Curtains lifting, worlds simulating, heaven descending

[Brian Atkins]

Gordon Mohr wrote:
> 
> Brian Atkins writes:
> > Gordon Mohr wrote:
> > >
> > > I totally agree that various extropian/transhumanist/Singularitarian
> > > beliefs strongly resemble religious beliefs. I expect them to become
> > > even more "religious" in form as they gain wider currency.
> >
> > Then I'd have to say you're stereotyping too. These are not really
> > beliefs at this point,
> 
> They are "beliefs" if someone believes them. You don't think they
> in the slightest "resemble" religious beliefs?

Ok you want to get pedantic, I am talking about this particular kind of
belief: "a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without
          proof "

As for resemblance yes I have to ack that. The whole point of my message
though was to point out that a resemblance is not enough, unless you
just plain want to be lazy.

> 
> That you would find my innocuous statement above something worth
> contention suggests to me that you have the both the devotion and
> defensiveness of a "true believer". :)

Har har. Cheap shot Gordon :) I obviously admit I have an interest
here, but it not in the defensive sense, it is simply an effort to
prevent dis/misinformation from being distributed here that might
turn off people from taking these very important subjects seriously.

> 
> >                         they are an area of scientific study. People
> > are starting to study the increase in complexity and technology
> > in a scientific way. People like Ray Kurzweil are writing books with
> > lots of data in them about the Singularity.
> 
> Absolutely no argument with you there. You're "preaching to the choir",
> brother. Our religion is the bestest, most well-grounded in science, ever!

I know our current age and media encourage everyone to practice extreme
cynicism etc., but try real hard for me, ok?

> 
> > This whole area is on
> > the verge of going from something abstract to something very concrete
> > over the course of this decade. It most certainly is not going into
> > a more lightweight direction.
> 
> But at the same time, these ideas will break through into the popular
> consciousness, and most people don't think like the geeks who are
> writing the scriptures. With popularization comes simplifications --
> and, I expect inevitably, increasing "religiousness".

Perhaps. I just recently got around to start reading Tipler's ole
Physics of Immortality, and so far it is quite heavy on the religiousness.
Quite annoying. On the other hand it has a large section at the end full
of the real science (which appears to be out of date now...). I don't
know what you're really complaining about here other than the whole idea
of "popular science" books. Who cares? I don't. Let's get back to the
main subject.

> 
> People will port their ancient archetypes and superstitions to the new
> theology; emotionalism and group-identity appeals will rise to stand
> alongside the cold scientific rationalism professed by today's apostles.
> 
> Your beliefs could become ascendent -- but in a sloppy, common form you
> find distasteful.

Quite possibly. It is not in our control how that particular part of the
future plays out. SIAI is deliberately not set up to be a memetic
organization... we really don't intend to wait around long enough for
the vast majority of people out there even come to terms with this. Our
conern is only that enough knowledgeable people "get it" early enough
to get us (or someone) to the end goal.

> 
> > > I also approach all these ideas with the same self-serving, quasi-logical
> > > reasoning that motivated the original "Pascal's Wager". I can't say
> > > what's true for sure, but given the potential payoff, what the heck? (I
> > > am aware this is not a rigorous position. :)
> >
> > You can never be sure, but you can assign probabilities. Right now the
> > probabilities are pointing more towards a Singularity-esque run-up of
> > technology. Given that things are pointing there, humanity at this
> > point seems blissfully ignorant, which is scary since it is leaving
> > things like real AI research very underfunded while blowing vast sums
> > of money and brainpower on issues that will have no real effect on
> > the last little bit of purely human history left.
> 
> And to return to the simulation issue: as the apparent probability of a
> inevitable Singularity rises, so too does the chance that it has already
> happened, and our current power to influence its emergence is just an
> illusion.

If a Singularity happens in your reality you'll know it, believe :-) me
Want a bumper sticker that says "Upload me ASAP" ?
-- 
Brian Atkins
Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/