Dear Laurence Hitterdale,

Thanks for a sober appreciation of the problem. I think the Singulartarians and other technology cultist's are simply exhibiting their complete misunderstanding of what consciousness is. They think it's an artifact that emerges from Lego blocks, so more and faster Lego blocks are all we need. Don't hold your breath.

And as you point out, no amount of life extension will amount to immortality, i.e., deathlessness. I tend to think that "it is implausible to suppose that the natural limits on technology are much tighter than they seem to be." But steady progress in technology will not yield transhumans, only greater efficiencies in most areas and, hopefully a few new lasers or MRIs -- even a new Internet. But technology won't make us gods. So I fully agree with your second strategic principle that we can rely only on human character and motivations as we now find them.

Finally I agree that you can't steer from outside, but only by steering yourself in the best direction you can conceive.

"Grand solutions, whatever they may be for others, remain only fantasies for me."

That is compatible with my essay, which I hope you will read and comment on.

Good to see you here again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    6 days later

    P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

    10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

    9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

    8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

    7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

    6 - slightly favorable indifference

    5 - unfavorable indifference

    4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

    3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

    2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

    1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

    After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

    The following is a general observation:

    Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

    Laurence Hitterdale,

    I appreciated this entry very much. It was well written and definitely fit the subject matter of this contest. Your current rating is the same as mine, but, I think yours rates higher. Thank you for submitting it. Good luck in the contest.

    James Putnam

      Hi Laurence,

      Nice work! I enjoyed your essay, and I think your priorities are in the right place.

      I wanted to comment to point out another suggestion that could fit into your email message at the end. It seems to me that an important aspect of public life, beyond making concrete suggestions like setting market prices for energy and encouraging efficiency, is in fully explaining the reasons and values that lead you to do those things, and bringing them into the public and political conversation.

      For example, finding a way for our responsibilities to future generations to be built into our legal structure might be helpful, or establishing publicly funded organizations to tackle the kinds of long-term issues that you outline in your essay.

      Overall, very nice; I look forward to your thoughts.

      Best,

      Daniel

      Crucial Phenomena

        Lawrence Hitterdale,

        The man who created socialism dealt with capital because he didn't get a professor post. He is known for his manifesto: The philosophers did only describe the world differently; let's change it instead.

        While your essay doesn't focus just on peace as does mine, we nearly agree on how such steering works. I see discoveries, inventions, and what Nobel called ideal direction rather than political decisions the primary and ultimately decisive contributions toward coping with the potential of humanity.

        Your metaphor of the rope over an abyss did not completely satisfy me because it lets me ask for the safe point where the rope ends. You will certainly take the same perspective as did Popper and do I; the future is open. Otherwise it couldn't be steered. Are you aware that this view contradicts to the tenets of modern physics?

        Isn't the name fqxi an obligation to deal with truly basic questions? Kadin's perspectives of humanity is different from those of individuals or groups.

        Facing hostility by time-traveling physicists, I am also blunt enough as to identify a basic reason for what you called the abyss; Ethics and human rights require to be slightly adapted. Do you agree?

        Eckard

          Lawrence,

          "I would stand up and do what I can" is a thought I cannot agree with more. I admire the thoughtful way you reached it. Hope you will allow me to use your logic with others.

          I reached the same position a few years ago. When a good friend introduced me to FQXi just 2 days before the 2014 competition deadline with the plea for me to enter this competition, I jumped at the chance.

          My essay (here) takes this thought a long way forward. I can only do a bit alone. Can I empower others to amplify the doing? My answer is 'yes, I can, by putting science in the hands of more and more people as just another tool, recognizing the value of which, more do, hopefully, say "I will stand up and do what I can".

          Looking forward to your comments on my essay.

          - Ajay

          You make a convincing case that this is a pivotal time, Laurence. You put it well when you say "it will be the best of times--unless it is the worst of times".

          I think we need something to shock us from our everyday way of doing things, so I particularly liked the message you imagine sending yourself. My own view is that working toward changing public policy--and changing the incentives we face as individuals--is probably the most important thing we can do.

          If you get a chance, I would love it if you took a look at my own essay, which touches on similar themes. Good luck in any case in the contest!

          Best,

          Robert de Neufville

          4 days later

          I appreciate your comments. Because we appear to be largely in agreement about the topics you mention, it is not necessary for me to say anything more here. I have commented on your essay on the page where it is posted.

          Laurence,

          The time grows short, so I'm revisiting and rating. Common good motivation, and looking beyond our solar system and stagnant ideas and looking within, using imagination and capacity like Einstein is my solution

          Have 'you had a chance to see my essay?

          Jim

          6 days later

          Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I have read your essay, and commented upon it at your contest Web page.

          Thanks for the encouragement. I agree with your suggestion that explaining the grounds for proposals is an important part of the process. Moreover, I think it is essential to build policies into legal structures and ongoing institutions. We cannot rely on repeatedly trying to convince people to act if supportive social frameworks are absent. I did not talk about the stage of building institutions, because I see myself as working at an earlier stage of the process.

          I did read your excellent essay, and I have commented on it at your contest Web page.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #39

          Author Laurence Hitterdale,

          I didn't say much because I thought it was complete with nothing to justifiably criticize. I liked it. Our choices for subjects is very different. I would like others to listen to me, but, I think it is essential that contestants read what the professionals think. At the time I judged that your essay needed to be higher to gain visibility. I pushed you up. You stayed up because your essay is appreciated. I have done it for several others. This is my sixth contest. The way the contest ratings actually function is less than ideal to the point where I think it becomes obvious that corrective action is sometimes necessary for the good of the contest. You earned a PHD in philosophy. You should be heard. I appreciate that you visited my website and have considered my viewpoints. I thank you for the time and effort. I expect my essay to be judged from the reader's point of view. Whatever you think is right, high or low, is accepted and appreciated. I won't know the vote anyway unless told. Good luck.

          James Putnam

          Dear Laurence,

          I enjoyed reading your excellent essay. I share similar view that we are in a turning point: survival or extinction.

          You wrote: "First, avoidance of a negative outcome must take priority over the production of a positive outcome."

          I agree with this statement. If I may say I propose both "avoidance of a negative outcome" and "the production of a positive outcome". Please read my essay "Chinese Dream is Xuan Yuan's Da Tong".

          I rated this essay the highest score 10.

          Best of luck,

          Leo KoGuan

          Laurence,

          Yours was one of the first essays I read, but I didn't take the time back them to comment on it.

          I really appreciated your arguments, in particular the statement near the end of your essay that "we [cannot] solve the problem of climate change without also making progress on many other natural and social problems that humanity faces [...] a global effort focused on one serious problem (i.e., climate change) will put in place both institutional structures and habits of mind that will be required for many other tasks in the coming decades."

          I am glad your essay has been well received. I believe it belongs in the finals, and I have rated it accordingly. Good luck!

          Marc

          Laurence,

          your essay reveals a precise, analytical mind, and an ability to organise into a logical structure a topic that does not easily lend itself to such a treatment.

          I appreciated the psychological annotation about our inclination to consider ourselves as special, and our present times as a crucial passage in history. But exactly because of the illusory nature of these opinions, I disagree with the picture that is given of the post-singularity.

          What I mean is that the only fact we cannot deny is the acceleration of technological progress, and of the other usual parameters related to population growth, pollution, etc.

          But the expectation that, after possibly surviving the next `change of phase` (or the Singularity) in the most desirable way, and after entering a new phase of prosperity, the future will stabilise into such positive, steady-state scenario, would be totally unjustified. I believe it is perfectly natural to expect that changes of phase will keep occurring, periodically, in the future, as they did in the past. New singularities might, for example, correlate with space colonisation steps, on various cosmic scales, or with alien life encounters.

          I am not exactly sure about your position on this this multi-singularity conjecture (but `change of phase` is perhaps a better term for what I mean), since you do not seem to mention it explicitly. I am curious about your opinion, especially in case you disagree with it :-]

          Best regards

          Tommaso

          Dear Laurence,

          Thank you for your close reading of my essay and your comments and questions.

          I agree with your answer to your first question about freedom and social stability: the goal is to achieve social stability while doing the best we can to achieve as much freedom for individuals as possible. You have correctly interpreted the "cost function" statement.

          The second question is harder to answer. You indicate that those who successfully market their ideas may succeed in promoting their own inferior ideas above better, less well marketed (or less well-funded) ideas. You identify this as a problem associated with economic freedom, but I find exactly the same problem occurring in academia, where "wealth" is more a matter of "prestige" (and the accompanying funding), but ideas are still marketed unequally.

          In general I do not see a solution of this that does not involve gatekeeping by a "master" class, controlling the expression of the beta class. It's a tough problem.

          Thanks for participating. I always enjoy our discussions.

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Laurence,

          A very useful and nice essay, with food for thought. I agree with your proposal of preventing disasters as an important step in the steering. More broadly, I have been thinking that many of the essays in this forum, when put together, provide a significant and comprehensive steering strategy, if only those who matter will pay heed to these ideas.

          Best regards,

          Tejinder

          Hi Laurence,

          Thanks for your essay. I agree with the views you express. One item I found interesting was the description of transhumanist interests in improving human "intellectual, physical, and psychological" capacities, largely because of what is not mentioned - like the capacity for caring, justice, and honesty. It is these qualities of kindness, mercy, consideration, etc., that I think are most in need to avert a catastrophe.

          I found that your essay resonated with my essay on computationally intelligent personal dialogic agents. I developed a prototype as part of a National Science Foundation CAREER award, and have shown that it can "nudge" human interactions in the midst of conversation toward more productive and effective ends. I believe it can help to prevent the kind of disasters you discuss.

          I'd appreciate a rating on my essay, if you can do that, since I am a bit short on ratings. Also, if you know of someone that might be interested in collaborating on the further development of a dialogic web, please have them contact me. My gmail username is my first name, then a period, then my last name. Thanks,

          Ray Luechtefeld, PhD

          Laurence,

          Your essay gave me great food for thought. I prefer practicable dooable solutions to idealism so gelled with your "Grand solutions, whatever they may be for others, remain only fantasies for me." Yet my recent experiences suggest that alone is inadequate.

          Considering the poor understanding we have of nature, and physics riddled with inconsistencies and anomalies do you think it's not possible that one day somebody will come up with a new coherent solution? There must be some answer unifying out understanding of physics which allows allowing both ' production of a positive' and 'avoidance of a negative' outcomes, not just for for climate change but dozen of other areas at once. Surely it may be fatal to rule that out?

          So if someone stumbles across such a major advancement in understanding, what should they do? I'm sure you wouldn't say; 'cycle to work', so how can they gain attention for a solution, by definition 'unfamiliar' when science is 'belief lead' and all such departures rejected a priori?

          Shouldn't we work to create the conditions where we ARE able to see and assess the value of such possibilities? The Estep-Heokstra essay expresses it well as needing better ways of thinking. Are not positivity and ambition first required? Or do you consider such advanced beyond us.

          I hope you'll read and comment on my own essay allegorically offering a palatable glimpse of work in that direction. Yet it seems perhaps that even self apparent geometrical proofs, evidence and more coherent ontologies are powerless in the face of old beliefs. Is there a solution?

          Thank you kindly. Very best wishes.

          Peter