[extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do

[Lee Corbin]

Eugen also wrote

> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:27 AM

> > Could you elaborate? It doesn't seem to me now that I have all
> > that much control over my emotions. I'm happy or sad, often for
> > [no good reason]
> 
> Some of what we discuss sounds dated
> even as we speak. Whatever we've learned from such past discussions
> (which cover many centuries) is that if we aim for specifics
> the projections will tank. So I'm trying to assume as little
> as possible, namely that Darwin still applies, and don't try
> to look at the short term (linear centuries) but look at the
> long-term trends. Predicting climate, instead of weather.

Yes, but one benefit of throwing in a little speculation along
side is that it more strongly affects our planning, and carries
implications about our values.

> We're extremely unnatural, and in fact not unnatural enough.
> We're animals that have been pressed too fast into a postanimal
> niche, hence the maladaptedness, and the feeling of being
> a round peg in a square hole. But this is our view, and other
> people and systems will choose a different evolutionary path
> that will carry them into all possible nooks and crannies,
> arbitrarily far from our current bauplan, generally spoken.
> 
> What irks me, if that we're always extrapolating from a human
> viewpoint -- not only a human, but an early 21st century human 
> geek. There's some serious diversity scarcity there. 

But it's so *hard* to extrapolate from non-human viewpoints :-)
At least for me (I'm less sure about you!)

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
lowly morals. But in the end, one must ask, what sorts of
algorithms will dominate the computronium of the far future?
And the answer need not be too bleak: after all, Earth's
currently most advanced life form is rather altruistic.

(It bears repeating that humans engage in violence far, far
less per observed hour than does any other primate.)

> My point is that diversition radiates both down and up complexity-wise,
> and a transrodent niche doesn't ask for intelligence. There is
> simply no place for intelligence in a lowly scavenger package.

The serious and interesting conflict of visions that you and
I appear to have is that I see a greater role for intelligence.
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.

Or, in other words, you gonna let mice run free in your space?
I'm sure you don't now.

> But math is just a particular production system, a subset
> of culture.

What?!?  Heresy.  Plain and simple.  Actually, mathematics
rules the universe, or so it has seemed since the time of
Galileo. It's another discussion, but I'm a strict mathematical
Platonist (i.e. "17 exists and has the properties it does
completely independently of culture or intelligence").

> No doubt some will revel in such production
> systems. But not exclusively so. I always got this dismal
> vibe from Egan: "Oh noes! we've ran out of stuff and think to
> do! O well, the only thing left is the math mines, I guess."

Well, we have to revel in something. At some point, math (and
engineering more advanced versions of ourselves) will be all
that is left. And the whole point of this thread, so far as
I am concerned, is making the point that the pleasure is more
important than what you get it from.

> > Another approach is simply to use Godel's theorem, and observe
> > ...
> > proof that the number of mathematical facts is at least aleph
> > zero.
> 
> I understand you perfectly (and indeed if there was a symbolic
> algebra package cortex plugin I'd purchase it). But this is a tool,
> not something I'd consider a full-time occupation.

Well, as Russell has asked me, just how do you intend to spend
the next trillion or so years (granted that we get lucky) if
not on mathematics?

Lee

> Ditto diddling nanowidgets: it's the same as redecoration and health
> maintenance, rolled in one. Something you do, but not full-time,
> but for the specialists.