8 ms·

Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004

38 points by rms 18y ago

geuis 18y ago
Thank you for posting this. We do need to work faster. In the day to day actions of waking, working, and sleeping until the next day we tend to lose sight of the longterm goal. At least I do. I am somewhat reassured my younger sister will live long enough, though I am not sure about my mom. I've had to accept my grandmother won't, as my grandad died in March. This is a good reminder to all of us who think there is an answer.
swombat 18y ago
So, I agree (strongly) with the statements and feelings in this discussion. I am a transhumanist in the sense that I do also have this burning hope that we will defeat this inhuman universe and repeal death. How can I get involved in helping with this? Where are the communities? How can I assist (other than donating money)? Any pointers would be much appreciated.
- redder4 18y ago
  > Any pointers The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://singinst.org http://singinst.org is Yudkowsky's organization. > How can I assist (other than donating money)? Donating is good. Here is some writing on 'activism.' http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/writings.htm#techsing http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/writings.htm#techs... There is also the OpenCog http://opencog.org http://opencog.org open-source project sponsored by SIAI. > Where are the communities? See these email lists: http://www.singinst.org/discussion/ http://www.singinst.org/discussion/
mad44 18y ago
Lately I have read a lot about the singularity, and I am very confused why people are for this concept. Extending life through brain simulation, nanomachines support, and personality uploads does not sound like you will be still "alive". Does that make me a vitalist? A luddite I am not. It is easy to debate for hours about the feasibility of singularity. I understand the accelerated returns and all, but I think that much of these stuff and very-near milestones stem very much from wishful thinking by proponents. "Rapture" within lifetime, immortality. I think these are still too far-fetched, and I cannot understand how proponents of singularity swear by this timeline with utmost faith. BTW, does cryonics work now?? --- Since Yehuda's body was not identified for three days after he died, there was no possible way he could have been cryonically suspended. Others may be luckier. If you've been putting off that talk with your loved ones, do it. Maybe they won't understand, but at least you won't spend forever wondering why you didn't even try.
- yters 18y ago
  Yeah, I similarly don't get the fascination with brain simulation. Say someone told me they had an exact simulation of by brain running, and I was convinced beyond a doubt they were right, would I be fine with dying at that point? No. To paraphrase Samuel Clemens: "I don't want to gain immortality through brain simulation. I want to gain immortality by not dying."
  - newsycaccount 18y ago
    Do you also get concerned that practically every atom in your body now will be replaced by others by next year?
    - hassy 18y ago
      would the atoms get concerned if they were conscious?
      - byrneseyeview 18y ago
        Why treat consciousness as a property of brains, rather than as a property that could be -- but doesn't necessarily have to be -- implemented with one?
  - gjm11 18y ago
    It was Allan Konigsberg, not Samuel Clemens.
    - yters 18y ago
      Yep, that's right. Bad on me for not sourcing my quote.
  - bd 18y ago
    And what if somebody was slowly replacing your real neurons with artificial ones? Start with one chip-neuron, finish with the whole artificial brain. In all steps of the process your "self" being preserved. Credit goes to Stanislaw Lem "Do you exist Mr Jones?"
greendestiny 18y ago
This doesn't do anything to dissuade me of the notion that the singularity movement is a religious movement. The comfort of hope in an afterlife and hope in scientific immortality seem quite similar. While research into singularity and anti-aging could be better funded, I'm not sure why we need to 'believe' in these things or make sure we join the correct denominations (transhumanist vs non-transhumanist). Besides, unless the universe is infinite we're just arguing about timeframes. I prefer not to think about death as annihilation because death doesn't mean that we never existed, we each have our unique portion of space-time.
- mixmax 18y ago
  The singularity won't happen: http://www.maximise.dk/blog/2008/11/why-singularity-may-never-arrive.html http://www.maximise.dk/blog/2008/11/why-singularity-may-neve...
  - Retric 18y ago
    There are limits to computation, but nothing prevents computers from achieving human or super human level intelligence. I suspect that 50 years from now we will have human level AI for a wide range of things. We have already passed that point for Chess and one by one other things will fall. What really prevents the singularity is the limits of the physical world. The speed of light is already a problem such that PC ram is never going to drop in latency without moving it closer to the CPU. I don't care how smart you are you can't build a 101% efficient engine etc.
    - listic 18y ago
      Are there any real signs of progress in computers that could lead to them achieving human level intelligence? Look, computer beat world champion in chess over 10 years ago, but is nowhere close to doing that in Go anytime soon: http://ru.ly/34 http://ru.ly/34
      - jcl 18y ago
        I wouldn't say "nowhere close", as the quality of computer go players has improved dramatically in the last year or so: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/08/1243244&from=rss http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/08/1243244&#3...
ajkirwin 18y ago
Am I one of the few people who looks forward to death? To know that there WILL be an end to things is something of a comfort to me. I'd like to live for a time, sure, but even five hundred years might be too long. I'd either get driven insane by the constant bow-shocks of ever advancing culture, or I'd lapse into some kind of boredom-induced stupor. I have my little slice of spacetime, to do with as I wish. I could live a great and noble life, or a horrific and cruel one. I could live another five decades, or if I wanted to, end it all tomorrow. No matter what I may do, or not do, in the end.. there are no regrets, no looking back. Just.. the steady decay of my body, the essential atoms of my makeup being reused by other organisms, processes, chemical reactions. And I like it that way.
- technoguyrob 18y ago
  I'd like to live for a time, sure, but even five hundred years might be too long. I'd either get driven insane by the constant bow-shocks of ever advancing culture, or I'd lapse into some kind of boredom-induced stupor. It's not wrong either for the rest of us to be curious.
  - time_management 18y ago
    I'm both curious about living for 1000+ years, since no human has ever lived so long before, and about what happens after death. Given the chance for a 1000-year lifespan, I'd readily take it knowing that I will die, Singularity or no, given the very long but finite lifespan of the universe, and taking the long lifespan would allow me to experience both. Although a "healthy fear" is certainly in order, I don't understand the reflexive hatred of death. I think it's more likely that consciousness is nonphysical and that there is some form of spiritual survival. Ian Stevenson's reincarnation research is pretty solid. (If I'm wrong, I'll never know.)
- jonmc12 18y ago
  Really? Or is that just a coping mechanism to deal with an inevitable reality? I wake up every morning an evolved version of myself - how could I ever become bored as a result of becoming ancient and wiser? I want a bigger slice of spacetime. If you were awarded 3 wishes, sure, you could wish for something nice, you could wish to have your wishes vanish.. and that is control. But the ultimate answer to the game is to wish for more wishes - it is the only rational answer that gives you any real control over this wonder. 'The steady decay...' is a disease. If you had a curable disease would you so effortlessly arrive at the same conclusion? Is this characteristic of being human stricken with, say, cholera, that we would lay in bed, slowly dying in pain, with 'no regrets'? No!! we are creatures of survival, of sustainability, of life. We will rise to our feet, or pick up the phone, and find the treatment, and live another day of beautiful human experience.
sharkfish 18y ago
But then most atheists also succumb to comforting lies, and make excuses for death even less defensible than the outright lies of religion. They flinch away, refuse to confront the horror of a hundred and fifty thousand sentient beings annihilated every day. I would like to think that I, as an atheist, don't have to rationalize the unknown and accept that we just don't have the answers to the "why" of death. I realize he is in pain, but I don't think I'm lying to myself about death just because I don't have some over-arching dogma to believe in.
- sharkfish 18y ago
  Modded down because I'm an atheist, or because I imply that religion is dogma? Just curious.
  - sharkfish 18y ago
    I was asking a sincere question. Why was THAT modded down?
nandemo 18y ago
Granted, it's painful to lose a dear one. But there are so many wrong things with this article, it's difficult to know where to start. Angry at the "way-things-are"? Does that even make sense? It feels like he's saying "everyone is dying, and what is the government doing?!" "When Michael Wilson heard the news, he said: 'We shall have to work faster.' " I mean, can one really say that seriously, outside of a poor SF story? So this is a rational, skeptical person, and not a cult member? Although I'm not religious, I think his religious relatives seem to have a much wiser attitude to life.
- gjm11 18y ago
  It makes sense to (at least) the extent that you have grounds for thinking that the-way-things-are can be changed, which Eliezer does. In any case, he's describing how he feels, and it's not obviously wrong to feel "angry enough to do X" just because X is impossible. What exactly is your objection? That EY et al think death can be more or less completely abolished, and that's obviously wrong, so they're probably being irrational? (If so: why is it obviously wrong?)
  - zupatol 18y ago
    "Angry at the way things are" is like saying things are not as they should be because someone fucked up. But who is responsible for how the world is? The creator? Having this kind of anger is like believing in God.
gruseom 18y ago
But then most atheists also succumb to comforting lies "Succumbing to comforting lies" is like being a tourist: only other people do it. On another note, the Singularity is an amazing social example of what Freud called the return of the repressed.
zupatol 18y ago
If people stop dying, won't other people have to stop getting born? I'm just reading something by Schopenhauer on death, and he thinks it doesn't make sense to fear it. Here is a better summary than I could write: http://darwiniana.com/2006/04/23/schopenhauer-on-death/ http://darwiniana.com/2006/04/23/schopenhauer-on-death/
- zupatol 18y ago
  I read that again and I'm not sure that summary helps a lot. I'll just write about what I've read turned into in my mind, where it merged with my own experience and other things I've read. Schopenhauer's main point is that death doesn't exist because time is not real. This is not very comforting unless you can imagine what it means that time is not real. I can't. He does point out that there is no rational reason to fear death. The fear of death is an instinct, like aggressivity for example, which you can repress and even overcome. It's useful in some situations, when it makes you go to the doctor because you're sick, and it's useless in other situations, like when you're terminally ill. People who know they will die can overcome the fear of death and learn to accept it. ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model ) So fear of death is not a reason for avoiding death. Is there a rational reason to consider death as something to avoid? Death is as natural as birth. The process of evolution even requires the cycle of birth and death. What bothers Eliezer Yudkovski is not death, it's the suffering caused by the loss of someone dear. Making people immortal however will never rid life of suffering.
  - gjm11 18y ago
    Of course there's a rational reason to avoid death (and hence, to consider death as something to avoid -- which, yes, is not at all the same thing as fearing it). Aren't there a whole lot of things you want to do? Well, if you die now then you won't get to do any of them. If you've achieved everything you want to in life, then perhaps you no longer have any reason to avoid death. Most people haven't. But, actually, I think you'd have reason even then to avoid death, if like most people you instinctively hate or fear it. It's rational to pursue things you like and avoid things you dislike, if anything's rational at all.
rw 18y ago
I'm glad this is posted again.
mattmaroon 18y ago
At the bottom update, he proposes that standard procedure should be to cryogenically freeze unknown corpses. I as a taxpayer do not want to shoulder this burden. As time goes on, the expense of keeping unknown corpses frozen continually increases as they pile up.
- Eliezer 18y ago
  The per capita expense of keeping a thousand frozen heads in a pool of liquid nitrogen is essentially negligible. You wouldn't notice it as a budget item. If it really bugs you, fund it yourself through private philanthropy. But out of all the things that government was ever proposed to do, this would be the most cost-effective in the history of time - even I, a libertarian, draw the line at not doing this. Cryonics is cheap, people are crazy.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    It depends how far away our ability to reanimate them is. I don't know how many thousands or tens of thousands of unidentified people (or ones otherwise taken care of by the state) die every year. In a stable population the per capita cost of keeping them all would keep increasing. Moreover, what would we do with them? Copy their consciousness into a computer some day? Who pays for that? And does it really soften the blow of losing a loved one? I don't think having a copy of my dead mother would make me feel any better about the real one having passed on. Would we grow them new bodies? What does that cost and who pays for that? Would they even want that? Do we have the right to make that decision for them? If we reanimate everyone who dies, how quickly can our country no longer sustain such a rapidly increasing population? All of this just seems like an illogical reaction to the death of a loved one. I don't mean that to be rude (I've had my own illogical reactions) but it's just not feasible, especially for a technology that we're not sure will ever amount to anything.
    - Eliezer 18y ago
      We're operating on different technological assumptions here. Cryonics reanimation takes nanotech and quite possibly machine superintelligence, both of which are self-replicating technologies. The software might be expensive, as 'twere, but that's a one-time cost. Regarding the thing with "copies", that's a complex issue and I can only refer you to the entire sequence on personal identity on Overcoming Bias: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/qm-and-identity.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/qm-and-identity.html
Hexstream 18y ago
Fight the moonlight, drama queen. Death is not the problem, ego is. His sense of entitlement is baffling. Why does he want to be some sort of immortal god if he's an atheist? I'm all for the progress of science toward a much, much longer life but demanding immortality right now... is quite over the top.
- ramchip 18y ago
  Fight the moonlight, drama queen. Falling is not the problem, ego is. His sense of entitlement is baffling. Why does he want to be some sort of flying god if he's a human? I'm all for the progress of science toward winged machines but demanding flight right now... is quite over the top. (Edit: I do understand how someone could be surprised by his sense of entitlement. I don't see, however, how it follows that we should not at least try just because the problems sounds really, really hard. Humans had never flown, but that doesn't mean humans will never fly. Same goes for many things, including death.)
  - nandemo 18y ago
    Your parody (?) doesn't work. For one, as far I as know there was never a group of "flightists" crying over the fate of non-flying humanity, blaming God or Mother Nature, talking about foolish non-flightists... There's a big difference. Avoiding death is not merely a hard technical problem. It's a moral and existential issue. If some people became immortal, imagine the whole lot of new ethical, existential problems we would have.
0xdefec8 18y ago
I'm surprised how easily people equate "duplication of the mind" with "immortality". I'm agnostic when it comes to god, and I'm agnostic about that piece of the singularity. Maybe someday we'll have enough knowledge of the mind and reality to know for sure that "the self" really is just a bunch of organic bits in the ol' noggin, but anyone claiming to know that answer right now is too presumptuous.

38 points by rms 18y ago

geuis 18y ago

Thank you for posting this. We do need to work faster. In the day to day actions of waking, working, and sleeping until the next day we tend to lose sight of the longterm goal. At least I do. I am somewhat reassured my younger sister will live long enough, though I am not sure about my mom. I've had to accept my grandmother won't, as my grandad died in March. This is a good reminder to all of us who think there is an answer.

swombat 18y ago

So, I agree (strongly) with the statements and feelings in this discussion. I am a transhumanist in the sense that I do also have this burning hope that we will defeat this inhuman universe and repeal death. How can I get involved in helping with this? Where are the communities? How can I assist (other than donating money)? Any pointers would be much appreciated.

redder4 18y ago
> Any pointers The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://singinst.org http://singinst.org is Yudkowsky's organization. > How can I assist (other than donating money)? Donating is good. Here is some writing on 'activism.' http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/writings.htm#techsing http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/writings.htm#techs... There is also the OpenCog http://opencog.org http://opencog.org open-source project sponsored by SIAI. > Where are the communities? See these email lists: http://www.singinst.org/discussion/ http://www.singinst.org/discussion/

mad44 18y ago

Lately I have read a lot about the singularity, and I am very confused why people are for this concept. Extending life through brain simulation, nanomachines support, and personality uploads does not sound like you will be still "alive". Does that make me a vitalist? A luddite I am not. It is easy to debate for hours about the feasibility of singularity. I understand the accelerated returns and all, but I think that much of these stuff and very-near milestones stem very much from wishful thinking by proponents. "Rapture" within lifetime, immortality. I think these are still too far-fetched, and I cannot understand how proponents of singularity swear by this timeline with utmost faith. BTW, does cryonics work now?? --- Since Yehuda's body was not identified for three days after he died, there was no possible way he could have been cryonically suspended. Others may be luckier. If you've been putting off that talk with your loved ones, do it. Maybe they won't understand, but at least you won't spend forever wondering why you didn't even try.

yters 18y ago
Yeah, I similarly don't get the fascination with brain simulation. Say someone told me they had an exact simulation of by brain running, and I was convinced beyond a doubt they were right, would I be fine with dying at that point? No. To paraphrase Samuel Clemens: "I don't want to gain immortality through brain simulation. I want to gain immortality by not dying."
- newsycaccount 18y ago
  Do you also get concerned that practically every atom in your body now will be replaced by others by next year?
  - hassy 18y ago
    would the atoms get concerned if they were conscious?
    - byrneseyeview 18y ago
      Why treat consciousness as a property of brains, rather than as a property that could be -- but doesn't necessarily have to be -- implemented with one?
- gjm11 18y ago
  It was Allan Konigsberg, not Samuel Clemens.
  - yters 18y ago
    Yep, that's right. Bad on me for not sourcing my quote.
- bd 18y ago
  And what if somebody was slowly replacing your real neurons with artificial ones? Start with one chip-neuron, finish with the whole artificial brain. In all steps of the process your "self" being preserved. Credit goes to Stanislaw Lem "Do you exist Mr Jones?"

greendestiny 18y ago

This doesn't do anything to dissuade me of the notion that the singularity movement is a religious movement. The comfort of hope in an afterlife and hope in scientific immortality seem quite similar. While research into singularity and anti-aging could be better funded, I'm not sure why we need to 'believe' in these things or make sure we join the correct denominations (transhumanist vs non-transhumanist). Besides, unless the universe is infinite we're just arguing about timeframes. I prefer not to think about death as annihilation because death doesn't mean that we never existed, we each have our unique portion of space-time.

mixmax 18y ago
The singularity won't happen: http://www.maximise.dk/blog/2008/11/why-singularity-may-never-arrive.html http://www.maximise.dk/blog/2008/11/why-singularity-may-neve...
- Retric 18y ago
  There are limits to computation, but nothing prevents computers from achieving human or super human level intelligence. I suspect that 50 years from now we will have human level AI for a wide range of things. We have already passed that point for Chess and one by one other things will fall. What really prevents the singularity is the limits of the physical world. The speed of light is already a problem such that PC ram is never going to drop in latency without moving it closer to the CPU. I don't care how smart you are you can't build a 101% efficient engine etc.
  - listic 18y ago
    Are there any real signs of progress in computers that could lead to them achieving human level intelligence? Look, computer beat world champion in chess over 10 years ago, but is nowhere close to doing that in Go anytime soon: http://ru.ly/34 http://ru.ly/34
    - jcl 18y ago
      I wouldn't say "nowhere close", as the quality of computer go players has improved dramatically in the last year or so: http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/08/1243244&from=rss http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/08/1243244&#3...

ajkirwin 18y ago

Am I one of the few people who looks forward to death? To know that there WILL be an end to things is something of a comfort to me. I'd like to live for a time, sure, but even five hundred years might be too long. I'd either get driven insane by the constant bow-shocks of ever advancing culture, or I'd lapse into some kind of boredom-induced stupor. I have my little slice of spacetime, to do with as I wish. I could live a great and noble life, or a horrific and cruel one. I could live another five decades, or if I wanted to, end it all tomorrow. No matter what I may do, or not do, in the end.. there are no regrets, no looking back. Just.. the steady decay of my body, the essential atoms of my makeup being reused by other organisms, processes, chemical reactions. And I like it that way.

technoguyrob 18y ago
I'd like to live for a time, sure, but even five hundred years might be too long. I'd either get driven insane by the constant bow-shocks of ever advancing culture, or I'd lapse into some kind of boredom-induced stupor. It's not wrong either for the rest of us to be curious.
- time_management 18y ago
  I'm both curious about living for 1000+ years, since no human has ever lived so long before, and about what happens after death. Given the chance for a 1000-year lifespan, I'd readily take it knowing that I will die, Singularity or no, given the very long but finite lifespan of the universe, and taking the long lifespan would allow me to experience both. Although a "healthy fear" is certainly in order, I don't understand the reflexive hatred of death. I think it's more likely that consciousness is nonphysical and that there is some form of spiritual survival. Ian Stevenson's reincarnation research is pretty solid. (If I'm wrong, I'll never know.)
jonmc12 18y ago
Really? Or is that just a coping mechanism to deal with an inevitable reality? I wake up every morning an evolved version of myself - how could I ever become bored as a result of becoming ancient and wiser? I want a bigger slice of spacetime. If you were awarded 3 wishes, sure, you could wish for something nice, you could wish to have your wishes vanish.. and that is control. But the ultimate answer to the game is to wish for more wishes - it is the only rational answer that gives you any real control over this wonder. 'The steady decay...' is a disease. If you had a curable disease would you so effortlessly arrive at the same conclusion? Is this characteristic of being human stricken with, say, cholera, that we would lay in bed, slowly dying in pain, with 'no regrets'? No!! we are creatures of survival, of sustainability, of life. We will rise to our feet, or pick up the phone, and find the treatment, and live another day of beautiful human experience.

sharkfish 18y ago

But then most atheists also succumb to comforting lies, and make excuses for death even less defensible than the outright lies of religion. They flinch away, refuse to confront the horror of a hundred and fifty thousand sentient beings annihilated every day. I would like to think that I, as an atheist, don't have to rationalize the unknown and accept that we just don't have the answers to the "why" of death. I realize he is in pain, but I don't think I'm lying to myself about death just because I don't have some over-arching dogma to believe in.

sharkfish 18y ago
Modded down because I'm an atheist, or because I imply that religion is dogma? Just curious.
- sharkfish 18y ago
  I was asking a sincere question. Why was THAT modded down?

nandemo 18y ago

Granted, it's painful to lose a dear one. But there are so many wrong things with this article, it's difficult to know where to start. Angry at the "way-things-are"? Does that even make sense? It feels like he's saying "everyone is dying, and what is the government doing?!" "When Michael Wilson heard the news, he said: 'We shall have to work faster.' " I mean, can one really say that seriously, outside of a poor SF story? So this is a rational, skeptical person, and not a cult member? Although I'm not religious, I think his religious relatives seem to have a much wiser attitude to life.

gjm11 18y ago
It makes sense to (at least) the extent that you have grounds for thinking that the-way-things-are can be changed, which Eliezer does. In any case, he's describing how he feels, and it's not obviously wrong to feel "angry enough to do X" just because X is impossible. What exactly is your objection? That EY et al think death can be more or less completely abolished, and that's obviously wrong, so they're probably being irrational? (If so: why is it obviously wrong?)
- zupatol 18y ago
  "Angry at the way things are" is like saying things are not as they should be because someone fucked up. But who is responsible for how the world is? The creator? Having this kind of anger is like believing in God.

gruseom 18y ago

But then most atheists also succumb to comforting lies "Succumbing to comforting lies" is like being a tourist: only other people do it. On another note, the Singularity is an amazing social example of what Freud called the return of the repressed.

zupatol 18y ago

If people stop dying, won't other people have to stop getting born? I'm just reading something by Schopenhauer on death, and he thinks it doesn't make sense to fear it. Here is a better summary than I could write: http://darwiniana.com/2006/04/23/schopenhauer-on-death/ http://darwiniana.com/2006/04/23/schopenhauer-on-death/

zupatol 18y ago
I read that again and I'm not sure that summary helps a lot. I'll just write about what I've read turned into in my mind, where it merged with my own experience and other things I've read. Schopenhauer's main point is that death doesn't exist because time is not real. This is not very comforting unless you can imagine what it means that time is not real. I can't. He does point out that there is no rational reason to fear death. The fear of death is an instinct, like aggressivity for example, which you can repress and even overcome. It's useful in some situations, when it makes you go to the doctor because you're sick, and it's useless in other situations, like when you're terminally ill. People who know they will die can overcome the fear of death and learn to accept it. ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model ) So fear of death is not a reason for avoiding death. Is there a rational reason to consider death as something to avoid? Death is as natural as birth. The process of evolution even requires the cycle of birth and death. What bothers Eliezer Yudkovski is not death, it's the suffering caused by the loss of someone dear. Making people immortal however will never rid life of suffering.
- gjm11 18y ago
  Of course there's a rational reason to avoid death (and hence, to consider death as something to avoid -- which, yes, is not at all the same thing as fearing it). Aren't there a whole lot of things you want to do? Well, if you die now then you won't get to do any of them. If you've achieved everything you want to in life, then perhaps you no longer have any reason to avoid death. Most people haven't. But, actually, I think you'd have reason even then to avoid death, if like most people you instinctively hate or fear it. It's rational to pursue things you like and avoid things you dislike, if anything's rational at all.

rw 18y ago

I'm glad this is posted again.

mattmaroon 18y ago

At the bottom update, he proposes that standard procedure should be to cryogenically freeze unknown corpses. I as a taxpayer do not want to shoulder this burden. As time goes on, the expense of keeping unknown corpses frozen continually increases as they pile up.

Eliezer 18y ago
The per capita expense of keeping a thousand frozen heads in a pool of liquid nitrogen is essentially negligible. You wouldn't notice it as a budget item. If it really bugs you, fund it yourself through private philanthropy. But out of all the things that government was ever proposed to do, this would be the most cost-effective in the history of time - even I, a libertarian, draw the line at not doing this. Cryonics is cheap, people are crazy.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  It depends how far away our ability to reanimate them is. I don't know how many thousands or tens of thousands of unidentified people (or ones otherwise taken care of by the state) die every year. In a stable population the per capita cost of keeping them all would keep increasing. Moreover, what would we do with them? Copy their consciousness into a computer some day? Who pays for that? And does it really soften the blow of losing a loved one? I don't think having a copy of my dead mother would make me feel any better about the real one having passed on. Would we grow them new bodies? What does that cost and who pays for that? Would they even want that? Do we have the right to make that decision for them? If we reanimate everyone who dies, how quickly can our country no longer sustain such a rapidly increasing population? All of this just seems like an illogical reaction to the death of a loved one. I don't mean that to be rude (I've had my own illogical reactions) but it's just not feasible, especially for a technology that we're not sure will ever amount to anything.
  - Eliezer 18y ago
    We're operating on different technological assumptions here. Cryonics reanimation takes nanotech and quite possibly machine superintelligence, both of which are self-replicating technologies. The software might be expensive, as 'twere, but that's a one-time cost. Regarding the thing with "copies", that's a complex issue and I can only refer you to the entire sequence on personal identity on Overcoming Bias: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/qm-and-identity.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/qm-and-identity.html

Hexstream 18y ago

Fight the moonlight, drama queen. Death is not the problem, ego is. His sense of entitlement is baffling. Why does he want to be some sort of immortal god if he's an atheist? I'm all for the progress of science toward a much, much longer life but demanding immortality right now... is quite over the top.

ramchip 18y ago
Fight the moonlight, drama queen. Falling is not the problem, ego is. His sense of entitlement is baffling. Why does he want to be some sort of flying god if he's a human? I'm all for the progress of science toward winged machines but demanding flight right now... is quite over the top. (Edit: I do understand how someone could be surprised by his sense of entitlement. I don't see, however, how it follows that we should not at least try just because the problems sounds really, really hard. Humans had never flown, but that doesn't mean humans will never fly. Same goes for many things, including death.)
- nandemo 18y ago
  Your parody (?) doesn't work. For one, as far I as know there was never a group of "flightists" crying over the fate of non-flying humanity, blaming God or Mother Nature, talking about foolish non-flightists... There's a big difference. Avoiding death is not merely a hard technical problem. It's a moral and existential issue. If some people became immortal, imagine the whole lot of new ethical, existential problems we would have.

0xdefec8 18y ago

I'm surprised how easily people equate "duplication of the mind" with "immortality". I'm agnostic when it comes to god, and I'm agnostic about that piece of the singularity. Maybe someday we'll have enough knowledge of the mind and reality to know for sure that "the self" really is just a bunch of organic bits in the ol' noggin, but anyone claiming to know that answer right now is too presumptuous.