From: DarkVegeta26@aol.com
Date: Sat Jan 26 2002 - 00:24:08 MST
<<Unlike you, I have made it my business to seek out almost every possible
type of experience. Call it a combination of curiosity and adventurousness
and recklessness.>>
My ideal self, my "optima persona" if you will, is something like a mix
between Ben and Eliezer. I love Ben's thirst for experience and obvious
impulse to transcend limited thought...but sadly I don't personally approve
of the institution of marriage or the ultimate slavery to selfish genes;
child-rearing. And whenever I hear people over the age of 25 saying things
like "almost every possible type of experience", I am always highly
skeptical, as there are a slew of experiences only available at the high
school level, when real responsibilities don't exist. =D Also, oftentimes
people don't push themselves far enough into the realm of new experience as
they claim or envision themselves doing. Because they are usually
"embarassing" or are simply not mentioned, for example; changing subcultures,
making yourself look really *really* weird once in a while (hundreds of
people staring blankly at you can be enlightening), swimming on LSD, wearing
clothes outside of the tiny spectrum of what is expected, using EP-Prime for
a change instead of the usual English language, etc etc etc. All of us
subconsciously adhere to a strict code of behavior dictated by merciless and
selfish genes and memes, and to even break out of it just a little bit
requires *truely letting go*. Slaves to genes could be called
anthropocentrists. Slaves to memes could be called mainstreamists. My main
fear of Eliezer-brand conservatism is adoption of the mainstream as a default
memepool outside of the Singularitarian memepool. However, his asceticism
and mysterious powers of proto-autosentience intrigue and inspire me greatly,
no matter how conservative he is. I'm guessing the best approach is the
"Warrior-Monk" path rather than just one or the other, which is who these two
folks seem to represent.
<>
Ack, is that really possible? How can an workaholic manage to raise children
in an optimum manner? Unfortunately I'm not that much of a workaholic, so I
have to consciously push myself towards single asceticism.
<<(Hey, if you ever get the urge to try
out the psychedelic thing, I'll trip with ya, dude! Now that would be a
hell of a trip ;->)>>
LoL, somebody get Eliezer some LSD quick! The future of the universe could
depend upon it!! Wouldn't it be great if he got a sudden inspiration and was
able to code a Seed AI immediately! Feedback cycles are what everything is
made up of, and I remember thinking through some *major* logic loops while
tripping, and getting some not-valueless-at-all revelations...instead of
*witnessing* the glorious interconnectedness of the universe on your first
trip, do it the Eliezer way, *save* and *Singularity-ize* the universe on
your first trip! Yah yah! Just a few thoughts...
<<So perhaps having a more
experimental and adventurous approach to life's various experiences is
better preparation>>
Let's not pretend that any information we absorb into our miniscule brains
through our miniscule information bandwidths will prepare us for the
Singularity event itself. Having a more novel/diverse viewpoint could help
us *up to* the Singularity, however. Good for memetics if nothing else.
<< I *am* very devoted to it, but I'm also committed to
experiencing all that *this* pre-Singularity world has to offer, or at least
a damn good sample>>
Hey, would you rather live as an amoeba and "live life to the fullest", or
spend a little bit less time doing so in exchange for turning into a God
sooner and experiencing sensations on the order of a googleplex times more
fullfilling and intense than those you currently experience? I consider
99.9% of all "mainstream, anthro, mundane activity" to be a huge
lie/hoax/trick to slow down our evolution! By slowing us down on Singularity
work, of course. Eliminate TV, magazines, Hollywood, concerts, sports, and
newspapers from your life! They are devils!! You know you can do something
more novel, something *no one has ever done before*, if you really want to
open your mind a bit and maintain some practical Singularity-based value.
and now Eli-related comments;
<<>
> Err.. Eli, are you sure you realize just how much of human existence is
> DEFINED by sex and passion and all these other things Ben mentioned?
Yep, I'd say no less than 35%.>>
Or even less. Or we could redefine "human existence" for ourselves. Just
because there are mountains of books about sex and passion and they are
intertwined in our culture doesn't mean they define our existence. Selfish
memes and genes.
<<This doesn't mean I think that sex is worthless or morally wrong. I
think sex is a great thing, for other people. >>
Having sex just a few times was more than enough for me, but I suppose I
would engage in it for novelty/endorphin release/possible inspiration
purposes. With the right person of course, the right person being someone of
currently unmeetable standards, hehe. Congratulations Eliezer, you've made a
important step ahead of us all. I'm happy you aren't gonna go run off and
fall in love and screw us all over.
<<Helping a
friend isn't likely to trigger a mental chain of events that ends by
sucking up all my Saturday nights until the end of time.>>
Meta-choices like whether to engage in sex/relationships can save us hundreds
of hours of productivity and deep thought, unless the mate has *incredible*
value, ie, nearly perfect in every way and constantly with theories to offer
in our mutual area of study...I doubt "Singularitarian Love" has occured yet,
but I think it will one day. It would have to be a highly rational,
objective-oriented (progress), low-maintenance, and unanthropocentric.
<<If you try and impose
the requirement that love serve as the most effective means to some other
end (i.e., the Singularity), the necessary conditions soon become so
exotic as to be entirely impossible.>>
Not entirely.
<<stemming from the fact that love is something you put time
*into*, not something that you get time *out* of.>>
In Singularitarian-love you would mutually get more enlightenment and
development out of the relationship than the traditional amount for the time
invested. Exponential-return love! But love is almost inherently
anthropocentric.
To Gordon;
<<In the past year and a half that I've been in love I have probably
thought and rethought my theory of love 10 times or more. >>
Did rethinking your theory of love help inspire you to rethink your theories
in other areas of you life as well? Then it would be of true value.
<<Maybe in
about five years I'll have something approaching a stable theory>>
Human love nearly always be described as "being a slave to the
bioevolutionary force which happens to be millions of times slower and
restrictive than the potential of technological or memetic evolution, which
is our real salvation, but we don't care, because we like that opiate-like
feeling when we're around _____ girl who could be much better than she is,
who could actually inspire me, if she was a
countersphexist/Singularitarian/AI researcher/extremely novel/etc.".
Sorry if I offended anybody. Hah. Just kidding. I think we should offend
ourselves as much as we can.
Throwing around Singularity-focused ranting so you won't touch that TV dial,
Michael Anissimov
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT