[MURG] MU Vision

[cat13 at illrepute.org]

"king-yin yan" <y.k.y at lycos.com> writes:

> MU Vision
> 
> After this many posts, I came to the conclusion that the central
> problem with MU at this point is the lack of a vision. I believe
> that once a clear vision has been established, progress will
> occur at lightning speed. (Who doesn't want life extension?)

A certain subset of people with strong religious beliefs, for one,
does not want life extension, and believes it's wrong for others to
seek it.
A much larger subset, as well as a larger number of non-religious
people, believe that the MU version in particular of life extension
is wrong, and believes it's wrong for others to seek it.

> When I first proposed my version of MU (if you recall) I was
> trying to set up a goal for everyone to work on. Unfortunately it
> seems that my vision was not favorably accepted by everyone
> on MURG.
> 
> On Jesse's roadmap, 3 routes were identified: (1) Destructive
> Scanning; (2) Nondestructive Scanning (Nanobot); (3) Gradual
> Replacement. My version belonged to (2).

Did you find my original roadmap?  I can't seem to locate it.

> Therefore, I posit that a satisfactory vision of MU has to have:
> #1: preservation of information (memories, personality etc) &
> #2: a sense of gradual replacement &
> #3: is feasible with current/projected technology within a
>     reasonable time frame (eg a few decades?).
> If anyone is able to come up with a scheme to meet these
> 3 requirements, I believe that scheme is likely to become
> universally accepted.

I, personally, wouldn't even consider it to be uploading without
#1.  I'm assuming #2 is in contrast to a discontinuity in
consciousness, which is fine with me but I'd bet I'm in the minority.
WRT #3, that's difficult to say (but I will grant that there will be
certain cases which obviously can be achieved in a few decades, such
as coal-powered cars, and certain cases which obviously cannot, such
as Jupiter colonization).
Note that I'm just typing as I think here, rather than making a point.

I don't think any version of anything, especially uploading, will ever
be universally accepted.  I suspect that your second requirement will
be most instrumental in attracting a following.

> But there is one more catch. No matter how fast we try to
> implement that scheme, there will be some people who will
> miss that time frame. In other words, by smoothing out one
> disruption in our individual lives (death), we created another
> disruption in the societal sphere. But I think this societal
> disruption can be smoothed out as well, which is by
> implementing more than one scheme. If I'm correct, the
> FSS approach will be available first and that will upload
> the first generation of people, even though FSS is not 100%
> satisfactory.

"FSS"?

Could you explain the societal disruption you have in mind?
Is it the division between people young enough to see this tech
and everyone else?

> Here is another catch. Everyone who will research on MU are
> not of the same age. Same goes for our potential customers.

I'd like to make one incidental point here:
the phrase "our customers" carries two implications:
a) we're the only people working on this
b) we have a monopoly on this

I see MURG, rather, as a channel for disseminating information to
interested parties.  MURG does not have customers because MURG is
not so tightly knit an organization.  It's a confederation rather
than a corporation.

> Therefore, the satisfaction of constrain #3 is *differential*. I
> predict the outcome would be like this: At a certain point, one
> proposal among others would be sufficiently compelling that
> it would draw enough researchers/developers/capitalists
> *of a certain age group* to invest in it, and get implemented.
> What we need here is very good project management skills
> so that the time and resource requirements will be accurately
> estimated.
> 
> Such a top-down approach is possible if we can keep abreast
> of state-of-the-art technology in a comprehensive way.
> 
> Comments?

This vision implies the dedication of full-time people, rather than
a bunch of dreamers, a few students, and a scientist or two who
fantasize about living indefinitely in their spare time, which is (as
I see it) what we have now (have I been taking Eugene lessons?).
In other words (as it has been pointed out before): we don't have the
resources to treat this as a real Project.  Project management
(with which I have some experience, though I wouldn't consider myself
'very skillful,' as you suggest is required) depends on knowing what
is available.  We don't know what is available to us.  Myself, for
instance: every time I think I can contribute a significant amount of
time, some stupid real-life requirement jumps in the way.  I can't
give a realistic estimate for what time/skill resource I can contribute.





Also, the noun is "constraint."  "Constrain" is the verb form.  0-)