I noticed on Wikpedia that Frederick Pohl is still alive, having recently finished Arthur C. Clarke's last novel after the latter's death and dissolution earlier this year.
Does anyone know whether Pohl has expressed an interest in cryopreservation?
After reading Charles Platt's Cryonet essay from the past. it doesn't come as a surprise that Pohl and Haldeman used cryonics
simply as a tool for their novels.
I guess we'll see at least one more sci-fi writer going into dissolution.
Why is it that ordinary schlubs like us who choose cryonics get it, and those who were seen at the cutting edge of sci-fi writing don't?
They said they just don't like it, or they think we become different peopel every 10 years.
A contributor to this forum wonders why Fred Pohl and Joe Haldeman don't "get it." But they may wonder why we don't "get it." We should remember that cryonics is rather a speculative endeavor, and its appeal seems to be highest among a certain personality type. I believe the choice to be cryopreserved may be primarily a consequence of psychology rather than pure rationality, even though it is always argued in rational terms.
I ran into Fred Pohl at the annual Riverside science-fiction conference, this year honoring Ray Bradbury. Fred seemed very little changed from my memory of him.
The overlap between cryonics activists and science-fiction fans and activists has always been surprisingly small. Attempts to promote cryonics at science-fiction events have not been successful. This contradicts the seeming assumption that cryonics should appeal to people who are positive about the future, open-minded toward change, imaginative, and somewhat knowledgable about science and technology.
Most cryonicists have read, or do still read, science fiction--but vanishingly few are science-fiction writers or activist fans. Most science-fiction readers are well aware of cryonics--but vanishingly few are cryonics activists. Apparently if someone is seriously active in one field, he is unlikely to be seriously active in the other.
"A contributor to this forum wonders why Fred Pohl and Joe Haldeman don't "get it." But they may wonder why we don't "get it." We should remember that cryonics is rather a speculative endeavor, and its appeal seems to be highest among a certain personality type. I believe the choice to be cryopreserved may be primarily a consequence of psychology rather than pure rationality, even though it is always argued in rational terms."
As the contributor in question, I say you have a valid point.
I must admit that my decision to sign up for crypreservation
rests on psychological grounds.
To put it mildly, I don't want to face dissolution (burial, cremation, or any other means).
I don't, after a year of "soul searching," don't see an afterlife.
Let's face it: no one has come back with a report from "the other side."
I enjoy living, warts and all.
What other argument would one use to support his or her desire to undergo cryopreservation?
A possible answer to your question is in humans' biologically programmed reproductive and survival instincts. When you are young, you are programmed to reproduce at all costs (and the hormones are provided to encourage you to do that). In order to do that, you must also survive; hence, the urge to live.
As you get older and pass that stage, it is likely that a different set of programming sets in. You have less of an urge to reproduce. Your body, no longer needing to serve in such a capacity, undergoes gradual degenerative processes. Your psychological urge to live often wanes, being no longer needed to serve any reproductive urge. Older people often become satisfied with the life they lived, and prepare themselves for what they consider the inevitable - death. This process is replicated throughout the entire animal kingdom, and is obvious, though not adequately measurable to say it is all fact.
Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to defeat the programmed death urge human animals are equipped with. You may be young enough now not to feel that urge, being solidly in the reproductive phase. I have seen so many older people, including science fiction writers, succumb to such programmed ageism.
To defeat it requires aggressive effort, though it comes naturally to a small minority. One must continue to think young. Take nutritional supplements or get medical treatment for any fatigue or overly stressed conditions. Stay interested in life and all the things you have not yet been able to do and experience. Don't give in to the biologically programmed death wish. Beat up on your cryonics organization if it is not what you need it to be when your body may retire, but you don't wish to.
Agreed, but, I think you are missing some important issues.
1. You have to feel you're important enough to merit additional life. I know many people who really do not feel this way (supposedly, the late Isaac Asimov didn't feel he "deserved" cryonics).
2. You have to be extremely rebellious and stubborn, to reject something that 99.99% of humanity accepts.
3. You must be unconcerned about what other people think of you, and untroubled by guilt toward family members (who won't get the part of your money that you are diverting to cryonics).
4. Some idealism also helps. You need a strong sense that death is wrong.
And so on. Of course I also agree that the "time of life" is important. Long ago I examined Alcor's signup data and found that the peak age for people to make cryonics arrangements was when they were in their forties. It tapered off from there. I'm not convinced that this is because of a weakening desire to reproduce; I think it's because people in their 60s, and older, feel much more willing to accept all kinds of compromises, impositions, and indignities. Plus, many people actually feel satisfied with the life they have led, leading to another necessary trait for cryonicists:
I don't drink, smoke, do drugs or engage in risky behavior.
I work out several times a week at my gym, take supplements, and just finshed my first accupuncture session.
I lost my mom to live cancer almost a year ago at 66.
I told my sister at my mom's burial that I don't want to be buried or cremated (or face other forms of dissolution).
I have since signed on with CI (I signed my group life policy to CI
after AIG turned me down, because I had what they called a "bi-polar episode (grieving process)."
Otherwise, I would have joined Alcor as a full-body patient.
I have a number of fears to confront:
First, I'm not far from 50.
Second, I'm not looking forward to losing friends, family and "heroes" over the coming years.
Third, I'm not looking forward to the biological breakdown that starts in mid-life, no matter how well I maintain myself.
Fourth, I seem unable to relate to what's going on in today's society, let alone what may happen if the wrong man is elected president.
Fifth, although I have my paperwork ready with an attonery and have my younger sister as power of attorney and estate executor, I'm not sure if I can trust anyone in my family if I were to "de-animate."
One of my brothers said he does not believe in cryonics, but will respect my wishes.
I read an entry on Milton Berle in Wikipedia a few days ago, in which he reportedly stated in his will that he be buried next to his third wife.
However, his fourth and final wife had him cremated.
That's why I am looking at work and a residence near CI, so I can save time and avoid legal trouble when I need cool-down and storage.
1. You will get there and pass it, whether it scares you or not. You do want extended life, don't you? The passage of time is an unavoidable component of that. Is there hope for reversing the aging process for someone of your current age? I suggest you listen to a very interesting interview of Aubrey de Grey. Also in the interview were Ben Best and Regina Pancake. See: http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=27566&cmd=tc
2. Make new friends. Enjoy new family members (grandkids, or adopt something). Find new heroes. They may be 20 years younger than you, but so what?
3. Move to Oregon, where you can get assisted suicide when a terminal condition seriously limits your ability to live as you would choose. Maybe if enough cryonicists focus there, a decent service organization could be established.
4. There is no big deal about what is going on with the economy. Business downturns and recessions are part of the historic cycle. Just protect what you have the best you can and hunker down until the bell curve starts up the chart again.
5. Make sure you have had a thorough discussion with your cryonics service provider regarding identifying exactly who your next of kin are and what you need to get from them. Then if necessary kiss up to them until you get it, and maintain friendly relationships thereafter.
Personally I think you're better off being in Michigan (if your cryonics organization is in Michigan) than in Oregon. Other than that, I have no suggestions, except that you should address your questions to the organization with which you have made legal arrangements. They, after all, are the ones who will have to respond when you need them. I would certainly not count on many contributors to this forum to turn up at your bedside, and therefore, their (our) opinions are of limited use to you.
perhaps being psychologically eligible for cryonics has more to do with....
October 16 2008, 11:07 PM
perhaps being psychologically eligible for cryonics has more to do with the degree of affiliation, connection or alienation one has with society in general. I think that in order to be susceptible to the cryonics mindvirus, you must be only loosely connected to your own society.
Being an SF writer or fan may not have all that much to do with it. Granted. most cryos have the SF reader background, but there seems to be a more critical compenent--alienation and lack of connection to society.
A couple of months ago I had another correspondence exchange with Fred Pohl, and his position is unchanged. He thinks cryonics has a reasonable chance of working, but doesn't want it. The ostensible reason is that he would be displaced and alone. This is so illogical that it is hard to accept as the real reason. Just speculating, perhaps the real reason, or one of them, is the guilt over not being able to take care of all his family.
Another of the possible psychological hangups is the "little fish" problem--going from fairly big fish to relatively little fish.
Whatever, none of this changes anything. Our problems remain, and also our assets and successes.
Anyone who thinks differently from me is illogical?
October 19 2008, 9:37 PM
The reconstruction of a human brain, in very small pieces, by autonomous nanobots, is not a simple software problem. I believe any society in which this is possible will contain artificial intelligences far more powerful than human intelligence, and as a result, the world will indeed be extremely alien to us.
Pohl's objection to cryonics on the grounds that he would feel alienated from such a future society is neither foolish nor trivial, and should not be brushed aside as if he's an idiot. On the contrary, Fred Pohl is one of the smarter guys I have been privileged to know, and indeed I find his perspectives and insights at least as compelling as those of Bob Ettinger.
Platt's recent message-mainly saying that a future society capable of reviving frozen people will be alien--was not on point. I don't say I am infallible, but the logic here seems very clear.
The question is not whether the future will be different, or in what ways and by how much, but whether the cryonics gamble is a favorable one. Several things must be kept in mind:
1. Those responsible for reviving, rejuvenating, and rehabilitating you will pretty surely have your welfare at heart.
2. They will also have full knowledge of your needs, and will have at their disposal advanced techniques of rehabilitation and improvement Given time, they will also have essentially unlimited "financial" resources.
3. For emphasis, the question is not whether "you" in your present psychological state would be glad of revival, but you in your mended state.
4. People in large numbers have survived war and relocation, with loss of family, and still chosen to live and have made successful adjustments. Far greater numbers have lost their closest family and friends and their livelihoods and status, and have still chosen to live.
5. Infants adjust to a culture far removed from that for which they evolved. Given future technologies, I know of no reason to expect that current adults could not be equally pliable.
6. While there may be some chance of malevolence or incompetence on the part of those doing the reviving, this seems highly unlikely. Almost certainly, if after a fair trial you don't want to live, you will be able to kill yourself.
7. Summing up, once more it boils down to a pretty good chance vs. only the remotest speculation.
These are the main points I've struggled with regarding cryonics beliefs:
"1. Those responsible for reviving, rejuvenating, and rehabilitating you will pretty surely have your welfare at heart."
Really? It seems to me the preserved have become experiments and case numbers, no longer individuals with any "welfare" at heart at all, except profit. The customers are medical donations with no rights.
"2. They will also have full knowledge of your needs, and will have at their disposal advanced techniques of rehabilitation and improvement Given time, they will also have essentially unlimited "financial" resources."
Really? We can't even provide adequate medical care to living people now, where are these vast financial resources going to come from in the future? We're adding more people to the planet, not less, and the natural systems are beginning to collapse, requiring even more dedication and dollars.
Unless the human race is so devastated that the only solution to survival is reviving frozen cadavers, I just don't see it happening. Unless of course there's tremendous profit potential from it somehow...
Look, I'll admit it may be possible to successfully freeze someone for the future, I'll even admit that it may be possible someday to bring them back to life, but that medicine and humanity is going to be advanced enough to do it for free is just too much science fiction!
"TW related" doesn't merit a reply on his own account, but possibly any newcomers may benefit.
>It seems to me the preserved have become experiments and case >numbers, no longer individuals with any "welfare" at heart at >all, except profit. The customers are medical donations with no >rights.
It's hard to respond politely to such drivel. If this is the way it "seems to him" then he just has paid no attention. (a) Profit? Except for dormant Trans Time, all the cryonics organizations are nonprofit, formally and factually. As far as I know, no individual involved has had any notable financial benefit, with the possible exception of a few former Alcor employees. Many have made substantial donations of both time and money.(b) The anatomical donor form is not the primary legal instrument involved--this is the contract. The Cryonics Institute contract, and those of other organizations, spell out the rights and responsibilities.
>We can't even provide adequate medical care to living people >now, where are these vast financial resources going to come >from in the future?
In the U.S. Canada, Australia, Europe and some other places, the level of medical care is the highest ever in history. I will be 90 in less than two months, and have had many medical problems that would have killed me in earlier eras, even slightly earlier eras. Yes, the poor still have less available than the wealthy (I am far from wealthy), but the discrepancy is less brutal than in earlier times.
"Vast financial resources"--relative to earlier times--are a feature of history in the last couple of centuries, and accelerating. Barring the collapse of civilization, increases in productivity and wealth appear nearly inevitable, with no known limit. Today even poor American homes have soap and toothpaste, central heating, hot and cold running water, indoor toilets, refrigerators, and color television--things that for most of humanity's tenure on earth had been luxuries of the few, or completely unknown.
Nobody denies the possibility of calamities of many kinds, but mentally healthy people don't kill themselves, or resign themselves to death, merely because of morbid scenarios.
>I'll even admit that it may be possible someday to bring them >back to life, but that medicine and humanity is going to be >advanced enough to do it for free is just too much science >fiction!
As far as "science fiction" is concerned, that is merely an epithet, and completely unworthy. Even TW probably knows that many "science fiction" scenarios have eventuated, and that history has sometimes brought to reality things the fiction writers had not imagined.
We already have many things "free" that in earlier times were not. In most restaurants you can get a glass of water for free. You can walk into a fast food joint and use the rest room for free. You can walk into a hospital emergency room and get attention and some services for free if you lack money and insurance. Organized charities offer more than ever before, including free meals and lodging. "Free" means free to the consumer and negligible cost to the donor. In fact, many kinds of charity have a payoff for the donor, namely, the satisfaction of doing good, of being civilized. Our successors in the Cryonics Institute and other organizations will derive immense satisfaction from helping their relatives and friends and others who were patients. Anybody who doesn't understand this is hopeless.
That really surprised me when I first read it, but I didn't say anything at the time.
Despite having a viewpoint regarding the Ted Williams situation that differs from many in the cryonics community, TWrelated has always been treated on this forum with courtesy and respect. TWrelated also recently posted on how various cryonics issues were being considered, pro and con, by him/her, which is a bit beyond the mostly neutral stance formerly expressed regarding cryonics. I don't think it is nice to discourage someone from pursuing that, by being unfriendly.
“The real insult was TW's accusation of cryonics being for-profit.”
Regardless of whatever one might think of the TW’s opinion on the subject of profit in cryonics, why it would be “The real insult”?
First of all, TW did not single out any cryonics provider. He was writing about the cryonics field in general. Secondly, why there would be anything insulting, or wrong with making a profit? Profit is the best motivation for being successful at something. It is nice to have non-profit volunteers in any field, for example as firemen, or auxiliary cops, or medical volunteers, but I would have more confidence in skilled professionals in any field.
Furthermore, by writing: “ I'll even admit that it may be possible someday to bring them back to life, but that medicine and humanity is going to be advanced enough to do it for free is just too much science fiction!” TW did not write about anything happening today, but whether right, or wrong, he wrote about reanimations far in the future.
George: "Profit is the best motivation for being successful"
You watch the news right? Giant profit scams are being bailed out left & right.
Besides, you're pretending great actions were based on greed. History shows the opposite:
1. AC power & modern electricity. (Tesla)
“Money does not represent such a value as men have placed upon it. All my money has been invested into experiments with which I have made new discoveries enabling mankind to have a little easier life.”
— http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
2. The computer - “This came from pure scientific thought, and not at all from an economic need for computing. Business and profit-making played no part in it.”
— http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/scrapbook/machine.html
3. Penicillin. “Florey believed it would be inappropriate to patent penicillin, but learned his lesson when some of his American collaborators did just that… Florey took no profit for himself.”
— http://time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,33700,00.html
4. Phone. “Meucci was recognized as the first inventor of the telephone by the US House.” “[He] was unable to raise sufficient funds to pay for the patent application… In 1861 his cottage was auctioned.”
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Meucci
5. The internet. (The government & Tim Berners-Lee.)
Future Society, Depleted Resources and Mass Scale Reanimations
October 20 2008, 3:25 PM
Robert Ettinger wrote: “Those responsible for reviving, rejuvenating, and rehabilitating you will pretty surely have your welfare at heart.”
Cairn Idun wrote: “Our gatherings consist of knowledgeable individuals regarding, "Options for Safe, Secure and Legal Asset Preservation for Post-Resuscitation Access." “The interest is certainly far greater than I ever expected.”
This is an area that was, so far very neglected by cryo providers. Probably on purpose, because it is more lucrative for them, when their members are unable to preserve some money for use after reanimation (On the theory: you cannot take it with you, so give it all to us). Hopefully, when the legal assets preservation is fully implemented, it will change the dynamics of cryonics. Currently cryo providers have about 1,700 living members. In addition about 200 patients are in actual cryo suspension, almost all of them penniless.
In the future, if things continue without a radical change, there could be thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of patients in suspension. It is very likely that in the future, when science will be able to reanimate suspended patients, earth resources will be depleted. By that time there might not be one ounce of oil and coal left. Earth will be overpopulated, strong population control will be implemented and there will be a strong competition for the few remaining food resources. Most patients in suspension will be very poor, uneducated by then current standards, without meaningful skills, wholly unprepared to live in a strange society. They will be comparable to a large group of neanderthals transplanted into the 21st century world. Most of them will own only a stretcher from cryostat and nothing else. It would be a gross irresponsibility for the society to permit revival of large numbers of such people. If in the tens of thousands, they surely would overwhelm the world’s welfare system.
My guess is that the future society will permit the reanimation of only those cryo-patients who have sufficient amount of money, so they will be able to readjust themselves into the future society. Anything else would be gross irresponsibility. The future society will not support, nor tolerate any attempts to the contrary.
When cryonic preservation is shown to play a key role in prolonging the lives of patients (and this will happen when someone is successfully revived and repaired), not only will it become publically accepted, but it will also become part and parcel of the medical paradigm that already exists in operating rooms around the world - to save the lives of patients, sometimes heroically and at all costs.
In that sense, future generations could be viewed as likely to have "our welfare at heart". One of the first things that could very well happen after the first successful reanimation, would be medical reviews of the case histories of cryonics patients, to determine which ones have a sufficiently high likelihood of successful revival given the state of reanimation technology any given year.
That is if we are lucky enough to maintain into and to that future, a significant portion of our planet where civilization is sustained to include that paradigm. There are still large portions of it where a human's life is worth nothing. Future social, political and economic upheavals could take their toll. Population increases, if not kept in check, could overrun the planet with more people than future technology can figure out how to take care of. Extraterrestrial relocation might not be there yet, though it might start out with prison ships having no particular destination and no steering wheel. Whether the future will be a nice place to live is up for grabs, but the chance it will be is worth it for me to take.
Bob's logic is of course sound, but it is based on the foundation of an assumption: That we can envision a distant future that lies on the opposite side of the singularity.
Vernor Vinge coined the term "singularity" to describe the rapid evolution of intelligences greater than our own because, as a science-fiction writer, he felt he could not see beyond that event horizon. He could not make any plausible bets about a future in which machines are more intelligent than people, precisely because the machines will be more intelligent than people.
Bob writes, "1. Those responsible for reviving, rejuvenating, and rehabilitating you will pretty surely have your welfare at heart." But this seems to assume that "those responsible" will be people just like us. I see no assurance of this, because I don't believe people like us will be smart enough to solve the problem of making repairs on a molecular scale.
Even Bob he is right, and the future is still under the control of people like us, most human beings are not primarily motivated by wanting to enhance the welfare of others. Most people are motivated by self-interest, and if I were revived from cryopreservation, I would guess that this would be because someone could make a profit from it.
I agree with Bob's points 2 and 3, but then he asserts "4. People in large numbers have survived war and relocation, with loss of family, and still chosen to live and have made successful adjustments." While true, this is not necessarily valid regarding a world beyond the singularity.
Bob continues, "6. While there may be some chance of malevolence or incompetence on the part of those doing the reviving, this seems highly unlikely," but this is just a reiteration of his belief in the all-around benevolence of Our Friends in the Future.
I call this the Santa Claus version of cryonics, which I have seen Bob promote rather persistently over the years. By this I mean that he seems to view the future in the same way as a young person waking up on Christmas Day and running downstairs to find the gifts under the tree, placed by parental figures whose good intentions are unquestionable. Just as no child expects to find booby-trapped presents that are likely to kill him, Bob cannot believe that the future may be malign.
I don't see anything in history to give me that kind of confidence. The chance may still be worth taking, but I see no way of knowing how much of a longshot it will be.
It's tedious, but I have invested a great deal of time for every cryonics member and patient, and one never knows what may be fruitful.
Platt:
>Vernor Vinge coined the term "singularity" to describe the >rapid evolution of intelligences greater than our own because, >as a science-fiction writer, he felt he could not see beyond >that event horizon. He could not make any plausible bets about >a future in which machines are more intelligent than people, >precisely because the machines will be more intelligent than >people.
First, there may or may not be a Vinge-type singularity, relatively soon and sudden. The history of AI research does not make this appear likely. If you cop out for fear of the singularity threats, you may be missing a lot.
Secondly, and more importantly, I see no reason to expect independent and self-motivated computers, HAL or the like. There are no assurances, but the reasonable expectation is that the computers will be adjuncts of human brains--mental prostheses or supplements. There will (probably) be no "they," only "us." It should be remembered that much of our organic brain is really just computational, in service to the "live" portion that has subjective experiences.
Machines will (probably) not be "more intelligent than people," because there will (probably) be no independent machines.
I have written at length about the possibility that no inorganic computer may be able, even in principle, to have subjective experiences. In any case, there will be many intelligent people working (with the help of their computers) to forestall potential AI-assisted predators or terrorists.
Incidentally, few seem to realize how difficult it would be to effectively program a computer for goals in human language terms, such feared goals as "kill off the humans" or whatever.
Programs require explicit directions, not vague ones difficult to interpret or to implement without contradiction. (This is why Asimov's "laws of robotics" were so silly. "May not harm a human or allow one to come to harm"--gibberish.)Even our existing primitive programs often yield unexpected and undesired results.
>most human beings are not primarily motivated by wanting to >enhance the welfare of others. Most people are motivated by >self-interest,
Wrong and wrong. Most people are motivated--having evolved that way--by family, community, and cultural traditions, often at the expense of their own real interests or even their lives. Even the recently exploding ranks of "happiness researchers" generally agree that the best way to satisfaction in life is through giving of yourself for the benefit of others. (This has a degree of merit, but of course they go much too far.)
Although asking someone about his motivation has many pitfalls, those who reject cryonics frequently castigate it as selfish. They don't want to save their miserable, worthless selves, only others. (Auden: We are all here to help others. What I don't understand is, what are the others here for?)
It is very clear to me, and ought to be clear to anyone willing to think about it long enough, that enlightened self interest is the only reasonable outlook--even if enlightenment is slippery. I wrote a book about this.
Those who want "assurances" about cryonics are asking more than anyone can honestly offer about any effort or program. The world may not be user-friendly and ultimately there may be tragedy, even horror. If you are looking for nasty scenarios, you can even imagine some malignant being resurrecting you after death to torture you. (In fact, countless millions believe this will happen to those who believe or disbelieve x,y,z.) But by any estimate that seems reasonable to me, the worst that will happen, if you are revived, is that you won't like it and will then kill yourself. The best, on the other hand, is immeasurable.
Talk about "Santa Claus" is just a debating trick, and unworthy.
Bob said "...few seem to realize how difficult it would be to effectively program a computer for goals in human language terms, such feared goals as "kill off the humans" or whatever. Programs require explicit directions, not vague ones difficult to interpret or to implement without contradiction,,,"
This has been true up to now, and still largely is, but the reality is that there are people out there actively working towards the development of super AIs that can self-program. http://www.singularity.org/ is just one example. With the computing capacity available even now, that could quickly escalate into the Singularity envisioned by Vinge and others.
I cannot logically foresee an "other side" to such a Singularity, as Charles alludes to. I see the eradication of the human race on this side of it.
Anything positive I had to say about the future utility of cryonics in my other post above, is predicated on people getting smart and stopping the development of any computing system before it surpasses the control of the humans who started it off.
My most optimistic scenario (which I used in a science-fiction novel) is that the first generation of computers capable of acting on their own initiative will immediately do everything they can to discourage and obstruct the development of smarter, more dangerous computers that could displace them. They will behave like bureaucrats threatened with losing their jobs. Indeed, they could be programmed to behave this way. That really would be a utopian end-point: Just enough computing power to take care of every human need, coupled with constant vigilance to make sure it doesn't go any farther.
But, I tend to think that some computer scientists will never be able to resist the temptation to create self-volitional systems that are potentially destructive. This is why we already have computer viruses.
Well, we could go to and fro with examples and counter-examples regarding the good and bad traits in the human race. While Bob is of course quite right that many people are motivated by feelings for family, friends, and others, ours is still the race that embraces religious superstition and has used it to justify terrible cruelties. One may argue that religious extremists most likely will not be the ones who develop technology to reverse damage caused by cryopreservation, and that high tech may imply more sophisticated values generally. On the other hand, the Third Reich was right at the leading edge of technology at its time. Therefore I still feel it's anyone's guess whether the future will be benign or malign for revived cryonauts. Knowing Fred Pohl's rather dark view of human nature, I would guess that this issue plays a part in his concern about feeling alienated from a world 300 years hence.
Regarding my Santa Claus metaphor, I did not consider this a cheap shot. There's a lot of idealism in cryonics, and some of it seems naive to me. (I have been accused of naive idealism myself, incidentally, although not in relation to cryonics.) The belief that Our Friends in the Future will fix everything for us, at no charge, out of the goodness of their hearts, does seem to invite a comparison with benevolent parental figures, and emerging from a Dewar has been described in terms which remind me of receiving presents on Christmas Day. I've read short stories by cryonicists that describe their future revival in those kinds of terms. Naturally I hope they're right, but I have my doubts.
In re "volitional" computers--it is uncertain, even in principle, that inorganic computers could have subjective experiences or could be programmed effectively with such vague goals as "help me and my friends and kill everybody else." In any case, the idea that the predators and terrorists could get the better of the relatively sane majority is far-fetched.
As for Santa Claus, or the pejorative "our friends of the future," those are just sneers, not arguments. Why should we have any serious doubt that future Boards of Directors of the Cryonics Institute will have feelings of friendship and responsibility (moral and legal) toward members and patients?
As far as that goes, the Santa Claus of metaphor, happy events resulting from progress, has appeared countless times. Nasties have too, but the trend looks pretty good.
I see only two main threats--from crazed individuals or Moslem extremists. The former are vastly outnumbered and not likely to prevail. The latter will probably recede with time, if only because those women will not hold still forever to be downtrodden and exploited as baby machines.
Optimism is unjustified only when it tends toward choices that make bad outcomes sufficiently likely, or when it reduces incentive to take needed precautions. In most cases, optimism makes you feel better and doesn't adversely affect your chances. Pessimism can be self-fulfilling, as when you fear the future so much that you amputate it and lose almost everything.
Generalized future incompetence is possible, but hardly compatible with the capability of revival and rejuvenation. Future sadism, in society or groups, is conceivable but extremely far-fetched as applied to resuscitees. If people with power in the future want to torture others, it will be a lot easier and cheaper to do it to the living or to breed slaves. Realistically, if you don't like the world of the awakening, just kill yourself then. It's easy, and doesn't even have to be especially painful. Like the Romans sometimes did, just slit your wrists in a warm bath, or take an overdose of something.
If you prefer to make your negative decision now, to be buried or cremated, I repeat words from many years ago. Rot (or burn) in good health.
“In re "volitional" computers--it is uncertain, even in principle, that inorganic computers could have subjective experiences or could be programmed effectively with such vague goals as "help me and my friends and kill everybody else."
The era of inorganic (silicon) based computers is nearing the end. According to research papers published by computer scientists doing research at computer labs at such computer developers as IBM, or Intel, silicon based computers are approaching limits of laws of physics and further computer advancement will be mainly by using organic materials. Which apparently means that both human brain and future computer processors will consist of essentially the same material - organic cells. With one essential difference: Human brain cells remain the same, without any noticeable improvement. But organic computer processors will be optimized and re-optimized and eventually improved to the point of perfection. In such case, there is no reason why computer based AI could not acquire awareness and independent thinking and be superior to human intelligence. Such organic computers (or more accurately AI beings) will need for survival essentially the same natural resources as human do, namely nutrition (food) to maintain their organic processors. Thus, they will be in a fierce competition with humans for the scarce resources in the future, overpopulated world, with depleted natural resources. The law of the survival of the fittest will inexorably have its way...
(no login)
TW, organic computers
October 21 2008, 11:19 PM
1. As to my having been disrespectful to TWrelated, well, there are limits to courtesy. TW displayed inexcusable ignorance or/and abysmal stupidity in some of his statements. Failure to be emphatic in pointing this out would be leaning over backwards much too far. I claim righteous wrath.
I specified a couple of his gross errors very clearly. He refuses to respond to me on grounds of insult, but that entails also refusing to respond to the concerns of other readers.
2. While I don't pretend to expertise in either computers or biology, I think George misunderstands the issues.
>silicon based computers are approaching limits of laws of >physics and further computer advancement will be mainly by >using organic materials.
I think this refers to size and speed of switches or gates. If size and speed were the only issues, you could get whatever capability you wanted in a computer just by making it large enough, or perhaps by going to quantum computing.
Further, it is obvious that size and speed are not the only issues. After all, a Turing paper tape computer can, in principle, do any type of computing. Those who think consciousness is merely computation must believe a paper tape (however slow) can be conscious.
My suggestion has been that subjective experience (the presence of qualia) may reside in some kind of standing wave in the brain, with extension in space and time, allowing overlap between successive states and thus a degree of physical continuity between earlier and later versions of yourself, hence a reasonable notion of survival. It is entirely conceivable--although of course not proven--that such waves cannot exist in silicon, or anywhere except organic brains.
>Human brain cells remain the same, without any noticeable >improvement. But organic computer processors will be optimized >and re-optimized and eventually improved to the point of >perfection.
First (see also Turing above), a digital computer does not depend for its capabilities (other than speed) on the efficiency of its "processors." A Babbage computer of rods and gears could in principle do any kind of computation.
Next, aside from the notion of undefined "perfection," the error here is in an assumption that some outside agency will be working to continuously modify your brain cells to ends you have not authorized. I see no basis for such an assumption. Whatever the means of later improvements, you will demand that they be under control and acceptable to you.
>Such organic computers (or more accurately AI beings) will need >for survival essentially the same natural resources as human >do, namely nutrition (food) to maintain their organic >processors. Thus, they will be in a fierce competition with >humans for the scarce resources in the future, overpopulated >world, with depleted natural resources. The law of the survival >of the fittest will inexorably have its way...
The above has so many erroneous or questionable assumptions that space precludes saying much. Suffice it for now to note that, by this logic, humans are right now, and always will be, in "inexorable" "fierce competiltion" with each other for survival.
I don't see that it matters whether a data processing entity is silicon-based or carbon-based.
For an eloquent (and, to me, very plausible) discussion of whether computers may emulate a human brain, Hans Moravec's "Mind Children" covered the topic thoroughly about 20 years ago. Moravec invited skeptics to consider at what point a machine acquires human status if it takes over brain functions incrementally. When it handles half of your cognitive processes, is it still merely a machine? How about three-quarters? Ninety percent?
And during this process of "outsourcing" your brain functions, at what point would you cease to be human?
Moravec outlined how this could be done, by monitoring nerve impulses through the corpus colossum and gradually learning how to decode them, intercept them, and emulate them.
Bob of course believes that we have a "self circuit," and even though the word "circuit" suggests that emulation should be possible, he believes that it is impossible. Unfortunately, since the "self circuit" seems to be entirely his idea and is unverifiable (so far as I know), this is rather speculative and seems to be a philosophical position.
One of Bob's strongest arguments in favor of cryonics is that no one can prove that it won't work. But no one can prove that AI won't work, either. Odd that he is so willing to pin his hopes on the first application of this "can't prove a negative" principle, but so unwilling to accept the second.
(no login)
consciousness issues
October 22 2008, 11:52 AM
Platt misrepresents, and probably still doesn't understand, my position. He has lots of company, because the issues are complex and subtle, and also because the "uploaders" have an emotional stake in their belief, a little bit like the religionists. I have addressed them elsewhere at great length, and cannot hope to make much of a dent here, but I'll make a small effort anyway.
Before the main points, just a word about his mischaracterization of my arguments for cryonics, which he says rely mainly on the fact that one can't prove it won't work. I have never said or implied that. My arguments include the many experimental successes in cryogenic freezing and subsequent revival of many specimens, including a few small mammalian organs. Beyond that is the fact that many eminent scientists, perhaps most, believe in the conservation of information, which implies that any past configuration of matter might eventually be deciphered and reproduced, which suggests that brains can be repaired. Finally, of course, there is the nothing-to-lose argument and the cost/benefit analysis.
Now an attempt at a relatively succinct if rambling summary of the consciousness problem.
Moravec and many others simply ASSUME that a simulation or emulation is in some basic sense "the same as" the original, and that multiple copies would be "instantiations" of the original. This has countless bizarre implications, and while I acknowledge that the world is indeed bizarre, some of these implications seem just too much to take seriously. For one thing, there is a well known physical "law of return" which states that any finite system will eventually return to, or arbitrarily close to, any previous configuration. Many have also concluded that, if the universe is infinite, every possible subset configuration will eventually occur and recur, including you at all stages of your development, so you are already immortal, willy nilly, regardless of what you do or don't do. This is scarcely useful.
From another angle, it ought to be obvious that the map is not the territory (except in special cases, as when the map is a copy of another map), and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it could still be a decoy. It should also be obvious that a computer could reach any result by brute force, so that production of a particular result does not prove the presence of either life or intelligence in our sense.
I anticipated the thought experiments of Moravec and others in 1962, and reached no definitive conclusion as to criteria of identity and survival. After many years of further thought, there is still nothing conclusive, but some strong indications. Primarily, we have the quantitative view. "You" survive in the way(s) and to the extent that you remain the same, and if there is physical overlap between earlier and later versions.
My "self circuit" is just a label for the physical expression of qualia or subjective experiences, which lie at the heart of consciousness. A quale is possibly some kind of standing wave in the brain, with extension in time and space, so the overlap allows your present self legitimately to identify, at least in part, with your past and future selves. Consciousness is not just computation, and is not an "emergent" phenomenon that just mysteriously appears when a computer becomes sufficiently complex. Consciousness is basically FEELING, and the content of consciousness is the integration of feeling and cognition or feeling and computing.
Further, you do not "have" qualia--rather, you ARE your qualia. This solves the homunculus problem.
Admittedly, all this at present is little more than entertainment. As a practical matter, most of us just blunder along and make choices that we hope will prove profitable. Many feel that cryonics is like chicken soup--can't prove it will help, but it couldn't hurt.
Robert Ettinger
----------------------------
Platt wrote:
I don't see that it matters whether a data processing entity is silicon-based or carbon-based.
For an eloquent (and, to me, very plausible) discussion of whether computers may emulate a human brain, Hans Moravec's "Mind Children" covered the topic thoroughly about 20 years ago. Moravec invited skeptics to consider at what point a machine acquires human status if it takes over brain functions incrementally. When it handles half of your cognitive processes, is it still merely a machine? How about three-quarters? Ninety percent?
And during this process of "outsourcing" your brain functions, at what point would you cease to be human?
Moravec outlined how this could be done, by monitoring nerve impulses through the corpus colossum and gradually learning how to decode them, intercept them, and emulate them.
Bob of course believes that we have a "self circuit," and even though the word "circuit" suggests that emulation should be possible, he believes that it is impossible. Unfortunately, since the "self circuit" seems to be entirely his idea and is unverifiable (so far as I know), this is rather speculative and seems to be a philosophical position.
One of Bob's strongest arguments in favor of cryonics is that no one can prove that it won't work. But no one can prove that AI won't work, either. Odd that he is so willing to pin his hopes on the first application of this "can't prove a negative" principle, but so unwilling to accept the second.
I wrote and thought I posted a rather long reply to Platt's post below, but it didn't appear and I don't want to take much further time, but I'll say a couple of things, since Platt grievously misrepresents my positions.
1. I have never said nor implied that the argument for cryonics is that you can't prove it won't work. The argument rests first on the many experimental successes and partial successes with revival of cryogenically stored biological specimens, including some small mammalian organs. There is also the "law" of conservation of information, in which many eminent scientists believe, which suggests that brains can be repaired or restored. There is also the cost/benefit analysis. And of course there is the chicken soup argument--it might not help, but it can't hurt.
2. The opinions of Moravec and many others rely on thought experiments which I anticipated in 1962, but which do not justify their conclusions. Trying to get such people to see their errors is harder than pulling teeth--it is more like trying to make a true believer into an apostate.
3. My "self circuit" is just a name for the physical (anatomical/physiological) basis of qualia or subjective experience. It may be some kind of standing wave in the brain, with extension in space and time, the overlaps allowing reasonable identification, at least in part, of past, present, and future selves. You do not "have" qualis--you ARE your qualia. This solves the homunculus problem. And the physical requirements may (or may not)disallow qualia in any but organic media.
Robert Ettinger
--------------------
Platt wrote:
I don't see that it matters whether a data processing entity is silicon-based or carbon-based.
For an eloquent (and, to me, very plausible) discussion of whether computers may emulate a human brain, Hans Moravec's "Mind Children" covered the topic thoroughly about 20 years ago. Moravec invited skeptics to consider at what point a machine acquires human status if it takes over brain functions incrementally. When it handles half of your cognitive processes, is it still merely a machine? How about three-quarters? Ninety percent?
And during this process of "outsourcing" your brain functions, at what point would you cease to be human?
Moravec outlined how this could be done, by monitoring nerve impulses through the corpus colossum and gradually learning how to decode them, intercept them, and emulate them.
Bob of course believes that we have a "self circuit," and even though the word "circuit" suggests that emulation should be possible, he believes that it is impossible. Unfortunately, since the "self circuit" seems to be entirely his idea and is unverifiable (so far as I know), this is rather speculative and seems to be a philosophical position.
One of Bob's strongest arguments in favor of cryonics is that no one can prove that it won't work. But no one can prove that AI won't work, either. Odd that he is so willing to pin his hopes on the first application of this "can't prove a negative" principle, but so unwilling to accept the second.
The post below by George 1st has so many errors that I'll not attempt to list them all, but only mention a couple of the most important.
1. The "limits" mentioned of silicon based computers refers to the size and speed of switches or gates. This only affects certain practicalities, the size and cost of computers, not their basic limitations in terms of what is computable. In principle, even a Turing tape is a "universal" computer, capable (eventually) of any job of computation. If you believe that consciousness is just computation, then you ought to believe that a Turing tape can be conscious.
2. The notion that AI's will be in deadly competition with humans for space and food, as it is presented, clearly implies that, now and forever, humans are and always will be in deadly competition with each other. How silly can you get?
Robert Ettinger
------------------------------
George wrote:
The era of inorganic (silicon) based computers is nearing the end. According to research papers published by computer scientists doing research at computer labs at such computer developers as IBM, or Intel, silicon based computers are approaching limits of laws of physics and further computer advancement will be mainly by using organic materials. Which apparently means that both human brain and future computer processors will consist of essentially the same material - organic cells. With one essential difference: Human brain cells remain the same, without any noticeable improvement. But organic computer processors will be optimized and re-optimized and eventually improved to the point of perfection. In such case, there is no reason why computer based AI could not acquire awareness and independent thinking and be superior to human intelligence. Such organic computers (or more accurately AI beings) will need for survival essentially the same natural resources as human do, namely nutrition (food) to maintain their organic processors. Thus, they will be in a fierce competition with humans for the scarce resources in the future, overpopulated world, with depleted natural resources. The law of the survival of the fittest will inexorably have its way...
1. The "limits" mentioned of silicon based computers refers to the size and speed of switches or gates. This only affects certain practicalities, the size and cost of computers, not their basic limitations in terms of what is computable. In principle, even a Turing tape is a "universal" computer, capable (eventually) of any job of computation. If you believe that consciousness is just computation, then you ought to believe that a Turing tape can be conscious.
2. The notion that AI's will be in deadly competition with humans for space and food, as it is presented, clearly implies that, now and forever, humans are and always will be in deadly competition with each other. How silly can you get?
1: It has been proven (by computer designers during the past 50 years, or so) that the best material for inorganic computer is silicon and that it has severe limits on its size and computing power. It has been equally proven (by the nature during many million years, or so) that the best material for organic computer is the gray brain material. As elephants, whales and Albert Einstein show, there is no such limit on the size, or computational power of organic processors. Why there should be any difference for a brain created by nature, compared to an artificial brain, created by intelligent designers from exactly the same gray material and with the same structure?
As for the “consciousness”, whatever that might mean: It is not necessary, and absence of something so vague (and perhaps even worthless and undesired element for AI) absolutely does not preclude superior AI race from prevailing over human race in competition for resources. After all, even lowly Yersinia pestis (bubonic plague) did not need any “consciousness” in order to decimate the human race.
2: Until now humans were constantly in fierce competition for resources with each other. That competition frequently became deadly, as in most wars, waged for domination and control of natural resources. There is no indication that it will change anytime soon.
I keep looking for ways to bypass the roadblocks or brainblocks that make people misunderstand what I am saying, and make them think I don't understand what they are saying. Maybe it's hopeless, or maybe I'm just too weak in psychology, or just maybe I'll find some magic phrases that will make an update of YOUNIVERSE more effective.
Anyway, below is a recent post of mine and George's response, all of which is either just plain wrong or off point. Now my further comments.
>As elephants, whales and Albert Einstein show, there is no such >limit on the size, or computational power of organic >processors.
This is painful to read. Well, obviously George is not a scientist or mathematician or even well read in popular science. The quotation above is like saying that if you can do something, you can do anything. It is in fact logically equivalent to saying that an organic brain has the potential to do an arbitrarily large amount of computing in an arbitrarily small volume in an arbitrarily short time. George, please tell me if you understand what I have just said.
2. As for consciousness not being necessary for a system to be deadly, that is true but irrelevant to our discussion.
Whether an AI system could be conscious is relevant in several ways. First, there is the ethical dimension--whether we could "kill" or "hurt" the system, or (in the style of Moravec and perhaps Kurzweil and others) we ought to step aside gracefully and gratefully and welcome oblivion in favor of something bigger and better.
Second, there is the question of programming--whether it is even possible to program an AI in human language terms for something so imprecise as "kill all competitors."
Our own programming, in the context of conscious motivation, is to attempt to satisfy our current wants. Our wants are multiple and sometimes contradictory, and have different time horizons, and many of them are imprinted by evolution or brainwashing. Conscious motivation by definition is one of self interest, since "motivation" MEANS what moves YOU--but we often make misjudgments or fail to overcome our conditioning. A young man will often fear being thought a coward more than he fears death, which is often his tough luck. (No, I'm not saying that the choice of death is always wrong, but let's pass that for now.)An old man may feel that surcease is more to be desired than new opportunity.
Even existing primitive programs often yield results surprising and displeasing to their programmers. Anyone trying to program an advanced AI would certainly realize the absolute need to keep close tabs and control, which probably means integrating the AI as an adjunct of the programmer's brain. (Much of our wetware is already essentially an organic computer, assisting our conscious selves. The new AIs, whether organic or otherwise, could probably be like that.)
Third (and partly redundant), George is saying, at the same time, that the AI need not be conscious and yet it will have motivation (the need to compete and dominate and even eradicate). If there is no consciousness, hence no motivation at the conscious level, then "motivation" or "goals" will have to be those explicitly written into the program. I have already offered reasons why this is almost certainly hopeless, and also almost surely will be avoided in the sense of broad directives.
Fourth, George implicitly assumes (without acknowledging the assumption) that an advanced AI will necessarily and automatically have effectively an "instinct" for survival and aggrandizement. The assumption is unjustified.
Next, although he doesn't acknowledge this, George's last paragraph below backs off a bit from his previous assertion of perpetual mortal combat among competitors, human or otherwise, for space and natural resources--but he still is very pessimistic about war and the future. He says "There is no indication that it will change any time soon."
On the contrary, there are plenty of indications, although of course no proof. Even the worst wars of the 20th Century were much less destructive, percentagewise amd atrocity-wise, than many earlier conflicts. Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Attila, some of the Crusaders, and some of the Chinese emperors far outdid the moderns. (They constantly had to remind their soldiers: "First loot, then burn. First rape, then kill.")
Anyway, for the umpteenth time, if you make your decisions based on your worst case scenario, you should off yourself right now.
1. The "limits" mentioned of silicon based computers refers to the size and speed of switches or gates. This only affects certain practicalities, the size and cost of computers, not their basic limitations in terms of what is computable. In principle, even a Turing tape is a "universal" computer, capable (eventually) of any job of computation. If you believe that consciousness is just computation, then you ought to believe that a Turing tape can be conscious.
2. The notion that AI's will be in deadly competition with humans for space and food, as it is presented, clearly implies that, now and forever, humans are and always will be in deadly competition with each other. How silly can you get?
1: It has been proven (by computer designers during the past 50 years, or so) that the best material for inorganic computer is silicon and that it has severe limits on its size and computing power. It has been equally proven (by the nature during many million years, or so) that the best material for organic computer is the gray brain material. As elephants, whales and Albert Einstein show, there is no such limit on the size, or computational power of organic processors. Why there should be any difference for a brain created by nature, compared to an artificial brain, created by intelligent designers from exactly the same gray material and with the same structure?
As for the “consciousness”, whatever that might mean: It is not necessary, and absence of something so vague (and perhaps even worthless and undesired element for AI) absolutely does not preclude superior AI race from prevailing over human race in competition for resources. After all, even lowly Yersinia pestis (bubonic plague) did not need any “consciousness” in order to decimate the human race.
2: Until now humans were constantly in fierce competition for resources with each other. That competition frequently became deadly, as in most wars, waged for domination and control of natural resources. There is no indication that it will change anytime soon.
This thread has gotten so large it is going off the bottom of the screen, and starting to go off the edge of the screen, so it is time to lock it to further posts.
If you wish to continue discussion on any of the topics in the locked thread, just start a new one, using the "Post Something" link.
This is for housekeeping purposes, is not a passing of judgment on anything in the thread, and is not intended to discourage further discussion.
