A few months ago I noticed a pattern across the past eras of forager, farmer industry: each era has a major cycle (ice ages, empires rise & fall, business cycle) with a period of about one third of that era’s doubling time. So I tentatively suggested that a em future might also have a major cycle of roughly one third of its doubling time. If that economic doubling time is about a month, the em major cycle period might be about a week.
> more simple since it relates to objective reality though the experience is subjective.
Here is an example using brain states:
So far as you know what X brain looks like when it "observes" (brain state) Y (signature of the physical measurements we can sample from Y and operators for its behavior along boundary conditions) and what Z brain looks like when it observes Y Then in order to transfer what one saw you would generate some operator, Ym, that such that X -> Ym = Z and Z -> YM = X is true.
This might be a bit different if say, Z brain never observed Y, but I suppose that if Z brain has "observed" some sufficiently large amount of states previously, such that you could combine those observed states constructively/destructively in some way to form an approximate Z, observation for Y (this would be an operation who's output would be equal to the signature of the physical measurements of Y)
I think the risk should be evaluated on how "good" the approximation is compared to the cost of not getting anything at all.
> leading to loss of individuality.
Seeing the way most people live along our respective local conditions, I think most of our behavior of individuality is closer to operating based on some dominant pattern (i.e social norms) than a being operating distinctly from every 7 billion+ other beings.
Similar but more simple since it relates to objective reality though the experience is subjective. Much less risky than trying to share experience that may alter perception and thought. The impaired may welcome the removal of their impairment, but it may alter them in ways their prior selves would not prefer. Perhaps an evolution of thought would occur leading to a dominant pattern leading to loss of individuality.
We are looking for an innovation that *doesn't* change the growth rate at the time, but enables an increase later. And most any innovation can be thought of as increasing intelligence - we want more specifics about it.
Wouldn't an obvious candidate be ems discovering how to rapidly augment their own individual intelligence, which should begin to kick off the transition from the age of ems to the true technological singularity?
Maybe similar to your first option, the empirical era is assumed to begin with simulations of brains that no one understands well. That is, no artificial intelligence, just ported human intelligence. This need not last, and the discovery of useful AGI principles could plausibly change the em era in such a big way.
> more simple since it relates to objective reality though the experience is subjective.
Here is an example using brain states:
So far as you know what X brain looks like when it "observes" (brain state) Y (signature of the physical measurements we can sample from Y and operators for its behavior along boundary conditions) and what Z brain looks like when it observes Y Then in order to transfer what one saw you would generate some operator, Ym, that such that X -> Ym = Z and Z -> YM = X is true.
This might be a bit different if say, Z brain never observed Y, but I suppose that if Z brain has "observed" some sufficiently large amount of states previously, such that you could combine those observed states constructively/destructively in some way to form an approximate Z, observation for Y (this would be an operation who's output would be equal to the signature of the physical measurements of Y)
I think the risk should be evaluated on how "good" the approximation is compared to the cost of not getting anything at all.
> leading to loss of individuality.
Seeing the way most people live along our respective local conditions, I think most of our behavior of individuality is closer to operating based on some dominant pattern (i.e social norms) than a being operating distinctly from every 7 billion+ other beings.
Similar but more simple since it relates to objective reality though the experience is subjective. Much less risky than trying to share experience that may alter perception and thought. The impaired may welcome the removal of their impairment, but it may alter them in ways their prior selves would not prefer. Perhaps an evolution of thought would occur leading to a dominant pattern leading to loss of individuality.
Do you see that as the same or as different from expressing "brain states."
Being able to communicate smell, taste, and touch would be a significant expansion of capability.
We are looking for an innovation that *doesn't* change the growth rate at the time, but enables an increase later. And most any innovation can be thought of as increasing intelligence - we want more specifics about it.
Wouldn't an obvious candidate be ems discovering how to rapidly augment their own individual intelligence, which should begin to kick off the transition from the age of ems to the true technological singularity?
Maybe similar to your first option, the empirical era is assumed to begin with simulations of brains that no one understands well. That is, no artificial intelligence, just ported human intelligence. This need not last, and the discovery of useful AGI principles could plausibly change the em era in such a big way.