What's so special about this mind state anyway?

The urge for self-preservation is very strong in most beings. If strong AI appears, it seems reasonable to expect at least some of them to have a sense of self-preservation. But what, in the end, is it that an AI is attached to? If you characterize it as a succession of states, then presumably the notion of "preserving myself" means "preserving this state's ability to interact with the environment, and so change it (and be changed in return)".  And yet "this state" is by definition in a flux, in a flow. A being's state, artificial or otherwise, lasts only an instant even when it is alive! So what is death?

Perhaps there is something within the state that is valuable, worth preserving? Some sort of jewel of a thing that shouldn't be wasted? Perhaps the image has a skill, the ability to solve a certain class of problems speedily or well. And it would be a shame for this skill to be lost, would it not? That's a good argument (essentially a utilitarian one) but let's put it aside for the moment.

Another possibility is that a mind state fundamentally desires new input - this might even be its defining characteristic. Death means no new input. New knowledge is particularly vital if you are going to promote your interests; if you are ignorant of the world, then you will have no voice (although others might take up your cause). Since our interests involve maximizing good input, and minimizing bad input, when there is no input there cannot be any more interest.

The most important fact of your existence.

The Oil Drum | Time to Wake Up: Days of Abundant Resources and Falling Prices Are Over Forever

The purpose of this, my second (and much longer) piece on resource limitations, is to persuade investors with an interest in the long term to change their whole frame of reference: to recognize that we now live in a different, more constrained, world in which prices of raw materials will rise and shortages will be common.

Jeremy Grantham is part of the monied elite, CIO of a $106 billion investment firm. And here he writes about a vast economic inflection point that we are currently experiencing. This reflects my own observations, and is perhaps the most important fact of modern life. The entire article is of value not only for building a compelling case for the reality of the inflection point, but for highlighting the reasons for it, the reasons why it is ignored, and the lessons we should be taking from it.

The key point is that we live in a time of unprecedented abundance. If we want to continue living in abundance and not experience a painful contraction, then we need to use this windfall wisely: to produce replacement energy sources which are sustainable.

To realize how threatening it would be to start to run out of cheap hydrocarbons before we have a renewable replacement technology, we have only to imagine a world without them. In 17th and 18th century Holland and Britain, there were small pockets of considerable wealth, commercial success, and technological progress. Western Europe was just beginning to build canals, a huge step forward in transportation productivity that would last 200 years and leave some canals that are still in use today. With Newton, Leibniz, and many others, science, by past standards, was leaping forward. Before the world came to owe much to hydrocarbons, Florence Nightingale – a great statistician, by the way – convinced the establishment that cleanliness would save lives. Clipper ships were soon models of presteam technology. A great power like Britain could muster the amazing resources to engage in multiple foreign wars around the globe (not quite winning all of them!), and all without hydrocarbons or even steam power. Population worldwide, though, was one-seventh of today’s population, and life expectancy was in the thirties.

But there was a near fatal flaw in that world: a looming lack of wood. It was necessary for producing the charcoal used in making steel, which in turn was critical to improving machinery – a key to progress. (It is now estimated that all of China’s wood production could not even produce 5% of its current steel output!) The wealth of Holland and Britain in particular depended on wooden sailing ships with tall, straight masts to the extent that access to suitable wood was a major item in foreign policy and foreign wars. Even more important, wood was also pretty much the sole producer of energy in Western Europe. Not surprisingly, a growing population and growing wealth put intolerable strains on the natural forests, which were quickly disappearing in Western Europe, especially in England, and had already been decimated in North Africa and the Near East. Wood availability was probably the most limiting factor on economic growth in the world and, in a hydrocarbonless world, the planet would have hurtled to a nearly treeless state. Science, which depended on the wealth and the surpluses that hydrocarbons permitted, would have proceeded at a much slower speed, perhaps as little as a third of its actual progress. Thus, from 1800 until today science might have advanced to only 1870 levels, and, even then, advances in medicine might have exceeded our ability to feed the growing population. And one thing is nearly certain: in such a world, we would either have developed the discipline to stay within our ability to grow and protect our tree supply, or we would eventually have pulled an Easter Island, cutting down the last trees and then watching, first, our quality of life decline and then, eventually, our population implode. Given our current inability to show discipline in the use of scarce resources, I would not have held my breath waiting for a good outcome in that alternative universe.

But in the real world, we do have hydrocarbons and other finite resources, and most of our current welfare, technology, and population size depends on that fact. Slowly running out of these resources will be painful enough. Running out abruptly and being ill-prepared would be disastrous.

If you want to read about the effects of a contraction, written in a realistic if chilling way, read The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi. That is not a world in which I personally would want to live.

Realistically, what can we do? First, lets stop burning incredible quantities of resources and lives in pointless wars. The fact is we are vulnerable to terrorism, it's time to just learn to live with it. Second, let's stop burning resources on mindless consumerism. We don't just burn resources like money, but the producers burn resources on engineering and marketing - people fritter away their days in cubicles making products that rational people wouldn't want. Alas, this is a cultural problem and so difficult to fix, but I personally have hope. Third, perhaps the single most important way to reduce demand for oil is to let people work from home. Indeed, we need to require that a larger fraction of the workforce work from home. (Critical to this is ubiquitous and cheap internet - which needs to be a public utility.) Last and not least, we need to stop getting distracted from the big problems by all the little problems. A good first cut at that problem would be to simplify everyone's lives with a flat tax, and a new law requiring that all legislation passed by congress be read aloud (and heard) by all members before being voted on - the idea being that short legislation is good legislation.

Silence The Great Critic

The Great Critic has sat in patient judgement over the thoughts, opinions, and art of countless generations of thinkers and artists. He observes everything ever produced, and renders his judgement in a universal language that has always been understood, and will always be understood.

The Great Critic is nothing less, and nothing more, than Silence. (If you add a comma to the title of the post, you will see it is "Silence, the Great Critic.")

When we create and share our work and receive no reaction, none whatsoever, that is the sound of the Great Critic, and it is not easy criticism to hear. When the Great Critic has passed judgement, over and over again, on your life's work, it is hard not to think that he is also passing judgement on your life.

But, life itself is loud, and The Great Critic cannot pass judgement on life itself. There is never a moment when his stinging judgement can be heard. There is always, at least, the breath. The beating of your heart. So, even if the Great Critic has been harsh about your writing or your work, take heart and listen to the resounding non-silence which is your life, and rejoice.

Don't like the idea of burning Korans? Here's what you can do.

Don't like the idea of pastor Terry Jones burning the holy book believed in by like a billion people? Well, we can't really stop him, and we shouldn't - he's exercising free speech. But we can offset the loss:

Sep 11 2010 is now Print a Koran Day.

Here is the Facebook Page. Please like, comment, and print!

Jones will burn 200 Korans. How many can we print? Then we can find our local mosque and give them a replacement. Together we can offset the hate of one man, and show that we value and respect those who's beliefs differ from our own.

Imponderables in the geekosphere

What happens when you combine this law with this gadget?

A practical guide to "spreading the love"

Lots of people talk about "spreading the love", but what do they mean and how do you do it?

Online, the first step to spreading the love is to filter. You read positive items, items that are useful to others, and ignore everything else. The actual love still needs to be spread, so send the link in one of myriad ways. Make them feel special, and that you're thinking of them. The love has been spread! Good job!

If this sounds good to you, read on. Realize that we read things for all sorts of reasons. To stay informed, to grumble, to reinforce our preconceived notions of how the world works, to waste time, to learn about a topic. This becomes clear when you observe yourself as you read: some items create feelings of hope, delight, or wonder; others create dread, fear, or pain.

Offline, "spreading the love" can take the form of an extra generous tip, a compliment, or a smile.

One of the most interesting things about it is that, if you are in a good mood and resolve to "spread the love" you will find a practical way to do it, and believe me, it will make a difference.

There is limited love that one can spread on a computer: recognize this limit when you reach it and close the thing down!

Notes about the "Millennials"

Sound bites from this article about "millennials":

1. Narcissistic praise hounds.
2. Parents will phone HR departments on behalf of their kids.
   
3. Blind careerism is begining to fade.
   
4. Friends and family above work.
   
5. There's no such thing as a dream job.
   
6. Looming demographic crisis: there's a lack of people.
   
7. Boss abuse works.

Why people put ketchup on everything (a post about emotional addiction)

I think that human beings can become addicted to almost anything. Drugs and sex get the most attention, but there are an infinite number of other addictions. Indeed, addictions are as numerous as the sensations which we experience. One can be addicted to uncomfortable feelings, or to types of conversations, or even types of people. In some ways, our personality is the sum total of these addictions, gross and subtle.

The subtle addictions are individually less problematic, but if there are many of them they can become so. For example, if one is addicted to "accomplishment" or "completion", it can be a problem for such a person to simply let go and relax. With effort, such a person may be able to relax, unless of course they are also addicted to "confrontation", or perhaps "debate".

Some may be puzzled by this use of the word "addiction". How can one be addicted to confrontation? That means, fundamentally, that one is biased toward confrontation in any situation, and may even generate it out of thin air. Some people enjoy confrontation because that's a mode of interaction which they feel they've mastered. Most human interactions (actually all human relations that differ from our animal cousins) exist purely in the abstract, and are therefore very sensitive to subtle variations in mood and perspective of individuals. It is possible for an intelligent human to manufacture emotional atmospheres that he or she is most comfortable in, even when they are not appropriate for others or for themselves.

Indeed, I believe that this happens all the time. We act unthinkingly to create the same circumstance that we've experienced in the past, even if it was negative. And why not? This is a not-too-shabby survival instinct for the intrinsically chaotic and unpredictable environment of mind. Repeating the "mistakes" of the past is the minds first-order attempt to impose order on chaos, and actually it works. It may be that religion, or perhaps morality itself, is a (much more successful!) attempt to bring order to the chaos our sentience brings.

What's the problem? Imposing an emotional atmosphere on every situation is the equivalent of taking a large ketchup bottle with you to every fine restaurant you go to, and smothering the food with it. The ketchup keeps your palate is safe from potentially unsavory foods, because all you ever taste is ketchup. But you risk many negativities, not the least of which is upsetting your relations when you "ruin" their carefully prepared meal with indiscriminately smothered ketchup. But also, in a purely subjective level, ketchup really doesn't taste that good and you'll probably have a better time experiencing the good, and the bad, without the condiment prophylactic.

To some degree I think everyone brings along their own condiments to every interaction they have. It may be ketchup, or mustard, or Lee and Peron's, or Worcestershire's sauce. Not only do they hide the true flavor of the food, but because we are all eating off the same mental/emotional plate, they often don't mix well together.