[extropy-chat] What Human Minds Will Eventually Do

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 12:58:12AM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote:

> Digital error checking extends the mean time between unwanted mutations to
> longer than the lifespan of the universe.

How can you tell wanted from unwanted mutations, a priori?
Do you realize that the mutation rate is a yet another fitness
component in the evolutionary optimization process? Static
critters are doomed, soon. Preemptively: I don't think Lamarck
can trump Darwin. At best they'd coexist.
 
> Digital substrate maintenance (nanotechnology) and scanning (smart antivirus
> programs) eliminate local parasites.

What is your diagnostics to tell the parasites from symbionts? What
if by getting rid of the parasites you'll be outperformed by those
who didn't? Do you know enough to substitute an ecology (a free market)
by a central planning authority, which attempts to nanomanage
everything? 
 
> The observed tendency for cooperation on larger scales to beat disorganized
> swarms (cells to multicellular bodies to tribes to nations to multinational
> alliances) continues; oligopolies don't sample much of the search space, and

Ecosystem isn't a war. Both whales and algae coexist.

> are subject to very different dynamics than the biological ones you're drawing
> on. The end state retains a strong dependency on the origin state.

My conjecture is that absolute fitness factors have a ceiling, which
will be reached relatively soon by a solid-state culture. The spatial
and temporal fluctuations hereafter will be solely due to own dynamics. 
 
> A gram of smarts (enough for an entire upload civilization) in a hundred ton
> probe (you need the mass anyway for shielding and braking) is negligible
> baggage and more than pays for itself in ability to outthink and outfight a
> dumb probe that got there slightly before you did.

You're describing the successor waves. The pioneers which came before you
have moved on already. You're not coming in an enemy system. The first
ecosystem wave predigested primitive local materials, and are food for
your second and third waves. This isn't NASA or Dyson.
 
> The exponent in the rocket equation (and similar terms in non-rocket means of
> transport) means ultra high speed probes take a lot of resources to launch.
> Long-range colonization is done by big power blocs, not lichen-equivalents.
> 
> Max feasible probe velocity is 0.2c, speed of Nicoll-Dyson laser fire is c.

Where did you pull that number from? The only bottleneck I see is limit to
rebuild rate under high interstellar hydrogen luminosity, which is really 
close to c. 

> Probes that try to colonize without permission are vapor before they can finish
> braking. All colonization is done by negotiated partitioning of available space

I don't see how this physics would work out. From my current data you can
push a small probe at about 3 g for many months, and then it's effectively
out of reach. There are many other reasons why trying to recall the
chain letter by shooting the postman is futile.

> between power blocs.

Do you see that already the first step from earth surface to solar
system periphery is the first selection step? 
 
> Ultimate-technology warfare is scorched-earth, defender's resources are
> consumed/destroyed (returned to the interstellar medium) along with some of the
> attacker's, so evolution selects against the tendency to start fights and real
> estate once secured doesn't change hands.

Um, there's plenty of aggression in an ecosystem. There is no earth to scorch.
Real estate (resources) change hands with the death of the individual.
 
> I don't claim to know that any or all of the above _will_ be the case, only
> that it's at least as plausible a scenario as the one you outline.

I could actually run a number of simulations to prove my point, but 
unfortunately this is about at the bottom of the priority pile for me
right now.
 
> Or if the 10^15 human primates in the stellar system you were about to destroy
> have built themselves a Nicoll-Dyson laser, and so have their allies in a

The destruction thing was figurative. Don't get hung up on this. The point
is that the Amish won't build a circumstellar structure, and if they tried
by building it they'd cease to be Amish. They'd become a Power themselves.

> hundred nearby star systems. Now it might still be perfectly safe to _think_
> unaltruistic thoughts, but if you're not looking for a Darwin award you'd
> better _act_ like a nice well-behaved member of the pantheon.

I don't know what Powers will do. I think I know what pioneers will do,
and the rough shape of the fitness landscape dynamics in steady state.
 
>      If you can prove me
>      wrong, I'll open a case of champagne, and get wasted in
>      celebrating.
> 
> Only way to prove the future is wait and see what happens (a universe simple
> enough to be analytically predictable would be far too simple to evolve
> intelligence) but I think the above adequately demonstrates that there's no
> basis for believing your predictions will come true. Make it one bottle of
> champagne maybe? :)

I'd wish I was convinced.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060702/ed20da08/attachment.bin>