The problem is that you’re counting that 1/49th chance twice. Once for the first brother and once for the second.
trist
Karma: 296
1… Simulating a brain requires much more processing power than implementing the same algorithms used by the brain, and those are likely not the most efficient algorithms. Computing power is much less a barrier than understanding how intelligence works.
It’s not that bold a claim. It’s quite the same claim that simulating a brain at the level of quantum electrodynamics requires much more processing power than at the level of neurons. Or, if you will, that simulating a CPU at the level of silicon takes more than simulating at a functional level takes more than running the same algorithm natively.
I find the whole question less confusing when viewed from the other direction. After the upload, the uploaded you will view the current you as it’s past. If the upload is nondestructive, the non-uploaded you will also.
If you rewrite my nuerons such that I have all of Donald Trump’s memories (or connections) and none of my own, yes. If you only rewrite my name, no, for I would still identify with the memories. There’s lots of space between those where I’m partially me and partially him, and I would hazard to forward-identify with beings in proportion to how much of my current memories they retain, possibly diluted by their additional memories.
Are cryopreserved humans l-zombies?
keeping in mind that if they were an l-zombie, they would still say “I have conscious experiences, so clearly I can’t be an l-zombie”?
As well they should. For l-zombies to do anything they need to be run, whereupon they stop being l-zombies.
Zooko did this: Tahoe-LAFS
You can safely use it for private files too, just don’t lose your preencryption hashes.
And how do you expect to do better by using the weighted majority algorithm? Not in the worst case, but on average?
In lieu of losing someone, you could put yourself through a realistic simulation (of the first stages).
Really though, we’re all qualified to defend either deathism or immortalism. I’d love to hear what a deathist thinks is the strongest arguments for deathism.
Ask a creative friend to arrange one.
If someone asked me to arrange one… Firstly I’d schedule a random date a year or more hence, and not look at it. I’d determine how much cooperation I could expect from simulated and family and friends. More cooperation makes it easier. On that random day, I’d get an email, and I’d let people know, and start things moving. Anything from one parent calling about the other’s death to “police” calling to their partner summoning them home… The better people are at acting and the further away the simulated death occures the more realistic and longer experience they get. Given a specific situation there are probably better ideas.
Then there are less normal possibilities, perhaps hypnosis?
You wouldn’t notice the muscular subvocalizations. The easiest way to detect them is EMGs on the neck.
I do get to a point where the external world fades away and (with fiction) I have much stronger auditory and visual sensations. I imagine I stop subvocalization during that, I certainly appear to read faster.
Consider all the possible outcomes of the races. Any algorithm will be right half the time (on average for the non-deterministic ones), on any subset of those races algorithms (other than random guessing) some algorithms will do better than others. We’re looking for algorithms that do well in the subsets that match up to reality.
The more randomness in an algorithm, the less the algorithm varies across those subsets. By doing better in subsets that don’t match reality the weighted maximum algorithm does worse in the subsets that do, which are the ones we care about. There are algorithms that does better in reality, and they have less randomness. (Now if none can be reduced from giant lookup tables, that’d be interesting...)
But the point of the randomized weighted majority guarantee is that it holds (up to the correctness of the random number generator) regardless of how much more complicated reality may be than the experts’ models.
How often are the models both perfectly contradictory and equal to chance? How often is reality custom tailored to make the algorithm fail?
Those are the cases you’re protecting against, no? I imagine there are more effective ways.
World Population: 7 billion
145+ IQ (13/10000): 93 million
Male (1/2): 46 million
College-aged (1/10): 4 million
Normal weight (3/5): 2 million
Transhumanist values are probably higher than average in that group, but I have no idea of numbers there. Clicking with you and a more refined definition of attraction I can’t speak to, but if you’ve come in contact with 5 in your time at college… There’s still lots.
Of course… I thought 100 was meant to be the global mean. Lynn set Great Britian’s mean, nothing like a flexible definition!
The (not very good) data doesn’t bear out a 90ish global mean though, the sub-90 IQ countries are much lower population than over 90. To be pessimistic I’d take another half sigma. (92.5)
World Population: 7 billion
145+ IQ (1/4200): 17 million
Male (1/2): 8 million
College-aged (1/10): 800 thousand
Normal weight (3/5): 480 thousand
Actually useful numbers may be able to be obtained by using more locale specific filters.
That’s not accurate; did you mean 13/10000?
Thanks, fixed.
I have a hard time seeing people as replaceable, much less easially. Even between two people who fit some abstracted ideal, one won’t replace another. Leaving that aside though, I think that the difficulty is more in finding the people who fit that ideal than their actual existence.
Hence the actually useful numbers bit! Yet I do care to some extent, if for some reason I end up there in future, just less then everyone here and now. Maybe one could weight populations by inverse distance?
I’ve been working on a tool like this. Done well it would be applicable to more than just debate… If folks want to collaborate, I’m interested.
The people who gain the most from structured arguments are the people who don’t need to sift through ten blog posts and hundreds of comments. The gains for the writers are more along the lines of less time reiterating arguments in different contexts.
And I completely agree that at this point it would be more efficient to find new audience at universities.
Less time required to reach a given number of people who are going to join in, agreed. Yet the translation can help raise the sanity waterline of a group of people that would not even consider coming to a ‘rationality meetup’. I go to meetups because of the sequences, because it’s worth a three to five hour journey to hang out with people who share that.
Even with realtime text, that is where other’s letters appear as they type, I find that interruptions don’t happen much. I can read while I type much more easily than listen while a talk. The factors I see are fading speed and channel noise… I’ve heard stories about people talking and listening simultaneously on a telephone, but can’t say I’ve observed it. So my hunch is that fading speed has more to do with it. Anyone know much about interruption in signed conversation?