[ExI] Feasibility of solid Dyson Sphere WAS mbrains again: request

Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org
Fri Sep 30 11:02:00 UTC 2011

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 06:34:51PM -0700, Dennis May wrote:

> I understand the attraction of central planning
> and vast civilization constructs.  I'm just not

The Earth ecosystem has no central planning.
It's pretty large, though.

Postbiology is about extending the ecosystem
beyond planetary surfaces and beyond a narrow
substrate range. It's emergence is engineered,
but not its existance much beyond the diversity

That's it.

> sure Mbrains are the way to use resources 
> effectively or wisely.  As the value of the 

The Sun dumping 4 MT/s flux into the cosmic
microwave background heat sink without further
sense and purpose is not particularly effective
or wise.

> Mbrain rises so does the cost of insuring its 
> safety - eating more and more resources

Stuff and nonsense. Of course more postbiomass
means more potential diversity, which means more
stability. But nobody is planning for it.

> protecting it from threats without or within.

How do you protect your brain from the Cult of Scientology?
Just because the infrastructure is not exploitable,
it doesn't mean the higher-order processes aren't.

> The cost of protecting it will be high because 
> the investment is concentrated.  I do not believe

What is the investment in a square mile of 
Amazonas rainforest? Where is it concentrated?
Who is attacking it?

> it can be hidden [stealth] or move about 

You cannot hide absence of VIS stars very well.

> [nomadic] so it must exist in fortress mode.

Where are the walls in a square mile of Amazonas
rainforest? I don't mean it's safe. It isn't.
But it has no fortresses.

> Fortresses can be stable for long periods of
> time - until technology renders them 
> vulnerable.  It would seem a future driven view 

The law of the universe define the optimal
physics of computation. Everything else is
co-evolution's work.

> would anticipate that technology will move
> faster and faster rendering a large fortress 
> vulnerable before it can even be constructed.

There's obviously a provably optimal computational
substrate, and it's not far away in design space
once you have machine-phase nanotechnology. 
> That is part of why I took the Superstealth SND

You can't hide unless you're not there.

> approach instead many years ago.  Stealth, 
> Nomadic, Dispersed.  Our present means
> of industrialization depends largely upon
> processes that are centralized in a manner
> vulnerable to any number of problems.  Long

The ecosystem isn't centralized. 

> term survival "big-picture questions for human 
> civilization" should look at long term stability
> as a primary criteria.  I believe the Superstealth 
> SND approach is fundamental to the
> survival of any technological civilization.

I believe that superstealth and advanced cultures
are mutually exclusive. You can't hide your metabolism.
Unless you're not there.

> It encompasses survival techniques learned
> in nature and in modern military technology.

I think you will find a square mile of Amazon
rainforest eminently observable, especially 
considered the control group. 
> I am not interested in trashing the mbrain
> concept - I'm sure many interesting ideas
> have come out of it.  I have been interested
> in the alternative Superstealth SND approach 
> for a very long time and am more interested
> in talking about what it has to offer.
> I had not heard of the institute you work for
> until now - interesting.  It reminds me of the
> Perimeter Institute in some ways.  I am glad
> you are willing to talk in a forum like this.
> Many in academia are not so willing.

Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list