Lifeboat Foundation

“What foundational values need to be in place for an ethical utilitronium shockwave?”

What foundational values need to be in place for an ethical utilitronium shockwave?
We discuss:
- (following on from a previous video) more on Nozick’s experience machines (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxBvNbuYud0).
- given that in each age there has been different conceptions of utopia, what would utopia be for a post-human superintelligence?
- classical utilitarian vs negative utilitarian approaches to the long term good of life in the universe.
- whether a perfect decision theory would be equal to negative utilitarianism.
- how much attention should we give to preferences in improving well-being beyond eliminating suffering?
- if one does believe in the objectivity of value should we be concerned about being damned in a local maximum of well-being?
- what is God’s utility function?

Continue reading “David Pearce — Foundational Values for the Future — What is God’s Utility Function?” »

The new CRISPR gene technology is posing ethical questions for scientists.

“…consider Robert Nozick’s thought-experiment in conjunction with Felipe De Brigard’s inverse experience machine argument: “If you like it, does it matter if it’s real?”

Does Nozick’s experience machine prove anything?

Continue reading “David Pearce — Experience Machines and Hedonic Treadmills” »

By contemplating the full spectrum of scenarios of the coming technological singularity many can place their bets in favor of the Cybernetic Singularity which is a sure path to digital immortality and godhood as opposed to the AI Singularity when Homo sapiens is retired as a senescent parent. This meta-system transition from the networked Global Brain to the Gaian Mind is all about evolution of our own individual minds, it’s all about our own Self-Transcendence. https://www.ecstadelic.net/top-stories/the-ouroboros-code-br…etaphysics #OuroborosCode

All AI & Cybernetics Cognitive Science Complexity Consciousness Cosmology Digital Philosophy Digital Physics Economics Emergence Environment Epigenetics Ethics Evolution Evolutionary Biology Experiential Realism Experimental Science Fermi Paradox Free Will Vs. Determinism Futurism Gaia 2.0 Global Brain Immortality Machine Learning Mathematics Memetics Mind Uploading Nanotechnology Neo Transcendentalism Neural Networks Neurophilosophy Neuroscience Phenomenology Philosophy Of Mind Physics Of Time Psychedelics Psychology Quantum Computing Quantum Gravity Quantum Physics Sci Fi Simulation Hypothesis Sociology Spirituality Technological Singularity Theology Transhumanism Virtual Reality

Mankind’s ability to edit the fabric of human life has led to scientific upheaval, global debate, and at least one international incident. Now, it’s coming to Netflix.

“Unnatural Selection,” a four-part docuseries debuting Friday, dissects the stories, science, and ethics behind genome editing, following academics, biohackers, and patients as they move through a brave new world made possible by technologies like CRISPR.

We recently spoke with co-directors Joe Egender and Leeor Kaufman about how the series came to be and how it frames the sprawling story of human genetic engineering. This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

John Mullan, professor of English literature at University College London, wrote an article on The Guardian titled “We need robots to have morals. Could Shakespeare and Austen help?”.

Using great literature to teach ethics to machines is a dangerous game. The classics are a moral minefield.

When he wrote the stories in I, Robot in the 1940s, Isaac Asimov imagined a world in which robots do all humanity’s tedious or unpleasant jobs for them, but where their powers have to be restrained. They are programmed to obey three laws. A robot may not injure another human being, even through inaction; a robot must obey a human being (except to contradict the previous law); a robot must protect itself (unless this contradicts either of the previous laws).

Roboethics wants to answer the question of who or what is going to be held responsible for the actions of the robotic creations of engineers and designers until robots become moral actors, if that ever happens.

I’m excited to share my new article for The New York Times on the brave new world of #cyborg ability and coming #transhumanism sports:

I wonder whether the sporting industry might create some new competitions where — just like technology — performance-enhancing drugs are encouraged. Innovations like the new oxygen-infused injection, which might one day allow humans to hold their breath for 15 to 30 minutes, could allow competitive free divers to reach new depths, showing just how far the human body can go.

Critics will complain that the human body was not designed to compete using enhancements and that it violates the code given to us by the ancient Greeks and their first Olympics Games, where “arête,” or excellence and moral virtue, was cherished. As a longtime competitive athlete, I appreciate the sportsmanship angle; but I also think that in the 21st century we can develop both the drugs and the technology to see humans compete in new sporting events that are even more exciting than their predecessors.

Continue reading “The Brave New World of Sports” »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c4cv7rVlE8

Nick Bostrom is a Swedish philosopher at the University of Oxford known for his work on existential risk, the anthropic principle, human enhancement ethics, superintelligence risks, and the reversal test.