[MURG] Re: MURG digest, Vol 1 #151 - 2 msgs

[king-yin yan]

 cat13 wrote:
>Problem: anyone who's known to have lots of money is approached
>all the time about all sorts of things.   They've developed an
>immunity or shell to hearing proposals from strangers; sometimes
>this shell includes barriers of people.  Becoming established
>and attaining recognition are prerequisite.

There must be some reasonable ways to get venture capital...
Some requirements are that the idea is sound and that we have
established competitive advantage in the field, etc.

>-were we (or a subset of us) to work actively on some metaproject
>(i. e. not researching/experimenting on a specific small issue
>but trying to organize something that applies to MURG-related
>issues in general), which is what those who want to jump into
>something seem to want to do, we would need to agree on a reasonable
>scope and clearly defined goals for such a metaproject.

"Metaproject" is a good idea =). If there is one thing that MURG can
establish as "core competency", it would likely be something at the
top-down level. One possibility is to work on a high-level prototype
design (or a feasibility study of it) and then try to sell it to industry
developers.

>-in order to agree on a scope and goals, perhaps we should come
>up with another roadmap for mind uploading; the thought is that,
>with a whole picture in front of us, we'll be better suited to
>identifying useful metaproject ideas

Agreed. We should add more details to the roadmap. In particular
I find the procedure of "replacement" very vague.

>-I remember Randall was thinking about forming a non-profit at one
>time; Randall, what was the intent behind that?

The difference between profit and non-profit is not always that big.
I'm afraid MU will not be free. In fact it may actually be very
expensive initially. So it seems that for-profit is the way to go.

Personally I think that for MU, "cheaper" and "available" should be top
priorities. Time-to-market has to be minimized.

>-all of my initial ideas for metaprojects require continual upkeep,
>and I think that's inherent in the concept of metaproject here.
>Can we commit to open-ended work?  Maybe, if we can maintain a
>level of growth, which incorporation and funding would help.  All
>this is very ambitious, though; it would be more reassuring to
>start with a smaller attempt, but we've tried and failed at smaller
>attempts - not enough critical mass to get those attempts to be
>self-sustaining?
>-some ideas: talk to researchers who, we believe, are helping the
>field approach MU, and find out what their biggest needs are;
>establish a free, online library of scientific materials; develop
>educational materials for the general public, refuting common
>objections to MU, and for increasing "mindshare" (making more people
>aware of, and in favor of, MU)

The organizational/administrative idea sounds good. It seems that
this type of work is needed. Potential researcher/developers would
be glad to pool resources. Then the public may have a better product.

As for the other ideas, I think they are:
1) not absolutely essential; 2) already taken care of by research
libraries and other web resources; 3) difficult to make profitable.
If we ask for funding, it's important to show that there will be a
good return on investment. It has to be very focused.

I'm not against the other ideas but I suggest they be separate
from the main project. Maybe we can rely on charity for the
"cultural" activities?

>If I were to become involved in any of this, I would like (if it's
>even still possible) to finish the worm project first.  If we can't
>finish what we've already started, what's the point of trying
>something new, just because we're excited at its newness?

I think the worm project is very demanding actually. It appears
to be small but actually it's a scaled-down version of a full
upload. Notice that we're just doing it to demonstrate feasibility.
Is that worth it? Besides, even if we succeed, the worm is
cognitively not very interesting. The experiment would look like
putting something in the drawer and then re-discovering it, despite
the great efforts. It depends on what kind of proof the funding
people would like to see...

We will need to put in some work anyways. I suggest to assign
some salaries to ourselves and then get paid when we begin to
be profitable, which may take a long time, but it's better than
working for nothing.

YKY

PS  Don't be put off because I criticized the worm project. I may
be wrong about it since I wasn't here during that time.



____________________________________________________________
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005