From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Mon Dec 21 1998 - 12:32:22 MST
Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> Suppose somebody actually
> manages to come up with a convincing experimental proof for a
> non-material soul (I would really like to see the methods and
> equipment section of that paper! :-)
Well, let's say that tomorrow physics discovers a set of non-computable
interactions called weirdodynamics, which can perform useful
information-processing, and have the interesting property that any
weirdodynamic interaction continues to interact forever. If a neuron
can be demonstrated to use weirdodynamic interactions, and
weirdoscanners used to find and retrieve a dead person's visual memories
and display them onscreen, then I think any scientist would have to
admit that there was a soul. Dunno about "non-material"; I've never
heard a good explanation of what "non-material" could possibly mean.
> This is important to remember for us transhumanists, since we put so
> much faith in some technologies that might actually never be done. If
> we stop being openminded about being wrong, even about our most
> cherished beliefs, we will become just like any other religion, cult
> or ideology.
I've seen the word "extropian" used in science fiction on three
occasions: "Slant" by Greg Bear, "Voice of the Whirlwind" by Walter John
Williams, and "Wang's Carpets" by Greg Egan. In the last two cases, the
"Extropians" are a cult. In the first book, the "Extropians" are
mentioned as justification by a member of a cult.
I have great difficulty visualizing, say, Anders Sandberg or Max More or
Mitchell Porter as members of a cult, but I still agree with the SF in
question. Once Extropianism goes mainstream, there won't be real
Extropians any more; just Singularitarians and AIers and IAers and
nanotechnologists... and one cult group, composed of all the clueless
people, continuing to call themselves "Extropians".
> BTW; the baby analog is spurious. It just shows that intelligence is
> possible, just as biology shows that physical law allows nanotech. It
> does not say we can necessarily build it.
The baby analog does show we can build intelligence, by doing the same
thing as DNA (unless routine divine intervention is involved), but says
nothing about whether we can create intelligence using only transistors,
or whether neurons exploit weirdodynamic effects.
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://pobox.com/~sentience/AI_design.temp.html
http://pobox.com/~sentience/sing_analysis.html
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you
everything I think I know.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:04 MST