[extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do

[Lee Corbin]

Eugen wrote

> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 3:57 AM
> 
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 10:59:08PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> 
> > More seriously, I totally agree that we shouldn't over assume
> > that our own values will predominate; indeed, Darwin has to 
> > remain the best guide. As an example, recall the SF stories
> > and movies in which it was just *assumed* that more advanced
> > creatures would be benevolent, would have "risen above" our
> 
> It is almost always assumed that cruising aliens are super-advanced,
> and super-intelligent. But just assuming a) relativistic flight
> b) iterated selection over large distances it's pretty obvious
> intelligence is not a trait selected for.

But what if---as seems probable to me---humans come to dominate
every last cubic centimeter of the solar system? Now many will
disagree (they being too sentimental in my opinion), but why
preserver trillions of ants, for God's sake, when surely the
emulation of a few hundred should satisfy anyone's conscience?

> The only traits selected for are short reproduction time and
> expansiveness.

That is simply untrue. In R/K theory (biology), circumstances 
and environments arise in which K predominates.

> So while intelligence is necessary to produce expansive aliens, the
> intelligence trait will be selected away over very large distances.

Our Von Neumann probes should overtake any escaping silly software.
(And for the moralists, let me add: if one country's don't then
another country's---or another planet's---will.)

> > And the answer need not be too bleak: after all, Earth's
> > currently most advanced life form is rather altruistic.
> 
> Er, not so altruistic towards the rest of them 
> http://www.well.com/~davidu/sixthextinction.html

As I say, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, once you've seen 10^5
ants, you've seen 'em all. *Altruism* should be weighted by
the complexity of who is on the receiving end. Is it altruistic
for me to go through some trouble to kill a few houseflies so
that my guest may be more comfortable?  Of course it is!

> From the point of a deity, we're plankton. From the point of
> view of lesser lifeforms that are parasites, we're food.
> Interesting nonlinearities appear soon in sexual selection
> and host-parasite co-evolution.

It is quite true that we may be insufficiently complex to be
on the receiving end of anyone's altruism in the end.
 
> I think intelligence is very interesting, but I'm not fooling
> myself for a moment that bulk of postbiomass will be 
> intelligent. You can pack a lot of ops in a cubic micron, but
> you can't put a lot of bits into it. 

I don't know what you mean. Is this your own idea?  I ask,
because I never heard of computronium being infested in the
way that you suggest.

Just what keeps the intelligent parts from cannibalizing the
less intelligent parts.  Looked at the growth curve of human
protoplasm lately?  Then think of what an AI might do to the
solar system.

> > In particular, for some radius r > 1 meter, *all* activity
> > within a sphere of radius r will conform to the values of
> > a ruling intelligence.
> 
> You're a ruling intelligence. Do you control everything even
> within your own body?

Oh come on now. Only my lack of adequate technology prevents me
from achieving TOTAL CONTROL over my property. And I will freely
extend such control to the limits of the visible universe, staying
within the limits of law, of course.

> Do you control everything on your city block? Would you really
> want to?

Why not?  If I own it, then I'm filling it up with people, or with
computers. 

> Why are you letting coyotes roam the New York Central Park?

Because I don't own the place. 
 
Lee