Quote from: Intermatic on September 30, 2014, 09:19:57 PM

Thank you for your positive reception of the idea, if I may address the criticisms:

1. I deliberately want it to be focused on globalism. I believe in a globalist view based not upon endless growth, plutocracy and corporate terror, but one based upon a single human identity, where all people unite to ensure the safety and happiness of all humans. A cryptostate will be the most comprehensive and effective means of achieving this. It is a coalition because I want to unite those who have traditionally been humanists and globalists, like me, with enthusiasts of cryptography and its applications in society, to construct the cryptostate.

Yes, I get that; I'm just pointing out that it doesn't sound like what you are talking about to most people. "Globalist" could be substituted for something else, perhaps "world" or "planet"... or "cryptopanhumanist". Grin

Quote

It would initially act in a supporting capacity to private and national health services, assisting them, before becoming standalone and offering care independent of a human-operated service. The goal of the cryptohealth service will be to ensure everyone enjoys a minimum standard of health, as defined by measures such as mobility, general level of pain or discomfort, and the condition of organs.

Wouldn't private and national ones do their best to destroy and marginalize the cryptohealth service?

Quote from: Intermatic on October 01, 2014, 06:04:39 PM

5. I do believe in the harm principle, that the actions of people should only be limited to prevent harming others. We have court systems deciding and interpreting what does and does not constitute a crime, and I am adamant that eventually, a computer system capable of analysing and making decisions on what constitutes a crime at least as well as a court can will emerge, and it will provide a foundation for a cryptocourt.

If you justify initiation of violence in the name of preventing harm upon others, then you are giving free reign to psychopaths who will pretend to be preventing harming others (such as "us") and even make it seem as if that's what's happening when harming "them".

Quote

Technically, people won't really be being watched, not by a human, only by a computer. I believe a cryptostate surveillance system would be just as difficult to abuse as the Bitcoin network, if not more difficult.

A computer that perfectly categorizes the information, allowing a human to access the information when relevant. Hence, it's worse than Britain today. Why do you think it would be difficult to abuse, and what exactly is "it" that would be difficult to abuse?

Quote

6. I do understand some details on the whole microchip idea might be a bit off, but the basic concept is correct, that eventually, we will be able to prevent crime, increasingly earlier and increasingly effectively.

Seems to me like a big fat assumption of determinism underlies this idea.

Quote

7. How does the downloading of information directly to the brain already happen?? You'll need to provide a source, to help me understand what you mean, because as far as I'm aware, we have not yet perfected an interface between brains and computers.

You're assuming that the mind is in the brain.

Quote

8. Google 'computer generated art' and 'computer generated music', there's loads of examples.

Yes, surely, but that type of art is a level dumbed down from the original type of art. It's an algorithm-based canvas vs. infinite human imagination.

Quote

9. A lot of the current focus on developing a superintelligent AI will be to prevent such an AI from treating humans like livestock, as you describe it. It is a challenge whose difficulty I certainly acknowledge, but I am adamant we can solve it.

You didn't answer my question directly though. If, operating under the assumption that consciousness is an emergent phenomena arising from electrochemical neuronal interactions, how could we possibly know what the boundary of AI self-awareness is? In other words, if human intelligence is emergent hence in a sense artificial, and we don't understand how it happens (aka the hard problem of science), how could we possibly understand silicon self-awareness before it happens if we don't understand carbon self-awareness?