As I read the zine article re BJKlien, I wonder if any one has pondered, much less run the models through simulation, as to how an "Immortality" schema would be rated as an "Evolutionary Stable Strategy?" (Dawkins, 76)
As I read the zine article re BJKlien, I wonder if any one has pondered, much less run the models through simulation, as to how an "Immortality" schema would be rated as an "Evolutionary Stable Strategy?" (Dawkins, 76)
Does it pass muster?
If the object of the game is to live long then the immortalist strategy sort of wins by definition. I'm guessing you must have a different game in mind?
The 'game' is from a systemic perspective. the system is earth. I tend to try not to arrogate humanity above the environment that 'created' it.
If the object of the game is to evolve, then immortals can't win because individuals do not evolve. If the object of the game is to survive through adaptation, then immortals can win by creating technology. What do think the object of the game is?
Re:Immortality
« Reply #4 on: 2003-09-29 21:14:45 »
If the environment is finite, then the problem with Immortalism is that it ultimately requires you to forego reproduction, and with it the benefits of sexual recombination and evolutionary adaptation. It's simple math that if individuals never die then you eventually reach the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. It happens surprisingly soon even if you assume the entire universe out to the Hubble limit is accessible to us via instantaneous FTL travel -- within a few thousand years at most.
Such are the wonders of exponential growth.
Having reached this carrying capacity we are stuck with a finite pool of very old individuals who aren't going anywhere. Here there are two problems.
First, we may find ourselves unable to adapt to some changing situation. For example, if there is no FTL travel and we find ourselves limited to the Solar System, we may never get around to leaving before the Sun blows up. None of us knows what it is like to live five hundred years, much less five thousand or a million. While we may be able to gain adaptivity through technology I tend to think we would become very, very stagnant without new generations and the threat of death to keep kicking us into action.
Second, once we are stuck in this static situation with this static pool of very old individuals who aren't going anywhere, the question of why we are hanging around must be asked. Just how many games of golf do we play before the whole exercise becomes too boring to feign interest in any more?
One can say that the smart society provides for voluntary suicide, and might even assume that this would provide a steady dribble of opportunity for new generations to eke themselves out. But such a strategy isn't Immortalist; taken to its logical conclusion it assumes that more or less everybody will eventually opt out.
I am personally deeply suspicious of Immortalist theories regarding lifespans of more than 1,000 years or so because it is simply impossible to know how we would react to such an opportunity. We don't know how the mind would age at such length; presumably the brain has a finite capacity for absorbing information, and at some point it must start discarding old stuff in order to make room for the new. We might even have to deliberately engineer this to keep ourselves from getting all senile in our seven hundreds. In this case, would the person who exists after a life of ten thousand years still be in any meaningful sense the same person who was born ten thousand years before?
All in all, a very interesting maze of questions. I wish I had some answers to some of them :-)
While we may be able to gain adaptivity through technology I tend to think we would become very, very stagnant without new generations and the threat of death to keep kicking us into action.
The threat of accidental death does not go away once aging is conquered so I don't see this being a problem.
Quote:
Second, once we are stuck in this static situation with this static pool of very old individuals who aren't going anywhere, the question of why we are hanging around must be asked. Just how many games of golf do we play before the whole exercise becomes too boring to feign interest in any more?
A better question might be how many different games can we learn and master before we lose interest in all possible games? What if our capacity to learn every more sophisticated games increases?
Quote:
We don't know how the mind would age at such length; presumably the brain has a finite capacity for absorbing information, and at some point it must start discarding old stuff in order to make room for the new. We might even have to deliberately engineer this to keep ourselves from getting all senile in our seven hundreds. In this case, would the person who exists after a life of ten thousand years still be in any meaningful sense the same person who was born ten thousand years before?
Why assume a finite capacity to learn? Couldn't technology allow more storage capacity?
Well if you continue to reproduce, and each couple produces more than two children, exponential growth is what you get unless you foresee some really unpleasant interruption.
Quote:
Quote:
While we may be able to gain adaptivity through technology I tend to think we would become very, very stagnant without new generations and the threat of death to keep kicking us into action.
The threat of accidental death does not go away once aging is conquered so I don't see this being a problem.
That depends on how you conquer aging :-) Anyway, the more successful you are at conquering aging, the more of a problem it becomes; the longer the average individual lives, the less fecund we can all be if we are to avoid the first problem re: exponential growth. Thus, if lives are very long and society is very stable, there cannot be a lot of new individuals forming new generations.
Quote:
Quote:
Second, once we are stuck in this static situation with this static pool of very old individuals who aren't going anywhere, the question of why we are hanging around must be asked. Just how many games of golf do we play before the whole exercise becomes too boring to feign interest in any more?
A better question might be how many different games can we learn and master before we lose interest in all possible games? What if our capacity to learn every more sophisticated games increases?
Well, it's a rhetorical question. The obvious answer is that there aren't an infinite number of games to learn, and after awhile you start finding common principles. Even J.G. Ballard, whose life span is of ordinary length if not content, has lived long enough to remark: "People are fond of saying that life is too short, but they are wrong. Life is actually very long." I would expect this sentiment to be more common among older people, approaching the limit of universality as the common age approaches infinity.
Quote:
Quote:
We don't know how the mind would age at such length; presumably the brain has a finite capacity for absorbing information, and at some point it must start discarding old stuff in order to make room for the new. We might even have to deliberately engineer this to keep ourselves from getting all senile in our seven hundreds. In this case, would the person who exists after a life of ten thousand years still be in any meaningful sense the same person who was born ten thousand years before?
Why assume a finite capacity to learn? Couldn't technology allow more storage capacity?
Well this is of course one of Eliezer's pet ideas, and as I've always said it's part of the SIAI doctrine I find least convincing. I am more impressed by a comment by the late Tom Rainbow, who wrote (paraphrasing) "if I had a 'super brain' I'd probably use it to memorize every baseball score since 1911 and try to get an edge at poker.'" TR wrote that around 1987, incidentally, back when Vernor Vinge was just another SF writer and it was Isaac Asimov's characture that IASFM used to illustrate the story.
While I think technological enhancement may be possible I don't think it will be infinite, again without raising the spectre of the resulting being being something we would not want to become or recognize as "human." And there may be a hard limit imposed by the adaptability of the data structures which form consciousness itself, a limit which is easy to ignore when you have no clear model for how consciousness works.
As Eliezer himself has said, though, intelligence at its best approaches a Bayesian analyzer, and non-approximate Bayesian analysis is an NP-hard problem. So there may be a limit that has nothing to do with neurons, packing, or signal transmission that limits what consciousness can do.
Well if you continue to reproduce, and each couple produces more than two children, exponential growth is what you get unless you foresee some really unpleasant interruption.
Yes, I understand the math. I just don't see any reason to assume that the average number of children per person will necessarily be greater than one, especially given the consequences of exponential population growth.
Quote:
Well, it's a rhetorical question. The obvious answer is that there aren't an infinite number of games to learn, and after awhile you start finding common principles.
There may not be an infinite number of games, but there may be enough to keep us interested and amused for a few trillion years.
Quote:
Well this is of course one of Eliezer's pet ideas, and as I've always said it's part of the SIAI doctrine I find least convincing. I am more impressed by a comment by the late Tom Rainbow, who wrote (paraphrasing) "if I had a 'super brain' I'd probably use it to memorize every baseball score since 1911 and try to get an edge at poker.'"
What do you find impressive about that quote?
Quote:
While I think technological enhancement may be possible I don't think it will be infinite, again without raising the spectre of the resulting being being something we would not want to become or recognize as "human." And there may be a hard limit imposed by the adaptability of the data structures which form consciousness itself, a limit which is easy to ignore when you have no clear model for how consciousness works.
Maybe our only disagreement is over the semantics of "immortal". What if we say it means to live until the end of the universe, instead of forever? Do your arguments still apply?
Yes, I understand the math. I just don't see any reason to assume that the average number of children per person will necessarily be greater than one, especially given the consequences of exponential population growth.
Well the point is that if we achieve immortality (or even "practical immortality" as you later discuss, involving anything north of six-digit lifespans) our effective reproductive rate will have to tend toward zero. This happens in the surprisingly short term, regardless of the assumptions you allow about technology, at least compared with such life spans.
Quote:
There may not be an infinite number of games, but there may be enough to keep us interested and amused for a few trillion years.
Well given the total absence of data points between 100 years and 1,000,000,000,000 years, either of us could be right :-)
Quote:
"if I had a 'super brain' I'd probably use it to memorize every baseball score since 1911 and try to get an edge at poker."
What do you find impressive about that quote?
It has the ring of truth. Tom Rainbow was, incidentally, by all accounts something of a Super Brain himself, being one of the early lights in the cross-disciplinary movement to get both a M.D. and a Ph.D. in physics. His life was tragically cut short when he somehow fell beneath two subway cars during the last months of his education, as he was preparing to enter what everyone assumed would be a brilliant career.
Rainbow's point was that even within the limits we currently experience, smart people don't often use their smarts for things we consider smart. There's no reason to assume that we'd be any different if our smarts were enhanced.
Quote:
Maybe our only disagreement is over the semantics of "immortal". What if we say it means to live until the end of the universe, instead of forever? Do your arguments still apply?
I believe the arguments I've raised here should be taken seriously starting at life spans of 1,000 years or more. This isn't meant to pooh-pooh the whole idea, merely to ground the speculation in reality. We do know some things about getting old that immortalists tend to ignore because they're inconvenient or unpleasant, even though they might be very applicable.
I am 39 years old. It would be very fair to say that I am a very different person than I was at 20; my beliefs, talents, likes and dislikes have all changed. I have good reason to believe that 20yo-Roger would have mixed feelings about 39yo-Roger, but as 39-yo Roger I know that I got this way by an incremental process that made sense at every point along the way.
Another data point is the old saw that "anyone who is not a liberal in their youth has no heart, and anyone who is not a conservative in middle age has no brain." (Often true, though I must plead 'no brain.') Over and over again we see that time changes us -- this is not a fault, it is a natural part of the way our brains work. We discard patterns that are not finding use and probably use the space to grow new neurons that can learn new patterns. Given this, it makes sense to wonder what we would be like if we lived as long as the characters in MOPI, much less millions or billions of years; we simply have no experience in the matter. While I'd be delighted to be proven wrong I think it makes sense to keep a bit of perspective.
Well the point is that if we achieve immortality (or even "practical immortality" as you later discuss, involving anything north of six-digit lifespans) our effective reproductive rate will have to tend toward zero. This happens in the surprisingly short term, regardless of the assumptions you allow about technology, at least compared with such life spans.
Another possibility is that the space and resources that each individual uses will have to decrease exponentially.
Quote:
Well given the total absence of data points between 100 years and 1,000,000,000,000 years, either of us could be right :-)
The existing occupations and pasttimes can already keep someone interested and amused for thousands of centuries. In that time, new ones will be invented.
Quote:
Rainbow's point was that even within the limits we currently experience, smart people don't often use their smarts for things we consider smart. There's no reason to assume that we'd be any different if our smarts were enhanced.
True, but what does that have to do with the topic?
Quote:
Another data point is the old saw that "anyone who is not a liberal in their youth has no heart, and anyone who is not a conservative in middle age has no brain." (Often true, though I must plead 'no brain.') Over and over again we see that time changes us -- this is not a fault, it is a natural part of the way our brains work. We discard patterns that are not finding use and probably use the space to grow new neurons that can learn new patterns. Given this, it makes sense to wonder what we would be like if we lived as long as the characters in MOPI, much less millions or billions of years; we simply have no experience in the matter. While I'd be delighted to be proven wrong I think it makes sense to keep a bit of perspective.
If you are trying to argue that we won't stay the same for thousands of years, then you are already preaching to the choir. What is your disagreement exactly?
Another possibility is that the space and resources that each individual uses will have to decrease exponentially.
Well Lucifer that sounds like a pretty fricken unpleasant situation. Especially considering how fast it blows up. I'd say it is much more likely that we would quickly reach a species-wide consensus to limit breeding which would in turn quickly shut off the tap of new individuals being created, except for rare lottery-like exceptions.
Quote:
The existing occupations and pasttimes can already keep someone interested and amused for thousands of centuries. In that time, new ones will be invented.
Thousands of centuries? Humans haven't even been around as as species, much less individuals, for thousands of centuries. (All right, a thousand and a half centuries, give or take.) I'd say once you've worked a few jobs for a few lifetimes in a particular sphere you will have exhausted the interest implicit in dozens or even hundreds of related jobs.
Quote:
Rainbow's point was that even within the limits we currently experience, smart people don't often use their smarts for things we consider smart.
True, but what does that have to do with the topic?
Everything? Seriously, it suggests that we won't necessarily leverage our Increased Intelligence into ways to creatively maintain our interest in life. Much more likely we'll invent fantastic new ways to masturbate.
Quote:
If you are trying to argue that we won't stay the same for thousands of years, then you are already preaching to the choir. What is your disagreement exactly?
Well the original post was a call for elements that might destabilize the idea of very long lifespans. While there are good reasons to think very long lifespans are achievable and worth working for, there are other good reasons to be skeptical. My main purpose was to float those reasons to be skeptical which should be kept in mind, because one day success may require engineering a workaround, and you won't be doing that if you don't anticipate that there might be a problem.
Well Lucifer that sounds like a pretty fricken unpleasant situation.
Well, localroger, you probably are imagining something completely different from what I am.
Quote:
Thousands of centuries? Humans haven't even been around as as species, much less individuals, for thousands of centuries. (All right, a thousand and a half centuries, give or take.) I'd say once you've worked a few jobs for a few lifetimes in a particular sphere you will have exhausted the interest implicit in dozens or even hundreds of related jobs.
The length of time that humans have been around is completely irrelevant. I'm talking about the number of interesting activities that exist and will exist.
Quote:
Everything? Seriously, it suggests that we won't necessarily leverage our Increased Intelligence into ways to creatively maintain our interest in life. Much more likely we'll invent fantastic new ways to masturbate.
Do you consider activies like doing pure math or developing software just different ways to masturbate? Am I just imagining your condescending attitude toward any activity done purely for fun or pleasure?
lucifer sorry to say but you seem as tho you want to argue with a persons opinion instead of argue'n facts ....even tho it is fairly clear localroger is simply stating his opinion...
"Yes, I understand the math. I just don't see any reason to assume that the average number of children per person will necessarily be greater than one, especially given the consequences of exponential population growth." - david lucifer
i would tend to think if we lived to 100,000 years of age and we were human .....a few condoms would break durring this time:)
more then likely we would have 100's of offspring in this time period...
or are we setting rules to suggest we cannot have a certain amount of children/any children at all?
oh...i am sorry i aint much into propper grammar n such...
i have respected the CoV for a few years now....but never came here to post n such...
i do find it intresting with all the obviously intellgent people here that even here you guys have little pissing contests....
i would have thought you guys would have gotten allong better then this....but i see this place is like most message boards...just fancier words:)
but i wanted to simply state that even from a knuckle dragging perspective like mine localrogers comment..."All in all, a very interesting maze of questions. I wish I had some answers to some of them :-)" he shows that he is limited and real....unlike others i see here:)
~regret~ "...so do all who live to see such times...but that is not for them to decide...all you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." - Gandalf
Do you consider activies like doing pure math or developing software just different ways to masturbate? Am I just imagining your condescending attitude toward any activity done purely for fun or pleasure?
Hmm. In my experience, there are many things that are done for fun that later turn out to have great value to an individual or society. I say that you cannot simply lump all 'pleasurable activities' into one category. Then again, I'm ruthlessly reductionistic, so I'm probably biased on the topic of subdivision of categories.
Then again, I for one wouldn't mind "fantastic new ways to masturbate".
Re:Immortality
« Reply #14 on: 2005-02-05 00:29:02 »
Interesting the way different people interpret the same question. I have not read the article referenced, so perhaps that is why I understood the proposition differently, but I assumed that in this game immortality would be a strategy employed by very few within a much larger society of average-life-span competitors, in which case I would consider it a very good strategy...
Author
Logged
