Live data from Hacker News

Wild Ideas

hanson.gmu.edu

41–50 of 166 posts

Re: Wild Ideas

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an even crazier version: we develop a quantum computer the size of Jupiter with seemingly infinite computational capacity, and "scan" and simulate the earth. Similar to how a sufficiently advanced AI application today could probably take an overview picture of a pool table at any point in a game, and deduce the past shots that had to be taken in order for it to result in it's current state, you might be able t…

That sounds enticing, but I think you could never rewind the state of the Earth without considering the variables external to it. If you couldn't also simulate anything that could alter the course of events, such as exposure to the Sun, I think you'd end up accumulating enough lossy transitions that the simulation would be rendered (ha) worthless in a deterministic sense. If we consider that only simulating the atoms…

I once followed this line of reasoning.

"So we expand the computer to simulate everything. Hell, if we were to correctly determine the state of the universe at the big bang and simulate every atom since then we could answer everything about the past, have a perfect image of the present (intelligence dream!), predict the future... We could simply write an algorithm to know where or if intelligent life exists outside of Earth..."

Then, after some consideration I realized that the smallest possible computer capable of simulating every particle in real time... was probably reality itself.

Re: Wild Ideas

#42
post #20

Soul Extraction - Assuming that there is a technological singularity at some point in the future, and assuming that time travel is possible[1], but that we've seen no evidence of it because it must be mostly observational in nature in order to prevent disruptions that would create time paradoxes, humanity adopts the practice of extracting the brain/nervous systems (and then replacing w/ equivalent matter) of every hu…

Extracting all info out of the brains would be impractical. A lot of the things humans do we do because we are humans. Our emotions only make sense because they are mechanisms of survival and passing our genes. They would be quite impractical in a singularity (although, some other emotions, specific to the digital world, may be employed). So in a sense, I can only see one force in a post-singularity utopia, driving p…

What if the "info" is in the heart... And for those who downvoted, you need to read more about the functions of the heart besides blood pumping. The heart has neurons too and an electromagnetic field far stronger than the brain's.

Update: some links

The little brain on the heart: http://www.ccjm.org/content/74/Suppl_1/S48.full.pdf

Does changing the heart mean changing personality? A retrospective inquiry on 47 heart transplant patients: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1299456

Re: Wild Ideas

#43
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, then maybe we could argue the same about religion: atheism and then pantheism didn't really work, so we invented organized religions with one major god. Relying on the wisdom of ancestors is a sure way to avoid growth and to not acquire knowledge, and it is precisely this trait in people through which they are usually manipulated.

Your analogy is backward; early civilizations were far more dominated by religious beliefs than we are today.

Religion didn't always exist. In fact, I would guess that it didn't for the majority of human history, although it's ultimately speculation on both of our parts.

Re: Wild Ideas

#44
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the things humans do, we do because we are humans. There is no "natural set of universal goals for sentient beings"; we simply like what evolution has made us like. Changing (and especially removing ) our terminal goals is the same as creating a new species with no relation to us. Why would we want to do that?

Because why would I care if I change species if it keeps my consciousness alive?

What is your consciousness, separate from a subsumptive architecture of event loops that react to recognized stimuli in response to goal conditions?

Which is to say, if you remove all your goal conditions, all your reference points that could be moved away from center to provoke response -- if you are reduced to http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Orgasmium, in other words -- are you really aware any more?

Re: Wild Ideas

#45

1. Many times each day, your mind permanently splits into different versions that live in different worlds. True. 2. If medicine were taxed so much that people only bought half as much, they would be just as healthy. False. The "extra" spending in medicine drives innovations so we have better drugs & procedures etc. than we would otherwise. 3. If we keep writing down common sense datums until 2100, we can make comput…

There's a five percent chance I live in a "future" computer simulation as I write this. False - to run simulate sentient beings with so much suffering would be cruel.

So you mean the chance is much higher?

Re: Wild Ideas

#46
post #6

Migration to millions of star systems in 10,000 years? Speed of light says NO.

NASA says (possibly) YES:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warpstat_p...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/science/faster-than-the-sp...

http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on...

http://news.msn.com/science-technology/nasa-warp-drive-not-s...

http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-wa...

Re: Wild Ideas

#47

the scariest part of us living in a simulated environment is what happens when the players get bored and decide to turn us off (that thought might have been controlled by one of the players)

Who cares? It's not like we'll notice. The scary part is if their equivalent of 4chan gets a hold of the controls.

Re: Wild Ideas

#48
post #11

The author is obviously some kind of crazy anarchist. Private law system? You mean that all of a sudden people would become customers of multiple legal firms instead of subjects of one big system and will be able to choose laws they like while at the same time not interfering directly with others who chose different laws? You mean that all of a sudden majority would lose its power to dictate minorities how to live th…

[Edit: Self-righteous anger caused me to stop reading parent post mid-way through and start replying furiously. Nothing to see here.]

Crazy anarchist.

Because there have been no extremely intelligent, logical, level-headed and productive people who are also anarchists.

Start with this guy and get back to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

If you said "crazy statist" I could maybe agree, since statism is kind of crazy in my opinion, but I think attacking any ideas by disqualifying with adjectives like crazy is extremely narrow-minded and leads to poor results, even if you're talking about statists.

Just because you've never heard of something, don't be so immature to dismiss it without thinking it through... you expose yourself as ignorant of the hard work of many intelligent people that have come before you.

Re: Wild Ideas

#49
post #11

The author is obviously some kind of crazy anarchist. Private law system? You mean that all of a sudden people would become customers of multiple legal firms instead of subjects of one big system and will be able to choose laws they like while at the same time not interfering directly with others who chose different laws? You mean that all of a sudden majority would lose its power to dictate minorities how to live th…

[Edit: Self-righteous anger caused me to stop reading parent post mid-way through and start replying furiously. Nothing to see here.] Crazy anarchist. Because there have been no extremely intelligent, logical, level-headed and productive people who are also anarchists. Start with this guy and get back to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard If you said "crazy statist" I could maybe agree, since statism i…

In your self-righteous anger, you clearly missed snitko's sarcasm.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6089775

Re: Wild Ideas

#50
post #11

The author is obviously some kind of crazy anarchist. Private law system? You mean that all of a sudden people would become customers of multiple legal firms instead of subjects of one big system and will be able to choose laws they like while at the same time not interfering directly with others who chose different laws? You mean that all of a sudden majority would lose its power to dictate minorities how to live th…

[Edit: Self-righteous anger caused me to stop reading parent post mid-way through and start replying furiously. Nothing to see here.] Crazy anarchist. Because there have been no extremely intelligent, logical, level-headed and productive people who are also anarchists. Start with this guy and get back to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard If you said "crazy statist" I could maybe agree, since statism i…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN