From: Michael M. Butler (mbutler@comp*lib.org)
Date: Sun Nov 23 1997 - 01:00:19 MST
OK, I'll formally mention (having elected myself as Devil's Advocate
here) that your plan does not include:
A.) Handling publicity (or secrecy)
B.) Handling physical security: extra-lab *and* intra
C.) An explicit guarantee of pulling the plug if needed
D.) A description of what would be grounds for pulling the plug
E.) A description of what mechanisms would be used to pull the plug.
This is all stuff that's standard for dealing with those microorganisms
you mentioned in a post to me.
If you don't consider uplift at least as risky as working with
bioweapons... _why_?
Twink wrote:
> In an effort to move forward to a concrete plan to uplift a nonhuman
> to sentience, I've made the following list.
>
> 0. Explicate Goal
> 0.1 explicate main goal
> 0.2 differentiate subgoals
> 1. Get data on extant types.
> 1.1 genetics
> 1.2 behavior
> 1.3 reproduction
> 1.4 development/life cycle
> 1.5 handling
> 2. Create Selection Criteria.
> 2.1 genetics
> 2.2 beahvior
> 2.3 reproduction
> 2.4 development/life cycle
> 2.5 handling
> 2.6 projected costs
> 3. Get/Create Modification Methods
> 3.1 genetic
> 3.2 hormonal
> 3.3 surgery
> 3.4 machine interface
> 4. Get/Create Tests
> 4.1 research and modify existing intelligence tests
> 4.2 get and modify tests from ethology studies in 1.2
> 4.3 develop new tests
> 5. Implement Modifications
> 6. Test Modifications
> 7. Iterate Steps 3 through 6 until 0 is met or funding runs out:)
>
> This is a preliminary and I offer it in hopes it will be improved.
> Obviously, the steps listed need to be explicated.
>
> Right now, though we've discussed many different steps
> above, the main focus has been on step 0. The main
> goal is "achieving sentience in a nonhuman species."
> (Any debate here?) One subgoal is "making the non-
> human species capable of language in the human
> sense -- though not necessarily human in at its details."
>
> We have discussed other steps, such as 2,3, and 4,
> though not in detail. I suggest we move the discussion
> along to step 1 and after. (Step 1 and 2 kind of feed
> back into each other. One might list out potential
> candidates -- as Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <warrl@blarg.net>
> did on 19971116 post, but this pressupposed some
> criteria. I tend to think that we should, for now, settle
> on Octopoda and use step 2 to decide on which
> species.)
>
> Note: I am proposing we actually do this, not discuss
> it in hopes that the tecnogenie will carry out our
> bidding. (Progress is what we make happen!) Is
> anyone truly interested in participating at this time
> in an actual uplift?
>
> Daniel Ust
-- (NOTE: Robotlike replies to the above address will fail; *noncommercial* communications are welcome; kindly substitute a hyphen for the asterisk in the above address. Sorry for any inconvenience.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:09 MST