[extropy-chat] limits of computer feeling

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Tue Mar 20 22:13:06 UTC 2007

On 3/20/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> Right now physical modelling takes a lot of cycles. And these are
> extremely inefficient cycles.

### Not as inefficient as the generate-10x6-prototypes-and-keep-one
approach of evolution.
> The difference between Darwin and Lamarck is largely that one blind
> trial is embodied, and the one is virtual, and only the winner is
> embodied. Latter machinery has a cost which brute-force faulty replicators
> don't have to bear.

### The difference is that in Darwin, a hundred million blind trials
are embodied, while in Lamarck, a hundred billion are considered
before one is embodied. As long as the overall cost of considering a
creature is much less than embodying it, Lamarck wins.

> I can do both Lamarck and Darwin at the same time. There is a
> continuum between them -- assuming that I can test things virtually,
> and don't have to test them all embodied.

### Yeah, exactly, by going virtual you could cut costs by orders of
magnitude. If the PC is cheap, CAD beats hammer and chisel.
> > outcompete Darwinians, as long as this is what they desire.
> Anything which doesn't think competitiviness is important on the long
> run isn't going to matter, on the long run. Space is big, you have
> to want it to colonize it.

### Of course. We agree here.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list