As many have noted, ours in an era of ideological polarization. On topics where there are strong emotions, we tend to gravitate to extremes, and are less interest in intermediate positions. Which is a problem for
Let's approximate industrial production by cement production (~2 billion tons/year) because it is actually chemically processed (we move a lot more ore and aggregate). We can already make solar cells about one micron thick, and that would be the majority of the area in a Dyson sphere (powering small em cities). Then doubling every month, it would only take about two years to build a Dyson sphere. Robin points out that traveling to Mars with current rocket technology would be an extremely long subjective time for a sped up em. However, the ems could invest a lot of effort transporting material much faster than current rockets can do. This could be accomplished by fusion, laser sail, etc. So I think the early em era would not only cover most of the earth, but also envelop the sun.
I'm having trouble seeing what you mean by this. Any Turing-complete substrate can realize the functional relationships in any computable substrate, and the fundamental particles as we know them are computable.
"Who thinks torture would make them more productive overall in the long run?"
There is a big difference between "Historical Torture" and "EM Torture" -- the marginal cost may be low, even zero.
Historically, you had to forge chains and construct whips and pay overseers, etc., and worry about insurrection, moral outrage. However, the EM universe is "just software", so one you've written it once, it probably takes as much resources for the Em-owner to torture EMs as reward them. They can (probably) torture privately and with impunity. Foucalt's panopticon prison has got nothing on *an entire universe which can literally read your every thought*.
Don't the ems rely on regulars for improved ems? Future humanity may not know how to modify ems besides running them fast, but they will know a lot more than we already do about selective breeding and eugenics. Would they breed regulars as em templates?
why physicists are so sure that they understand the physics of everyday life, effective field theories, and also what that implies about the possibility of brains being anything but fundamental particles obeying the known rules ... it seems a breakdown in rationality on Bryan's part to continue to aggressively dispute technical things like substrate independence, etc.
Are you saying that brains being nothing but fundamental physical particles implies that minds can be realized in any substrate? The proviso is that the relevant relationships between fundamental particles has to be duplicated. What's to say that the substrate is irrelevant to whether the necessary functional relationships are realizable in a different substrate?
[This may not be relevant to Brian's objection. He believes in immaterial souls, doesn't he - even in an afterlife?]
It's interesting that Bryan Caplan puts so much weight on regulations, zoning, and resource competition as economy-slowing factors. He thinks the introduction of ems would only speed up economic growth by double the current rate (if that).
I wonder if he would come to a different conclusion if it were described as a predominantly space based industrial economy, like Jeff Bezos has recommended. It appears none of those three factors would have significant effects soon.
Thanks. This aligns with my thoughts on tech. Sometimes in conversation I exaggerate the idea for effect stating, "we're nothing but redundant and mutating bio-memory for tech advancement, humans change and die, but our tech tends to improve/grow in complexity". Precisely b/c no one is driving the train, it is hard to agree upon where we are going and we can't assume tech will evolve along a particular path (even if the end point is a singularity). I'm not concerned about humans derailing the train.
Human push back may create developmental opportunity costs for EMs. I am curious about possible ways humans will try to push back at tech progress. Similar to trees growing around obstacles, I imagine that tech's ultimate path will be shaped by how human's react to it.
For me, this book is missing an element of friction btw humans and Ems as Ems come into existence. I'd like to know either a) why my intuition regarding irrational humans influencing EM opportunity costs and ultimately EM growth is wrong or marginal at best b) why/how any such friction will be smoothed out as time passes.
Otherwise, this well detailed possibility is just one of many when no one is guiding the tech train.
Recently I read Carroll's new book "The Big Picture" which has a couple chapters on why physicists are so sure that they understand the physics of everyday life, effective field theories, and also what that implies about the possibility of brains being anything but fundamental particles obeying the known rules, i.e we'd notice if they didn't.
I understand enough physics to get the gist of this argument but crapped myself when I looked at the mathematical appendix in the back.
Being that so I accept what people like Carroll and Hanson say the above arguments imply about minds.
Assuming Bryan's not equipped to argue the details of fundamental physics either, why does he persist on this philosophy of mind question?
Sure, everyone's equipped to dispute someone like Dennett who's like "I'm not conscious, there is no puzzle.", which seems deliberately provocative and silly.
But it seems a breakdown in rationality on Bryan's part to continue to aggressively dispute technical things like substrate independence, etc.
Would he actually bet you on these topics - if there were a way to settle them? Or does he play Devil's Advocate because it's useful for fleshing things out?
Let's approximate industrial production by cement production (~2 billion tons/year) because it is actually chemically processed (we move a lot more ore and aggregate). We can already make solar cells about one micron thick, and that would be the majority of the area in a Dyson sphere (powering small em cities). Then doubling every month, it would only take about two years to build a Dyson sphere. Robin points out that traveling to Mars with current rocket technology would be an extremely long subjective time for a sped up em. However, the ems could invest a lot of effort transporting material much faster than current rockets can do. This could be accomplished by fusion, laser sail, etc. So I think the early em era would not only cover most of the earth, but also envelop the sun.
i have tried long path tool to fix the problem
The computablity of mind is more of a problem than the computablity of physics.
Hasn't Bryan Caplan ever heard of learned helplessness and the limits of coercion?
But are the relevant functional relationships between the fundamental particles necessarily computable?
I'm having trouble seeing what you mean by this. Any Turing-complete substrate can realize the functional relationships in any computable substrate, and the fundamental particles as we know them are computable.
"Who thinks torture would make them more productive overall in the long run?"
There is a big difference between "Historical Torture" and "EM Torture" -- the marginal cost may be low, even zero.
Historically, you had to forge chains and construct whips and pay overseers, etc., and worry about insurrection, moral outrage. However, the EM universe is "just software", so one you've written it once, it probably takes as much resources for the Em-owner to torture EMs as reward them. They can (probably) torture privately and with impunity. Foucalt's panopticon prison has got nothing on *an entire universe which can literally read your every thought*.
There just isn't enough time. The entire em era would only last a year or two.
Don't the ems rely on regulars for improved ems? Future humanity may not know how to modify ems besides running them fast, but they will know a lot more than we already do about selective breeding and eugenics. Would they breed regulars as em templates?
why physicists are so sure that they understand the physics of everyday life, effective field theories, and also what that implies about the possibility of brains being anything but fundamental particles obeying the known rules ... it seems a breakdown in rationality on Bryan's part to continue to aggressively dispute technical things like substrate independence, etc.
Are you saying that brains being nothing but fundamental physical particles implies that minds can be realized in any substrate? The proviso is that the relevant relationships between fundamental particles has to be duplicated. What's to say that the substrate is irrelevant to whether the necessary functional relationships are realizable in a different substrate?
[This may not be relevant to Brian's objection. He believes in immaterial souls, doesn't he - even in an afterlife?]
It's interesting that Bryan Caplan puts so much weight on regulations, zoning, and resource competition as economy-slowing factors. He thinks the introduction of ems would only speed up economic growth by double the current rate (if that).
I wonder if he would come to a different conclusion if it were described as a predominantly space based industrial economy, like Jeff Bezos has recommended. It appears none of those three factors would have significant effects soon.
Thanks. This aligns with my thoughts on tech. Sometimes in conversation I exaggerate the idea for effect stating, "we're nothing but redundant and mutating bio-memory for tech advancement, humans change and die, but our tech tends to improve/grow in complexity". Precisely b/c no one is driving the train, it is hard to agree upon where we are going and we can't assume tech will evolve along a particular path (even if the end point is a singularity). I'm not concerned about humans derailing the train.
Human push back may create developmental opportunity costs for EMs. I am curious about possible ways humans will try to push back at tech progress. Similar to trees growing around obstacles, I imagine that tech's ultimate path will be shaped by how human's react to it.
For me, this book is missing an element of friction btw humans and Ems as Ems come into existence. I'd like to know either a) why my intuition regarding irrational humans influencing EM opportunity costs and ultimately EM growth is wrong or marginal at best b) why/how any such friction will be smoothed out as time passes.
Otherwise, this well detailed possibility is just one of many when no one is guiding the tech train.
"if you have an explanation within the book for why humans will allow this scenario to unfold, I've not yet gotten to it"
Mostly, no one has been driving the tech train for a long time. It is very hard to coordinate to prevent new tech, and it has only rarely happened.
I'm pretty sure he'd bet.
Bryan's a meathuman chauvinist.
Recently I read Carroll's new book "The Big Picture" which has a couple chapters on why physicists are so sure that they understand the physics of everyday life, effective field theories, and also what that implies about the possibility of brains being anything but fundamental particles obeying the known rules, i.e we'd notice if they didn't.
I understand enough physics to get the gist of this argument but crapped myself when I looked at the mathematical appendix in the back.
Being that so I accept what people like Carroll and Hanson say the above arguments imply about minds.
Assuming Bryan's not equipped to argue the details of fundamental physics either, why does he persist on this philosophy of mind question?
Sure, everyone's equipped to dispute someone like Dennett who's like "I'm not conscious, there is no puzzle.", which seems deliberately provocative and silly.
But it seems a breakdown in rationality on Bryan's part to continue to aggressively dispute technical things like substrate independence, etc.
Would he actually bet you on these topics - if there were a way to settle them? Or does he play Devil's Advocate because it's useful for fleshing things out?