Friam

death

Classic

List

Threaded

37 messages Options

gepr

death

2 interesting essays on death, the first with some of our obligatory buzzwords.

Not nothing
https://aeon.co/essays/if-death-comes-for-everything-does-it-matter-what-we-kill

Welcome the reaper: Caitlin Doughty and the 'death-positivity' movement
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/oct/27/caitlin-doughty-death-positivity

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: death

Yesterday was my birthday, a milestone toward the inexorable fate of all life. Thank you so much for sharing :-Q

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:23 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

2 interesting essays on death, the first with some of our obligatory buzzwords.

Not nothing
https://aeon.co/essays/if-death-comes-for-everything-does-it-matter-what-we-kill

Welcome the reaper: Caitlin Doughty and the 'death-positivity' movement
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/oct/27/caitlin-doughty-death-positivity

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: death

Ha! I live to serve. 8^) Brings new meaning to the terrifying motivational aphorism: today is the first day of the rest of your life. Great theme for Samhain!

On October 28, 2017 10:31:43 AM PDT, Gary Schiltz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Yesterday was my birthday, a milestone toward the inexorable fate of
>all
>life. Thank you so much for sharing :-Q

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Russ Abbott

Re: death

Near the end of the Aeon piece.

Those hoping that I would resolve this paradox might now be getting a little anxious, as we are reaching the penultimate paragraph with no solution in sight. But it should be clear by now that I do not believe there is a solution. I believe that the death of the fly was both insignificant and a kind of catastrophe. And I believe that about the deaths of frogs and pigs too, and about my own death, and yours.

I was one of those hoping the article would arrive somewhere. It's well written. But ultimately it's a tease, implying that it will provide wisdom about a subject about which there is very little, if any.

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:59 AM glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ha! I live to serve. 8^) Brings new meaning to the terrifying motivational aphorism: today is the first day of the rest of your life. Great theme for Samhain!

On October 28, 2017 10:31:43 AM PDT, Gary Schiltz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Yesterday was my birthday, a milestone toward the inexorable fate of
>all
>life. Thank you so much for sharing :-Q

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Russ Abbott

Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

Steve Smith

Re: death

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen -

As always, you pose interesting points to ponder, and very apropos as we
approach el Dia de los Muertos, Samhain, All Souls, Halloween.

As often, my first response was to clatter out a massive missive
pondering the many facets of death (and life) from my own idiosyncratic
Complexity perspective, which I *shall* submit, but first, a shorter,
more personal response:

I've lived long enough to see a little death, even in this sanitized,
hygenic culture that tries to keep us from it.   My parents attended a
few funerals when I was a child but did not take me nor my sister... I
just remember their "sunday-go-to-meeting" clothes and a somber mien for
a few hours.   When JFK was shot, my 2nd grade teacher came into the
room (after the Principal called her into the hall to tell her) crying
which continued for the next hour as we all shuffled outside to watch
the flag lowered and then raised to half-mast. I had only the barest
idea of what a President was and even less as to why my teacher (and
others) would cry so much... I thought maybe they knew him
personally?    My parents were somber the next day as we drove 100 miles
for our monthly shopping trip, taking advantage my father (federal
employee) having the day off and I remember them stopping for gas at a
tiny station and chatting with the operator/owner for much longer than I
was used to... surely discussing the implications. A few years later,
my grandfather, who had lived with us for a few years off and on, died.
He was 1000 miles away and we didn't attend the funeral but I had a slim
idea of death.   My other grandfather died (also 1000 miles away) while
I was in High School, and my parents attended his funeral but I did
not. A friend (of sorts??) killed his parents who all lived less than a
mile from my house. It still wasn't very personal and I had yet to see
a dead body or attend a funeral.

It wasn't until my first year in college that two people from my high
school that I knew died (one car accident, the other CO asphyxiation
from a bad heater in a low-rent apartment) and I was faced with it's
reality at a whole new level.   Dozen's more from my circle died over
the years, but few who I knew well or was close to... then I had the
experience of watching two men (father-in-law and father) die of
Alzheimers... roughly a 10 year process of the "self within" dying until
the "body itself" was empty and then also dead (WTF?).   I've also known
a small number of people who took their own lives, but the closest to me
killed himself at my home this previous May. That put a YET another bit
of familiarity onto the mystery of death. I have yet to be present at
the moment of death of another human being, but I have attended the
(intentional) death of a few pets and a few hunted animals, a few
livestock-for-food animals. But I did watch the original Flatliners
(Kiefer Sutherland).

On the disposition of my body/remains upon death? I think those
activities are for the survivors.   Flood my body with formaldahyde, put
me in a pine box, dig a hole to bury me, and wait for the chemistry to
leach out until the worms and microbes can stand to digest me, toss me
in a blast furnace and put my ashes on your mantel, or put me out for
the scavengers... it makes me no never mind.   But I know how people
are and I suppose I should offer my preferences which happen to be
leaving me out for the scavengers, great and small... not an easy
option in our modern/western culture!   But I do have a huge tree behind
my house in whose stout branches I probably *could* remain undiscovered
long enough for the ravens to pick bare eventually...   but who would do
the honors?   I find the modern practice of cremation overly
industrialized/sterile, but as the options go, I'm good with that one.

Life (conception/birth) is a mystery for sure, and I've attended each
more than once, but death is somehow yet more mysterious? But Life
Itself is all that is actionable. Buddhist Scholar Steven Levine
introduced me to the softer ideas of awareness and enlightenment through
his "A Gradual Awakening" which was partly focused on the lessons he
(and E. Kubler-Ross) were learning from their engagement around death
and dying with the AIDS community for whom a diagnosis was a (delayed
but sure-thing) death sentence in the 80's.   It seems that sometimes
one doesn't really LIVE until they have had to face their eventual
DEATH...   I'm still working on it.

For my survivors? An (im)proper wake is about right... gather, tell
some stories, drink some hard liquor, contemplate mortality, move on...

Nobody gets out alive!

- Steve

On 10/28/17 11:23 AM, glen wrote:
> 2 interesting essays on death, the first with some of our obligatory buzzwords.
>
> Not nothing
> https://aeon.co/essays/if-death-comes-for-everything-does-it-matter-what-we-kill
>
> Welcome the reaper: Caitlin Doughty and the 'death-positivity' movement
> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/oct/27/caitlin-doughty-death-positivity
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Steve Smith

Re: death

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen -

I think the topic of death in it's broadest sense is very apropos of an Applied Complexity discussion group, here is what came up for me off the cuff:

Life itself is nothing if not "complex" by any measure or meaning of the term? Even me, trying hard to live "a Simple Life".

Certainly the biosphere in it's totality has a fascinating complexity in quantity as well as quality and despite orders of magnitude in quantity (organisms as well as species, organs/organelles, etc) most entities would qualify for the same. I find estimates for the number of species today on the order of 10M and over the history of the planet, perhaps 3 orders of magnitude larger (5B?), beginning around 5B years ago, with plenty of variation *within* a defined/identified species. This doesn't even consider the sheer *count* of individual organisms over that time. And within a single organism (e.g. human) there might be 10-100 trillion cells with dozens of major cell types (and thousands of sub-types?) and order 100 million proteins, 1 trillion molecules, or 100 trillion atoms per cell. Estimates of the human microbiome are as high as 10x human cells representing a minimum of 1000s of species of bacteria, fungus, archae and virii! The proteomic/molecular/atomic numbers above may or may not include the full microbiome. And this doesn't include the myriad possible protozoa, worms, lice, scabies, etc that might inhabit a human body. And amongst all of this quantitative complexity, there is a staggering qualitative complexity. Not only are the human cells linked in a dance of anabolic and catabolic metabolisms, of hormonal, histamine, and immunological processes, but the full biome insinuates itself in this inner "ecology".

Not only is this a lot of LIFE, but also a lot of DEATH. Clonal colony species (such as Aspen trees, various fungii) might have lifespans of many tens of thousands of years and some microorganisms have been found to have much longer lifespans, though often through long-term dormancy. Some endoliths might have been actively metabolizing (albeit slowly?) for order 10,000 years? Individual plants (trees most notably) are known to have lifespans of several thousand years, and some individual animals might have lifespans of hundreds of years. There are a few organisms with apparent (or relative?) immortality. Some bacteria and yeast can apparently divide forever, as do hydra, some flatworms, and some jellyfish. The most complex organism to appear to have self-regenerating/repairing telomeres is the Lobster but they eventually die from size... the metabolic demands of moulting eventually kills them (tens of years) if they don't get eaten first. Germ Cells, STEM cells, and some cancer cells are effectively immortal as well. Everything else dies of senescense and of course, everything is subject to death from outside causes as well (mechanical, thermal, chemical, radiative, or biological insults).

And death of an individual is *fairly* abrupt... comas, suspended animation, and similar aside. Cessation of neural activity , autonomic functions like cardio pulmonary circulation usually stop abruptly. Even cell metabolism endures for only a few minutes. But other processes (especially among the human biome) continue all the way into full decay unto composting (if allowed).

Natural Selection would appear to require ubiquitous death (although simple separation of population is another mechanism, think radical diaspora like star-seedships) but that only makes it "useful" not "necessary"? In any case, Death of the individual appears to be inevitable, along with Taxes (or in the NM tourism industry, Texans).

Spiritualists would suggest that "life exists in the spirit or the soul" and when it leaves the body, death ensues (or vice-versa). Few agree on where said "soul" or "spirit" resides when not in the body. Like Phologiston or Aether, the Soul and it's various out-of-body residences might well be just a familiar construct to make the unexplainable familiar? It appears to be a key to religions to explain the miracle of death, even more critically than the miracle of life? Life after/beyond/outside-of death is a common thread... reincarnation, heaven/hell/purgatory, valhalla, elysian fields, etc? It appears to exist to relieve the individual from having to contemplate EL FIN.

When we consider "birth" or "conception" or "embryology" it isn't clear to me where the "Emergence" happens (if any?), but death is intuitively the *opposite?* of emergence? When two gametes meet (sperm/ova pollen) there is a clear progression of self-organization into a (mostly)scheduled diversity. Similarly biomes exist in a diverse, self-organized complexity of their own. The boundary of "self" for a given organism (or organ or organelle) is probably more clear than that of a biome or ecosystem, but that might be a subjective observation? Senescense is the (presumed inevitable) decline of life toward death and appears to be pervasive, even ubiquitous if not entirely unavoidable.

The Singularians, most notably (IMO) Ray Kurzweil, believe that in a *transcendent* singularity where individual human intelligence/consciousness can become immortal through technological advances, in particular in AI, but also in bio/nano technology. It seems like a natural (if not noble?) enough fascination, to imagine that personal death itself is not an absolute. Are there philosophical ( or even moral )reasons NOT to seek immortality? We already exercise quite a bit of life-extension, is there some logical (ethical?) limit to be found in this? Is this movement just Manifest Destiny revisited on cosmic scale?

The question of death (and life?) is inextricably tied to *identity*. Is a clone of me, me (Michael Keaton's Multiplicity)? If the Starship Enterprise's matter transmitter fails to dematerialize the source "me", is the target "copy" still "me"? Do I live on through my extended phenotype (my estate of wordly possessions), through my progeny, my academic/professional/personal legacy? If I have a brain trauma yielding amnesia, do "I" still exist?

What is Identity in a (non-living?) Complex System? Do hurricanes/tornados birth, live and die? Attractors? Solitons? Do they have identity? Will we all mourn the passing of Jupiter's Great Red Spot (if we outlast it?) and does Saturn's (apparently) recurring Great White Spot have identity? Is it the same spot?

Is life itself somehow dependent on/defined by the "punctuated equilibrium" of birth, life, senescence, death?

When does life/consciousness/??? "emerge", or is it just a "bounce" through sexual reproduction similar to the imagined "bounce" of which our "big bang" is the most recent?

Inquiring minds want to know...

- Steve

On 10/28/17 11:23 AM, glen wrote:

2 interesting essays on death, the first with some of our obligatory buzzwords.

Not nothing
https://aeon.co/essays/if-death-comes-for-everything-does-it-matter-what-we-kill

Welcome the reaper: Caitlin Doughty and the 'death-positivity' movement
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/oct/27/caitlin-doughty-death-positivity

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: death

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

"I believe that the death of the fly was both insignificant and a kind of catastrophe. And I believe that about the deaths of frogs and pigs too, and about my own death, and yours."

Is there reason to think that flies' lives are different in some way? Or that the death of one impacts a food or communication web or unreasonably wastes energy?

Other flies will make more. Using gene drives to eliminate a species is a bigger step, and that could impact food webs. Is that a bad thing to do? Why?

One difference between flies and pigs and humans is progressively deeper development of each, if for no other reason than lifespan. Paradoxes there too: My fondness and loyalty to my 12 year old dog was deeper than it is for many humans. (Fat chance I'd send a 75-year-old, racist, redneck, Joe-the-Trump voter thousands of dollars for cancer treatment.) If it is depth of development that matters, then as a society we ought to invest more in retired people as their uniqueness is deeper and also more fragile. But instead we celebrate births even thought infants are mere hardware that won't have consciousness for months after birth.

How is helping ones' tribe any different than the flies reproducing? So long as the tribe doesn't lose too many members, they will make more. Why does it matter if they do or they do not? If the tribe produces art, culture, or technology and that is bigger than the tribe, then one isn't just investing in the tribe, one is investing in something bigger. If a group have members that die, but their experiences are captured in the these `other things', then what is the catastrophic about the death? There is minimal information loss.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Russ Abbott <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 3:47:34 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] death

Near the end of the Aeon piece.

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:59 AM glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ha! I live to serve. 8^) Brings new meaning to the terrifying motivational aphorism: today is the first day of the rest of your life. Great theme for Samhain!

On October 28, 2017 10:31:43 AM PDT, Gary Schiltz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Yesterday was my birthday, a milestone toward the inexorable fate of
>all
>life. Thank you so much for sharing :-Q

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Russ Abbott

Professor, Computer Science

California State University, Los Angeles

Nick Thompson

Re: death

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Ok. So, back in the good old days when people paid me money to tell them what I thought, I would get very anxious every Sunday night in anticipation of Monday’s classes –so anxious, in fact, that I could neither prepare those classes nor allow myself to go to bed (because I hadn’t prepared). So inevitably, I would end up watching TV late into the early hours of the morning, a time when delightfully old and sloppy films often ran. (Think, “Run Silent, Run Deep.”) One I loved was an Italian-ish sort of film, sweaty in ambiance, called “Death Takes A Holiday”. I won’t say anything more about it, because figuring out the premise is the whole pleasure. (Avoid spoilers). To maximize the pleasure, I recommend watching it half asleep, in the middle of the night, with a heavy load of work-guilt.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 4:43 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] death

Glen -

I think the topic of death in it's broadest sense is very apropos of an Applied Complexity discussion group, here is what came up for me off the cuff:

Life itself is nothing if not "complex" by any measure or meaning of the term? Even me, trying hard to live "a Simple Life".

Is life itself somehow dependent on/defined by the "punctuated equilibrium" of birth, life, senescence, death?

When does life/consciousness/??? "emerge", or is it just a "bounce" through sexual reproduction similar to the imagined "bounce" of which our "big bang" is the most recent?

Inquiring minds want to know...

- Steve

On 10/28/17 11:23 AM, glen wrote:

2 interesting essays on death, the first with some of our obligatory buzzwords.

Not nothing

https://aeon.co/essays/if-death-comes-for-everything-does-it-matter-what-we-kill

Welcome the reaper: Caitlin Doughty and the 'death-positivity' movement

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/oct/27/caitlin-doughty-death-positivity

gepr

Re: death

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

That was a lot, forcing me to cherry-pick. 8^) I disagree with the *fairly* quickly part. The time scales being traversed are huge, as you point out. When you make the argument that death happens fairly abruptly you bias that comment towards a few scales, namely the ones related to consciousness, identity, self and the foci of human awareness. But when compared to the time scales of cellular processes or chemical reactions versus life spans of (eg) elephants, or even generational evolution, those time scales are not considered. In this larger context death Doesn't Really Happen abruptly at all. It can be an extremely long process.

To go back to the thin veneer between the living and the dead theme of Samhain, it seems to me that most of us *begin* our death around age 40 or so. I'm sure the peak of "the hill" is different for everyone, shows sensitivity to demographics/lifestyle/resources, and changes with technology and things like global climate, population, etc. But the key point, which you refer to as well, seems to be a native sense of senescence ... a kind of programmed death, like apoptosis at the cellular layer and loss of mitochondria, or reduction in hormone production, etc. at the organism layer. The vampires (like Thiel) seem to believe this is avoidable with trickery ... the classic cautionary tales apply. Even when I finally crash my bike into an oncoming truck at 70 mph, my death will be nothing like instantaneous. Even if it's too quick for my "mind" wouldn't imply it's too quick for ... like every other process in the universe. 8^) In fact, one of my favorite arguments against atheists is to claim the afterlife is that (within epsilon) period from when you see the oncoming truck and the last few ion channels in the various and distributed (all over the grill) parts of your brain shut down. Like Lorentz expansion of space or contraction of time, perhaps that period seems, subjectively, to stretch to eternity?

So, clearly, I don't think death is at all abrupt ... mostly because I don't believe there is such a thing as a temporally extended self. You are merely *similar* to yourself 10 minutes ago.

On October 28, 2017 3:42:52 PM PDT, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:.
>
>And death of an individual is *fairly* abrupt... comas, suspended
>animation, and similar aside. Cessation of neural activity ,
>autonomic
>functions like cardio pulmonary circulation usually stop abruptly.
>Even
>cell metabolism endures for only a few minutes. But other processes
>(especially among the human biome) continue all the way into full decay
>unto composting (if allowed).

--
☣ gⅼеɳ
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

gepr

Re: death

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

I used to argue with my parents (a lot) about whether or not humans were different from animals, mostly because my mom claimed animals don't have souls. She's right, of course, because nobody has souls. 8^) But I think what it, ultimately devolves to is that humans come very close to universal constructors. With the reflective layers of brain and opposable thumbs, we can do almost anything ... with the right resources, right context, etc.

So, at least in these arguments, it boiled down less to inherent worth (like depth of development) and more to productivity, but not the narrow productivity of, say, termites or such, but a wide productivity. To be sure, my mom was more into embedded worth, whereas my dad was more "what have you done for us lately". It was a good mix, though, because recessive traits can, eventually, come in critically handy. (Perhaps that Trump voter knows how to play guitar or refine gasoline?)

In this (Christian?) context, animals like pigs and dogs are more like tools or articles of comfort than anything that deserves the Respect we give to humans. It is and always has been a disgusting way to think, to me ... perhaps the best confirming evidence I was adopted and have none of their biology (barring some shared bacteria, I suppose). Even if I take the arguments that, as earthly gods, we're obliged to be good "stewards" of the creatures we OWN, it's still repugnant. I can't even claim to own the tree in our backyard, which the government would claim we own ... a tree that's prettier and way older than I am.

On 10/28/2017 04:13 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> One difference between flies and pigs and humans is progressively deeper development of each, if for no other reason than lifespan. Paradoxes there too: My fondness and loyalty to my 12 year old dog was deeper than it is for many humans. (Fat chance I'd send a 75-year-old, racist, redneck, Joe-the-Trump voter thousands of dollars for cancer treatment.) If it is depth of development that matters, then as a society we ought to invest more in retired people as their uniqueness is deeper and also more fragile. But instead we celebrate births even thought infants are mere hardware that won't have consciousness for months after birth.
--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: death

Glen writes:

<To be sure, my mom was more into embedded worth, whereas my dad was more "what have you done for us lately".>

Odd that some conservatives give embedded worth to lives that have demonstrated none yet (pro-lifers), and change the rules as life progresses. Why the act of faith in the first place? Why no conservatives advocating one-child-per-family, or income requirements for reproduction?

Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: death

In reply to this post by gepr

"But I think what it, ultimately devolves to is that humans come very close to universal constructors. With the reflective layers of brain and opposable thumbs, we can do almost anything ... with the right resources, right context, etc."

I'm looking forward to AI companies succeeding at projects like this..

http://allenai.org/aristo/

Then not only will there be massive unemployment with driverless cars & trucks and that sort of thing, but even what it means to be intelligent will be in jeopardy. Why take the SAT if there is a program on the web that can do it better?

Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: death

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

On 10/30/2017 12:01 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Odd that some conservatives give embedded worth to lives that have demonstrated none yet (pro-lifers), and change the rules as life progresses. Why the act of faith in the first place? Why no conservatives advocating one-child-per-family, or income requirements for reproduction?

Our universality depends fundamentally on babies. In order for progress to be made, the old farts, with all their outdated ideas, must die so the young turds can do things their way. Sure, we want to keep the old farts around and exploit them as best we can. But at some point, those fossilized thoughts need to be forgotten. We need those babies. Pro-lifers never seem to be reflective enough to make this sort of argument against abortion. They're so strangled by their individualism.

The trick is, as you point out, we don't need so many from the same gene pool(s)! Again, perhaps my Bastard status biases me. The (socialist?) idea that we all end up rearing the kids the breeders produce was built in from the start. What we need are large incentives to steer the coming generations according to policy. If we want more STEM, then encourage more STEM couples to have more babies. Never mind the income requirements, split things like the SAT (or IQ) tests into variously weighted incentive programs. If you (and your mate) score in the top quartile in analogical thinking, you get 7 baby vouchers. Good math scores gets you 5 vouchers. Good language scores get you 3. 8^) And vouchers are non-transferable and temporally limited. If you have more than 7 babies, then you're on your own for the remainder.

Of course, it has to be incentive based, or we'll retread some of our past mistakes.

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: death

< Our universality depends fundamentally on babies. In order for progress to be made, the old farts, with all their outdated ideas, must die so the young turds can do things their way. Sure, we want to keep the old farts around and exploit them as best we can. But at some point, those fossilized thoughts need to be forgotten. >

But will this be true of AIs as well? Assuming that this fossilization occurs, is that a human idiosyncrasy that plasticity reduces? Perhaps it could be treated with drugs, electroshock therapy, stem cells, PTSD medication, etc.?

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: death

Good question. But I tend to think the problem is less about plasticity and more about specialization. As we've seen, specialized (artificial) intelligence is relatively easy, compare termites to humans. So-called general intelligence (or universal constructors) is much harder. The distance between any old TM and a UTM seems quite large.

Whether, once specialized, an AI can generalize is an open question. Will we *grow* general AI? Or will we construct it from scratch to be general?

On 10/30/2017 01:12 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> But will this be true of AIs as well? Assuming that this fossilization occurs, is that a human idiosyncrasy that plasticity reduces? Perhaps it could be treated with drugs, electroshock therapy, stem cells, PTSD medication, etc.?

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: death

My actual question is more like: Is death universal or is a finite lifetime just a sufficient solution found by evolution (and carbon-based life)? Must memories be purged for progress, or is it just that that they _can_ be without particular harm to the species?

There was a piece on 60 minutes last night about Adolfo Kaminsky who forged thousands of official documents to protect Jews in France. His colleagues reflected on their accomplishments and didn't reflect on danger in what they were doing at the time, perhaps because they were so young.

It could be that the high-order aspects of wisdom are cognitively too costly (operationally) at some point. Diminishing returns on complexity.. Delays on action are as dangerous as imprudent actions.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 2:18 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] death

Good question. But I tend to think the problem is less about plasticity and more about specialization. As we've seen, specialized (artificial) intelligence is relatively easy, compare termites to humans. So-called general intelligence (or universal constructors) is much harder. The distance between any old TM and a UTM seems quite large.

Whether, once specialized, an AI can generalize is an open question. Will we *grow* general AI? Or will we construct it from scratch to be general?

On 10/30/2017 01:12 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> But will this be true of AIs as well? Assuming that this fossilization occurs, is that a human idiosyncrasy that plasticity reduces? Perhaps it could be treated with drugs, electroshock therapy, stem cells, PTSD medication, etc.?

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: death

Hm. I suppose we could think of a UTM in the same way we think of an ANN. A large enough ANN becomes a look up table. A UTM could be conceived (simply?) as some sort of an index for all the algorithms (possible or real). Rather than extending out in time (complicated, infinitely extensible tape), it's extended out in space and hierarchically in "orders". (I feel sure this is someone else's idea, but have no idea where I got it ... sounds a bit like the parallel worlds interpretation of QM, though ... maybe Deutsch?) Given a spatially extended UTM, (specific algorithm) death would *not* be necessary. But some conception of interruptibility or parallelism seems necessary also. If a UTM couldn't stop, mid-algorithm, to work on some other problem, then perhaps death is still needed?

On 10/30/2017 01:32 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> My actual question is more like: Is death universal or is a finite lifetime just a sufficient solution found by evolution (and carbon-based life)? Must memories be purged for progress, or is it just that that they _can_ be without particular harm to the species?
>
> There was a piece on 60 minutes last night about Adolfo Kaminsky who forged thousands of official documents to protect Jews in France. His colleagues reflected on their accomplishments and didn't reflect on danger in what they were doing at the time, perhaps because they were so young.
>
> It could be that the high-order aspects of wisdom are cognitively too costly (operationally) at some point. Diminishing returns on complexity.. Delays on action are as dangerous as imprudent actions.

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: death

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

There's a funny post on Bunnie's blog today (https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=5018) about learning to use LiteX in place of Vivado for FPGA design. It's because Vivado wastes FPGA footprint by rolling in circuits you don't need, because Vivado is given away for free by Xilinx who would love you to step up to the next larger FPGA anytime, so they have no incentive to optimize the footprint for you. So Bunnie is using LiteX which is a python high level design tool that outputs low level designs for Vivado to assemble, so you can skip the Xilinx IP with the non-optional bloat.

It seems that this sort of dead code, undead code, zombie code problem is fairly ubiquitous in information processing systems. No matter whose system, there are always things around that don't go away because nobody cared to do anything about them. They always need a clean reboot eventually, or a clean reinstall, or some kind of purge to clear the inevitable cruft of just running too long.

So maybe AIs will have molting stages? Or maybe dreaming is the way we purge the cruft in our heads?

-- rec --

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

My actual question is more like: Is death universal or is a finite lifetime just a sufficient solution found by evolution (and carbon-based life)? Must memories be purged for progress, or is it just that that they _can_ be without particular harm to the species?

There was a piece on 60 minutes last night about Adolfo Kaminsky who forged thousands of official documents to protect Jews in France. His colleagues reflected on their accomplishments and didn't reflect on danger in what they were doing at the time, perhaps because they were so young.

It could be that the high-order aspects of wisdom are cognitively too costly (operationally) at some point. Diminishing returns on complexity.. Delays on action are as dangerous as imprudent actions.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 2:18 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] death

Good question. But I tend to think the problem is less about plasticity and more about specialization. As we've seen, specialized (artificial) intelligence is relatively easy, compare termites to humans. So-called general intelligence (or universal constructors) is much harder. The distance between any old TM and a UTM seems quite large.

Whether, once specialized, an AI can generalize is an open question. Will we *grow* general AI? Or will we construct it from scratch to be general?

On 10/30/2017 01:12 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> But will this be true of AIs as well? Assuming that this fossilization occurs, is that a human idiosyncrasy that plasticity reduces? Perhaps it could be treated with drugs, electroshock therapy, stem cells, PTSD medication, etc.?

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: death

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen writes:

"But some conception of interruptibility or parallelism seems necessary also. If a UTM couldn't stop, mid-algorithm, to work on some other problem, then perhaps death is still needed?"

Humans have minimal short term memory, but an extended UTM could yield any number of continuations. There would be light cone considerations to get to data referenced by each and a lot of references could be contended by different computational agents in the system as they were trying to run in parallel.

Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: death

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

Molting is a fantastic metaphor. But do we have any species to look to that molts for greater generality instead of greater specialty? I suppose we could argue that some species jump from one specialty to another via molting. But that passes the buck to some set of processes that hold the program for specialty selection.

On 10/30/2017 01:52 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> So maybe AIs will have molting stages?

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen