Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#71

Post by SubiculumCode » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 5:35 AM UTC

philipkglass wrote: post #20

The book’s premise is that in about a century, it will be possible to scan human brains at "fine enough spatial and chemical resolution," and to combine that with good-enough models of signal-processing functions of brain cells, "to create a cell-by-cell dynamically executable model of the full brain in artificial hardware, a model whose signal input-output behavior is usefully close to that of the original brain." L…

I attended a primer lecture on tbe immune system. Holy hell. At least 200 different types of T cells. At least 200 other types of immune cells. Then there are all their interactions, signaling, locating, memory functions. I honestly dont know if one can ever get a handle on the complexity.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#72

Post by FreakLegion » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 5:40 AM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #67

mmusson wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are missing the main thrust of the book. He is not trying to convince you that em-based AI is the likely future. He chose the less examined possibility as a starting point, but the main part of the book is to enumerate the predictions that flow from that premise. This is interesting and worth examining even if the premise is wrong. Sometimes examining a familiar topic in unfamiliar terrain yields new insi…

"False premise" is a logical fallacy, not a virtue.

A false premise isn't a logical fallacy. Arguments can be logically valid yet wrong, and vice versa.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#73

Post by rabidrat » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 6:15 AM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #62

sjg007 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically we can't survive space radiation... Even going to Mars.

We can though. Using today's technology we can easily go to Mars and live in underground habitats and be subject to only a moderate increase in health risks from radiation absorbed during the trip. Said health risks would be less than what a decent number of current Earth-bound professions face, and those people don't even get to go to Mars.

> easily

What we are currently doing on Mars remotely is absolutely incredible and at the upper limit of our present capabilities. Don't think for a second that having "today's technology" does not still require a herculean effort, if we even have a 5% chance of pulling it off before funding (which would be in the trillions) is cut.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#74

Post by imtringued » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 6:28 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #6

Living in VR, and the implications thereof, have been written about in SF for decades. The earliest work is "Simulacron 3", from 1964. It's been done to death in anime. "Sword Art Online" is probably the best known stuck-in-VR anime, but "Log Horizon" deals with the philosophical aspects in more depth. Hanson is not breaking new ground; he's recycling SF as economics. Read Hanson's list of "wild ideas".[1] "By 2100,…

>(And the rest will be keeping the server farms going?) They will probably figure a way out to speed up the simulation faster than 100% and use it to develop weapons to kill each other until only the humans in the simulation are the only survivors.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#75

Post by Houshalter » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 6:38 AM UTC

davidgerard wrote: post #44

arthurjj wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's stated elsewhere he thinks the chances of this scenario are only ~30% IIRC

Based on what, though? The hazard of dealing with Bayesian epistemologists is that they will confidently state percentages that they literally made up.

Based on his own personal belief. Probabilities are a very useful way to precisely state the certainty of beliefs.

It means that if you offered him betting odds that it would happen, of less than 1:2, he would take it. And he would bet against it at odds higher than 1:2. Of course betting on the far future is impractical, because money might not be worth anything if it does happen, but in principle that's how these numbers can be interpreted.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#76

Post by Houshalter » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 6:51 AM UTC

reflexive wrote: post #32

> You are beautiful, intelligent, and charismatic, as are your friends, co-workers, lovers. Aren't all of these qualities measured relative to our neighbors? I.e., each of us is a genius compared to our ape forebearers, but if everyone around you is beautiful, intelligent, and charming, then no one is. > You feel no hunger, no cold, no heat, no pain. Again, isn't discomfort relative to what one is prepared for? Under…

Those qualities are measured relative to us, present humans. He's saying the Ems will be much smarter, beautiful, and charismatic, compared to humans in 2016.

>wouldn't the slightest dip or peak in subjective well-being feel like a life-altering crisis?

Well that's much more debatable. I think to some degree suffering and pleasure are on an objective scale. Maybe it has to do with how much dopamine or pain nerves are triggered, probably it's much more complicated than that. Certainly I would give a lot to live in a world where there was no risk of getting some illness or accident that could cause intense pain or suffering, yet otherwise everything else was exactly the same. Wouldn't you?

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#77

Post by Houshalter » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 7:07 AM UTC

Paul_S wrote: post #25

The Age of Em can be read in two ways. One is to treat it like an RPG setting book. An imaginative world with highly detailed descriptions, complete with cool potential plots for your campaign. The second way to read it is as a book trying to predict the future in much the same way as The Flintstones is recording history. Everything is strange yet it's all mimicking the current world with superficial differences. The…

Well I agree that the specific predictions are weird. Hanson spends a whole chapter at the begging trying to justify them. The main point is that it doesn't matter if all the details are right. Humans are better at seeing a specific image of what a possible future might look at, than trying to sample from the entire probability distribution of possible futures.

It's less like trying to forecast the weather in a backyard. And more like painting a picture of that backyard in 20 years. When all the trees and plants grown up, and imagining what they will look like. Imagining what the needs of that older family will be that they have aged. Maybe their kids will grow up and the playground equipment will be gone. Or they will have a ramp instead of steps to accommodate a wheelchair.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#78

Post by tashi » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 7:12 AM UTC

FreakLegion wrote: post #72

paulddraper wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"False premise" is a logical fallacy, not a virtue.

A false premise isn't a logical fallacy. Arguments can be logically valid yet wrong, and vice versa.

Right, and taking a premise you believe to be false and mapping out its consequences has a long and noble history; e.g., non-Euclidean geometry.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#79

Post by Houshalter » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 7:20 AM UTC

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #48

Let all of these people 'transcend' their minds into computers, I will go the other way, and go immanently into my body. "Behind thy thoughts and feelings, my brother, there is a mighty lord, an unknown sage—it is called Self; it dwelleth in thy body, it is thy body." -- Nietzsche http://www.philosophy-index.com/nietzsche/thus-spake-zarathu... Or Deleuze summarizing him: As Nietzsche would say, we stand amazed before…

Your preference is irrelevant. Many people will choose to be uploaded, and those people will inherit the Earth. As the uploads will be able to think, work, and multiply much faster than normal humans (among other possible advantages.)

Hanson imagines that fleshy humans will be left behind by the future, perhaps continuing to exist by investing in the em economy and living off the interest, but otherwise not participating in the system at all.

I don't know why you think an upload's experience would be worse than a fleshy human's experience. With such advanced technology in the far future, virtual reality and simulations will probably be indistinguishable from the real world. They will feel rain drops and see sunrises. But also they will probably be able to experience so much more. As virtual worlds do not have all the limitations the physical one does. They won't have to age or experience pain or discomfort, sickness, etc. They can walk on distant planets or swim in deep oceans, or fly through the air effortlessly, and without mechanical aid.

Re: Is This Economist Too Far Ahead of His Time?

#80

Post by gohrt » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 7:25 AM UTC

davidgerard wrote: post #44

arthurjj wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's stated elsewhere he thinks the chances of this scenario are only ~30% IIRC

Based on what, though? The hazard of dealing with Bayesian epistemologists is that they will confidently state percentages that they literally made up.

Is that different from any other epistemologists?