are properties like: 1) Speaks in terms of a recognizable world-model which includes knowledge of its own position therein (self-awareness); 2) Maintains awareness of past conversations and shows that it models the characteristics of other entities (other-awareness - empathy) 3) Shows that it has goals and desires (self-interest). It would be interesting to vary this one -- you might imagine an entity is otherwise human-like but does not seek to preserve itself, or which seems to have no goals, or none but curiosity about everything, which brings me to another way we think: 4) Shows perspective -- that it cares more about some things than others. This would be easy to be wrong about, you could project your perspective by choosing what topics to bring up. Some of this has no doubt been written up in the AI literature or hashed out on comp.ai.philosophy, but I OD'd on that after the third month of Chinese Room Torture. \\ fcp@nuance.com (Craig Presson) CPresson@aol.com\ -- WWW: http://www.nuance.com/~fcp/ -----------------\ -- President & Principal, T4 Computer Security ------> -- P.O. Box 18271, Huntsville, AL 35804 -------------/ // (205) 880-7692 Voice, -7691 FAX -----------------/ ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #287 ********************************* From extropians-request@extropy.org Fri Oct 14 21:04:43 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 VAA06168 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 1994 21:04:42 -0700 Received: from news.panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA03902; Fri, 14 Oct 94 21:04:39 PDT Received: (from exi@localhost) by news.panix.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id AAA11244; Sat, 15 Oct 1994 00:03:40 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 00:03:40 -0400 Message-Id: <199410150403.AAA11244@news.panix.com> To: Extropians@extropy.org From: Extropians@extropy.org Subject: Extropians Digest #94-10-189 - #94-10-196 X-Extropian-Date: October 15, 374 P.N.O. [00:01:08 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org X-Mailer: MailWeir 1.0 Status: RO Extropians Digest Sat, 15 Oct 94 Volume 94 : Issue 287 Today's Topics: Challenge to Uploaders [2 msgs] Challenge to uploaders/Mind as Book [1 msgs] Forward: OTA Report on Information Security and Privacy releas ...[1 msgs] FYI -- NEW: Longevity e-mail list [1 msgs] Meta: Looking for Intro Info list [1 msgs] Meta: Old Mail [1 msgs] note [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: 25919 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: machado@newton.apple.com (Romana Machado) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 17:37:48 -0800 Subject: [#94-10-189] FYI -- NEW: Longevity e-mail list Former list denizen Lefty just sent me this: LONGEVITY on LISTSERV@vm3090.ege.edu.tr This list discusses ways to extend human life. Medical and Health-Related issues will be discussed. Among the proposed topics are: Importance of diet, vitamin supplements, new discoveries in science and more. To subscribe send the following command in the body of e-mail to listserv@vm3090.ege.edu.tr SUB LONGEVITY firstname lastname ............................................................................ Romana Machado romana@apple.com http://www.mps.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/hpp?romanaHQ.html ............................................................................ Underneath the concrete - the dream is still alive - A hundred million lifetimes - of love that never dies - -David Byrne ------------------------------ From: sw@tiac.net (Steve Witham) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 20:45:59 -0400 Subject: [#94-10-190] note >I'm not getting the digest. Is this happening for a good reason? >Also, i wrote asking if there was a local (boston-area) extropians >list, and the message bounced for being 'too short'. What's >that mean? Fred, try sending this message to extropians-request@extropy.org . Also, the address to get on the Boston-area list is exi-bos-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu . --Steve - - - - - - - - - - So you sayin' we oughta take next exit off info-way & *think* with our *own* li'l brains? --a toadette in Zippy ------------------------------ From: davisd@nimitz.ee.washington.edu Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 19:26:26 -0700 Subject: [#94-10-191] Meta: Looking for Intro Info list Once upon a time, I recieved a post telling me about the different lists associated with Extropy, where to send requests to be added, etc. Could someone post that info again? Given the list volume anyway, it probably wouldn't hurt to post this info once a month or so. Buy Buy -- Dan Davis ------------------------------ From: "Harry S. Hawk" Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 23:17:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [#94-10-192] Meta: Old Mail Several users have indicated they received old mail from the list. This was a fault of panix, as the following indicates.. Hopefully this will not be repeated.. > ah - extropy is also handled by sendmail on news rather than panix. Alexis > unwedged a large stuck mqueue there yesterday. > > -Liz /hawk -- Harry S. Hawk habs@panix.com Product Marketing Manager PowerMail, Inc. Producers of MailWeir(tm) & PowerServ(tm) ------------------------------ From: "Harry S. Hawk" Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 23:43:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [#94-10-193] Forward: OTA Report on Information Security and Privacy released (fwd) > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- September 23, 1994 *********************************************************** INFORMATION SECURITY AND PRIVACY IN NETWORK ENVIRONMENTS *********************************************************** [The Office of Technology Assessment report "Information Security and Privacy in Network Environments" is now available. The report was released on September 23, 1994. Ordering information and details aboutelectronic access are at the end of this message.] As electronic transactions and records become central to everything from commerce and tax records to health care, new concerns arise for the security and privacy of networked information. These concerns, if not properly resolved, threaten to limit networking's full potential in terms of participation and usefulness, says the congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in a report released today. Some 20 to 30 million people worldwide can exchange messages over the Internet. Every day U.S. banks transfer about $1 trillion among themselves, and New York markets trade an average of $2 trillion in securities. Nearly all of these transactions pass over information networks. The report "Information Security and Privacy in Network Environments" focuses on safeguarding unclassified information in networks, not on the security or survivability of networks themselves, or on the reliability of network services to ensure information access. Appropriate safeguards must account for--and anticipate-- technical, institutional, and social changes that increasingly shift responsibility for safeguarding information to the end users, says OTA. The laws currently governing commercial transactions, data privacy, and intellectual property were largely developed for a time when telegraphs, typewriters, and mimeographs were the commonly used office technologies and business was conducted with paper documents sent by mail. Technologies and business practices have dramatically changed, but the law has been slower to adapt, says OTA. Information safeguards, especially those based on cryptography, are achieving new prominence. OTA emphasizes that decisions about cryptography policy will affect the everyday lives of most Americans because cryptography will help ensure the confidentiality and integrity of health records and tax returns, speed the way to electronic commerce, and manage copyrighted material in electronic form. Congress has a vital role in formulating national cryptography policy, says OTA, and more generally in safeguarding electronic information and commercial transactions and protecting personal privacy in a networked society. A field of applied mathematics/computer science, cryptography is the technique of concealing the contents of a message by a code or a cipher. The message is unintelligible without special knowledge of some secret (closely held) information, the key that "unlocks" the encrypted text and reveals the original text. Key management is fundamental to security. It includes generation of the encryption key or keys, as well as their storage, distribution, cataloging, and eventual destruction. The federal government still has the most expertise in cryptography, says OTA. As a developer, user, and regulator of safeguard technologies, the federal government faces a fundamental tension between two important policy objectives: fostering the development and widespread use of cost- effective safeguards; and--through use of federal standards and export controls--controlling the proliferation of commercial safeguard technologies that can impair U.S. signals-intelligence and law-enforcement capabilities. The concern is reflected in the ongoing debates over key- escrow encryption and the government's Escrowed Encryption Standard (EES). The Clinton Administration announced the "escrowed-encryption" initiative, often called the "Clipper chip," in 1993. This type of encryption is intended to allow easy decryption by law enforcement when the equivalent of a wiretap has been authorized. The Department of Commerce issued the EES, developed by the National Security Agency (NSA), as a federal information processing standard for encrypting unclassified information in February 1994. The initiative in general and the EES in particular have seen intense public criticism and concern, OTA reports. The controversy and unpopularity stem in large part from privacy concerns and the fact that government-designated "escrow agents" will hold the users' cryptographic keys. Congress has asked the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a major study, expected to be available in 1996, which would support a broad review of cryptography. OTA presents several options for congressional consideration in the course of such a review. Because the timing of the NRC review is out of phase with the government's implementation of key-escrow encryption, one option would be to place a hold on further deployment of key-escrow encryption, pending a congressional policy review. An important outcome of a broad review of national cryptography policy, says OTA, would be the development of more open processes to determine how cryptography will be deployed throughout society, including the development of infrastructures to support electronic commerce and network use of copyrighted materials. More openness would build trust and confidence in government operations and leadership and allow for public consensus-building. OTA examines and offers policy options for congressional consideration in three areas: 1) cryptography policy, including federal information processing standards and export controls; 2) guidance on safeguarding unclassified information in federal agencies; and 3) legal issues and information security, including electronic commerce, privacy, and intellectual property. Requesters for the report are the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance. OTA is a nonpartisan analytical agency that serves the U.S. Congress. Its purpose is to aid Congress with the complex and often highly technical issues that increasingly affect our society. *************************** * CONGRESSIONAL COMMENT * *************************** Senator John Glenn (D-OH) Chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs: "In the new electronic age, we are relying more and more on information technology to streamline government, educate our children, make health care more accessible and affordable, and make our businesses more productive and competitive. This rush to embrace a new age of technology must not, however, obscure our ongoing responsibility to protect important information and maintain the personal privacy of citizens. "Because we need policies and practices to match the reality of this new age, I joined with Senator Roth in asking the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to study security and privacy issues in the network environment. I am very happy to say that OTA's report provides an excellent summary of these issues. More importantly, OTA spells out clear steps that Congress and the Executive Branch should consider if we are to develop policies and practices equal to the task of providing security and privacy protections in an increasingly networked world. "The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which I chair has already rung warning bells in this area. Our oversight of agency operations has uncovered threats to security and privacy as diverse as foreigners hacking into Department of Defense computers and IRS employees browsing through computerized taxpayer records. We must recognize that new technologies, particularly the development of computer networks, are leapfrogging security and privacy controls designed for a simpler time. Policies and practices for managing paper file cabinets simply are no match for the instantaneous world-wide flow of data through computer networks. "Addressing the needs of this new world demands that we find fair balancing points among often competing imperatives for personal privacy, law enforcement, national security, governmental efficiency, and economic competitiveness. OTA's very insightful report highlights the need for the development of new security and privacy controls, which should be done openly, with thorough debate and public accountability. Therefore, in the next Congress, this Committee will continue its oversight of agency operations and will pursue legislation to ensure that government agencies handle data from citizens and businesses responsibly, and that government employees entrusted with maintaining security are held accountable for breaches or misuse of their responsibilities. "I commend the Office of Technology Assessment for its timely and very insightful contribution to the development of policies and practices that can match the realities of the emerging electronic information age." Senator William V. Roth, Jr. (R-DE), Ranking Republican, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs: "Since 1988, computer network security breaches have grown dramatically, increasing 50% per year on the Internet --today's information highway. The ability of the government to protect Americans' most private information is at stake. For example, the Internal Revenue Service is among those agencies who rely increasingly on computer networks for such things as filing tax returns. Anyone who pays federal taxes has to wonder who might be browsing through their personal financial data. "We need to recognize the potential danger and act accordingly. Last year, I asked the Office of Technology Assessment to look at such problems and recommend changes. Its report highlights how today's government institutions are poorly structured to deal with information security. Moreover, the report underscores the fact that much more work must be done. I intend to pursue hearings on the report and amendments to the Computer Security Act." *********************************************************** HOW TO OBTAIN THIS REPORT *********************************************************** ORDERING INFORMATION: For copies of the 252-page report "Information Security and Privacy in Network Environments" for congressional use, please call (202) 224-9241. Copies for noncongressional use are available from the Superintendent of Documents for $16.00 each. To order, call (202) 512-0132 (GPO's main bookstore) or (202) 512-1800 and indicate stock number 052-003-01387-8. Or you can send your check or your VISA or MasterCard number and expiration date to Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7974 , [FAX (202) 512-2250]. Federal Express service is available for an additional $8.50 per order. For free 8-page summaries, please call (202) 224-8996 or e-mail pubsrequest@ota.gov. ELECTRONIC ACCESS: The full report is available electronically. To download via ftp from OTA, use the following procedures: ftp to otabbs.ota.gov (152.63.20.13) Login as anonymous. Password is your e-mail address. The files are located in /pub/information.security and the file names and sizes are: 01README.TXT (3K) 02ORDER.INFO.TXT (4K) FOREWORD.TXT (3K) ADVISORY.PANEL.TXT (3K) STAFF.TXT (1K) TOC.TXT (2K) CH1.TXT (93K) CH2.TXT (169) CH3.TXT (172K) CH4.TXT (299K) APPC.TXT (36K) APPD.TXT (3K) APPE.TXT (4K) Appendix A--Congressional Letters of Request and Appendix B--Computer Security Act and Related Documents--are not available electronically. *********************************************************** Martha Dexter Director, Information Management Office of Technology Assessment mdexter@ota.gov (202) 228-6233 ------------------------------ From: sw@tiac.net (Steve Witham) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 00:25:31 -0400 Subject: [#94-10-194] Challenge to uploaders/Mind as Book Ed Regis asks- >...for example, isn't wet >inside the computer; there's no rain and/or wind in there. So how do you >know that your simulated mental structures will give rise to consciousness, >or anything like it? Here's a metaphor: a mind is to a brain like a story is to a book. So, how do you know you can print a book on metal foil instead of paper and still have it be a book? What if you just show the words on a computer screen? Won't it just be a simulation of a book? No, it's still a real book because the important thing is the story. The story is not made of paper and ink. I guess we won't know till we try, but we think it'll work (when done right) because we think consciousness is an information-process phenomenon. I agree with Nancy that we're not sure how detailed a simulation is needed. One assumption says that neurons do some reasonable amount of information processing, and spend the rest of their complexity just being cells and staying alive. Between there and saying that everything they do down to the quantum level is important amounts to many orders of magnitude of complexity. I think I disagree with Robin's statement: >It may be >quite some after uploads overwhelmingly dominate the economy before we >really know if they have the same sort of internal life we now do. Uploads will either be noticably different right away or conscious. I just don't see copying a person exactly except for their consciousness. That would be like reproducing all the words in a book in the right order, and it's easy to read and understand but... "I don't know, somehow it's just not a *story* anymore." The idea doesn't make sense to me because the consciousness I'm interested in isn't so wispy or peripheral that it could fall off the truck without being missed. But the philosophical issue will never be settled, of course. --Steve - - - - - - - - - - So you sayin' we oughta take next exit off info-way & *think* with our *own* li'l brains? --a toadette in Zippy ------------------------------ From: cactus@bibliob.slip.netcom.com (L. Todd Masco) Date: 12 Oct 1994 01:09:40 -0400 Subject: [#94-10-195] Challenge to uploaders In article <199410111847.AA07804@panix.com>, wrote: >Imagine having a chat with an upload, who tells you about the interesting >virtual world she lives in, discusses her loves and hates and aspirations, >and earnestly claims to be conscious. Do you believe her? This reminds me... Does anybody have a copy of Hans Moravec's letter to Penrose that painted a similar picture visa vis AIs claiming they were intelligent? It was very funny, and I'd love to read it again, but I don't know what happened to my copy. -- L. Todd Masco | Ingredients: red, blue, and green quarks, six varieties of cactus@bb.com | gluons, electrons. Some settling may occur in shipping. ------------------------------ From: John K Clark Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 23:06:48 -0700 Subject: [#94-10-196] Challenge to Uploaders -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- EdRegis@aol.com on Mon, 10 Oct 94 21:24:51 EDT Wrote: >My problem is that simulations normally don't produce the >physical attributes of the things simulated: a simulation of a >hurricane, for example, isn't wet inside the >computer; there's no rain and/or wind in there. So how do you >know that your simulated mental structures will give >rise to consciousness, or anything like it? A simulated hurricane is certainly not identical to a real storm but to say it has absolutely no reality can lead to problems. Suppose you say that for a hurricane to be real it must have some immaterial essence of wind, a sort of "storming" soul, thus a simulated hurricane doesn't really blow because it just changes the pattern in a computer memory. The trouble is using the same reasoning you could say a real hurricane doesn't really blow because it just moves molecules of air around ; but really a storm can't even do that, it just obeys the laws of physics. If we continue with this we soon reach a point where nothing is real but elementary particles and the laws of physics, an obvious absurdity. I think a simulated hurricane is real at one level but care must be taken not to confuse levels. A simulated storm won't blow your computer away but it will move a simulated object. A real hurricane won't blow away the laws of physics but it will blow your house down. On a very speculative note, perhaps our entire universe is a simulation, the strangeness in Quantum Mechanics could be the result of flaws or lack of resolution in some vast cellular automation that we only notice if we look too closely. The more abstract something is the more accurate the simulation can be. A phonograph plays real music not simulated music. A computer performs real calculations not simulated calculations and when computers are big enough they will have real minds not simulated minds. A simulated concrete object is not the same as a real object but a "simulated" mind is identical to a real mind. I can't prove that consciousness would be preserved in a computer, the only consciousness I can prove exists is my own and that proof is available only to me. I think we just have to assume that when something, like other people, act conscious they are conscious. John K Clark johnkc@well.sf.ca.us -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCzAgUBLpt3mn03wfSpid95AQE5dwTvecRBkvDZ5fSK0wY6UgdcdUU7PQBeJUIg qcbIOMZn4fnu9YDO9dTij3LgeTNuBIs0bsFLWB28BgiwU5rYYb7rbzQk0sYRG3NZ 7Zz2JUBoyGu0cyhRmzNbL/ZsbHw9L1LBxCkGzAgXwgqJuwJKEs+kQb215cVW9WxZ WY6W++45RcNYHW8lHnSCApYwPPZx8L7eTLM2Iq7SLqS4yYCIdFU= =n5a1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V94 #287 *********************************