From: Christian L. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jul 06 2001 - 08:23:05 MDT
>From: "Jack Richardson" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: The Human Augmentation Strategy
>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:47:32 -0400
>Thanks for your response to my message.
>The suggestion I was trying to make (and not doing so very well) was that
>the attainment of super-intelligence may be easier to achieve through human
>augmentation rather than starting from scratch with today's machines.
Yes, this was how I interpreted your message. I might have drifted from the
subject later on :-) . However, I think that such a course is unfeasible
both from the moralist perspective and also from a technical perspective. I
think that you would have to have an extremely good model of how the brain
works and very advanced nanotech
and scanning technologies. This would probably take a very long time to
achieve, and I think that developing a good model of General Intelligence
would take less time/resources. It is probably so that if you are to get
such good understanding of the human brain as is needed for decent
augmentation, you would probably need a theory of General Intelligence
I think that this IA (intelligence amplification) vs AI-question has been
You can study the archives at:
If I have understood you correctly, your angle is that it would be easier to
develop the technologies neccesary for IA than developing a theory for
General Intelligence. The problem of finding the matching *hardware* for
implementing that theory would (probably) not be a problem due to Moores
law. Software and theory are the big problems.
>However, I believe that the enormous research being done to develop very
>small devices that can be placed in the body to correct medical problems
>will give us the technology to augment humans along the lines I'm
Hmm... "enormous research"? Isn't this an overstatement? Can you give some
examples? I only know of Warwick's implant-stunts and some company
developing a mini-sub for use in blood vessels.
>I'm looking for the AARP to push the longevity aspects of this
>technology and also to fight off the bioethicists.
I wouldn't bet on it... You are talking about the American Association for
Retired People here and not some "American Advanced Research Project" I
suppose. I only skimmed their site, but I would guess that when (if)
longevity research begins to pay off they will write articles telling us how
wonderful and natural it is to grow old and die and that one Should Not
Tamper With Nature.
Even if they were positive I don't think that they would be able to sway the
luddites/bioethicists. "these people are desperate, how sad, can't they just
accept their end yadayadayada..."
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT