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

[cat13 at illrepute.org]

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

>  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.

Existing track record.  Ability to show results in previous experience.

> >-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.

Worm project.

> >-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 currently have no roadmap in front of me.  Do I recall correctly you
saying you'd found a roadmap I created?  I'd love to see that again, if
you could tell me where to find it.  I'd love to see whatever you're
looking at, whether or not it's the one I drew up a few years ago.

> >-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.

With a non-profit, I believe there's less in the way of taxation.
Not sure, haven't been involved with one.
Here's another idea, which I don't think is new, for incorporation
schemes: nonprofit overriding coordinational effort, and for-profit
individual research efforts.  But why go for-profit at all?  You can
make a profit with (at least certain types of) non-profits, it's just
not your stated goal.

> 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?

Agreed.  They were all separate project ideas.

> >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?

Yes.  Proof-of-concept is worth it.  Maybe it's too much for us to do
now, but I'll bet that eventually, if and when anyone unifies a bunch
of technologies to produce something that looks like MU, they'll start
with the worm.

> 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.

...
Too much.  I'll come back to this later.