<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Darin Sunley via extropy-chat<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ExI] Another Fermi Paradox Paper<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>>…The Fermi Paradox is really easy to solve, once you appreciate even the most conservative possible parameters of a technological singularity….<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>And if they're a million years ahead of us, we're currently running as the screensaver on their desktop computers… Darin<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Darin do let me offer a more optimistic view if I may.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In the days when we were having singularity conferences regularly (LOCALLY even! Cool!) we looked a number of possibilities regarding the Fermi silence. One of them I think (and hope) was under-studied at that time has grown far more appealing since then, both in the positive view it presents and in my estimation, the probability of its adequately explaining the Fermi observation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Consider this thought experiment: imagine the universe expands dramatically by six orders of magnitude, where the solar system stays as is, but the nearest stars go from a few light-years to a few million light years, and the nearest galaxies move out to a few trillion light years. Our perspective on signals from out there is changed, for we realize we can never go there, they can never come here, there is no possible or practical actual travel. In that scenario, we no longer bother to even think much about space travel, for it is pointless. We can do things with the local rocks in orbit about the sun if we wish, but beyond that… space is a forever formidable chasm over which travel can never occur, and even if we did somehow, the signal of its success will be millions of years future, so… don’t even bother. Sending out signals into space becomes a pointless activity as well, so there is no reason to squander the energy to do it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In that thought experiment, we turn our full attention of our greatest minds to increased organization of the matter right here and right now, for it is all we will ever have.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>OK then, suppose we discover some kind of mathematical proof or something to convince us that consciousness is not substrate dependent, and that it can be modeled and simulated in software, and so… our new task before us is to create computing platforms which will be ultra-reliable and suitable for having us move into them. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ja?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It follows that if we discover that consciousness is not substrate dependent and that we are collectively smart enough to create computing devices competent enough for consciousness to move into, then we will do that, and we don’t send out signals. We communicate directly through actual conductors, rather than transmitting across empty space with EM signals. We eventually organize every atom available into being-space for consciousness.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Otherwise… we go the way of other tech civilizations which eventually discover fusion and nuke themselves back out of technological capability, in which case we don’t send out signals.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>A third branch of that scenario is that we don’t nuke ourselves and we don’t inload, but generally just use up the available free energy, fail to find a suitable path to sustainability and just fade away as a tech-enabled civilization.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>All three of those scenarios explain the Fermi silence. I really like the notion that we figure out how to inload. That would be way cool.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>