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

[John Grigg]

Dennis May wrote:
The cost of protecting it will be high because
the investment is concentrated.  I do not believe
it can be hidden [stealth] or move about
[nomadic] so it must exist in fortress mode.
Fortresses can be stable for long periods of
time - until technology renders them
vulnerable.  It would seem a future driven view
would anticipate that technology will move
faster and faster rendering a large fortress
vulnerable before it can even be constructed.
>>>


Why could an Mbrain not continually engage in technological progress
to improve it's defenses and keep pace with potential enemies?  I see
the advantages of SND, but it seems to me there are also
disadvantages, such as being so dispersed much of the time that it
does not have the constant huge computational power & mass advantage
of the Mbrain!


Why not a combination of the two concepts, where you have an Mbrain
that in a time of crisis can disperse into much smaller units,
activate stealth mode for all of them, and then flee/fight if
necessary to various points, until it is safe to reassemble and regain
the benefits of Mbrain computational power.


Yes, I coined the term "SND Mbrain!"  ; )  I gotta get this trademarked... lol


I sure miss Robert.  He was my Extropian Godfather, and a good friend.


John


On 9/29/11, Dennis May <dennislmay at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
>> Mbrains will no doubt look quaint as we get
>> ever better ideas of how to  arrange matter to
>> do useful things, ...
>
> I understand the attraction of central planning
> and vast civilization constructs.  I'm just not
> sure Mbrains are the way to use resources
> effectively or wisely.  As the value of the
> Mbrain rises so does the cost of insuring its
> safety - eating more and more resources
> protecting it from threats without or within.
> The cost of protecting it will be high because
> the investment is concentrated.  I do not believe
> it can be hidden [stealth] or move about
> [nomadic] so it must exist in fortress mode.
> Fortresses can be stable for long periods of
> time - until technology renders them
> vulnerable.  It would seem a future driven view
> would anticipate that technology will move
> faster and faster rendering a large fortress
> vulnerable before it can even be constructed.
>
> That is part of why I took the Superstealth SND
> 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
> 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.
> It encompasses survival techniques learned
> in nature and in modern military technology.
>
> 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.
>
> Dennis May