
Yehuda Yudkowsky, 1985-2004 - rms
http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda
======
greendestiny
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.

~~~
aswanson
You can boil any human aspiration evocative of hope, happiness, and progress
to this defintion of "religious". Does this invalidate the drive?

~~~
robg
To me, it _validates_ the drive. Just as language is universal, so is the
effort to make meaning. Those two qualities bind us as humans.

------
mad44
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
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."

~~~
bd
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?"_

~~~
yters
Yeah, that's a bit more convincing. I'm mainly skeptical about the idea of
consciousness replication. My statement was meant to show that even if the
brain simulation created a consciousness, it wasn't the same as my
consciousness, which would still disappear if I were to die.

------
nandemo
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
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
"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.

------
geuis
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.

------
gruseom
_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.

------
swombat
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
> Any pointers

The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence <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#techs...](http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/writings.htm#techsing)

There is also the OpenCog <http://opencog.org> open-source project sponsored
by SIAI.

> Where are the communities?

See these email lists: <http://www.singinst.org/discussion/>

------
Hexstream
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
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
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
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.

------
mattmaroon
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
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
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
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>

~~~
mattmaroon
If you had to make an educated guess, how long would it be until we can
reanimate cryogenically frozen people? And what would the cost of freezing
everyone who passes away until then be?

------
zupatol
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/>

~~~
zupatol
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> )

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
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.

~~~
zupatol
I couldn't help thinking some more about what you wrote.

The things I want to do, like reading a specific book, only make sense if I am
alive. If I die, my desire to read the book disappears. I would not say I want
to live in order to read this book. I would say I want to read this book if I
am alive.

But I agree with you that people can sometimes have a sense of purpose, of
things that should be accomplished in their life. I remember I had this a long
time ago. I'm still working on what I then thought I should do. In the
meantime I have lost the feeling I must absolutely live so that my work can be
accomplished. But the fact this feeling exists does make me think there is
something wrong with my argument.

You are right it is rational to pursue things you like or avoid things you
dislike and following your instincts. At the same time your different
instincts are often in contradiction, and you rationally chose which one to
repress. So the fact you have an instinct doesn't mean you should never
repress it, and having an instinct of survival doesn't necessarily mean it
would be good to live forever.

------
rw
I'm glad this is posted again.

------
ajkirwin
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
_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
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.)

------
sharkfish
_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
Modded down because I'm an atheist, or because I imply that religion is dogma?
Just curious.

~~~
sharkfish
I was asking a sincere question. Why was THAT modded down?

