From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 00:37:01 MDT
"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
>
> Ah, well it depends on whether you are a "true" extropian or
> just wearing the cloth. If Eliezer and/or people working
> on similar efforts are successful and a transcendent AI/SI
> develops, then it would be moderately to extremely unextropian
> to seek to preserve yourself in the face of this. If you
> look into the depths of a "god" and realize that it is
> far far far superior for evolving itself into the greatest
> complexity and self-expression possible (relative to you,
> hanging onto outmoded notions of preserving your former self,
> not slashing and burning your ineffective copies due to remnants
> of human moral beliefs, etc.) -- then you clearly have to justify
> hanging onto your matter and consuming energy in what is clearly
> a sub-optimal state from the perspective of combatting entropy.
>
> (Henceforth, I will refer to this as the "Extropians Dilemma".)
> [I believe that I've stated this in prior emails or presentations
> with the quote, "You must give up everything you are for what
> you might become."]
Yes. That is what I was attempting to say in a less direct
(some might go so far as to say harsh) way.
>
> So the problem is far far worse than you might suspect. Not
> only must you give up your "attachment" to your resident
> consciousness in your current biological body, you must also
> give up your attachment to your consumption of matter, energy,
> and ideas that consume either of those resources. Rejection
> of these ideas immediately places you in the Bill Joy camp --
> "here we go and we shall go no further". You must be committed
> to the path that the AI/SI is on (even if it means the elimination
> of your former self) OR come up with a reasonable justification
> for not being on that path.
>
I don't think anyone is going to begrudge you your relatively
minuscle consumption of matter and energy for a l-o-n-g time.
Nor do I think it is inevitable that we are in some competition
or have to prove we are worthy of taking up
space/energy/computational resources. We are headed toward
abundance, not some ultimate Darwinian hyper-kll off. At least,
I believe we get to define what it is to some extent.
I will not commit to the path the AI/SI is on unless I believe
it is the right path.
> So here is the challenge -- can anyone come up with an argument
> that justifies the preservation and continued "operation" of
> oneself in the face of clear evidence that more efficient
> means (i.e. means that consume less matter & energy) are
> available to "execute" ones consciousness? Furthermore,
> can anyone present an argument that the occupation and execution
> of said means is justifyable if more efficient means to generate
> information content (extropization) are available?
>
Sure, such operation consumes only minuscle resources and is no
real skin off of any computational godlike creature's
metaphorical back. Such a being might even enjoy the diversity
and actively participate in creating space for such various
forms of life and experience. Why not? Justifiable to whom?
You have some hangup that things have to be justified in order
to be? Who the hell says that only the most "efficient"
information generating and processing means are "justified"? Is
a butterfly or a beautiful sunset unjustified simply because it
is not information efficient?
> You have "inalienable" rights by virtue of being born a human.
> Are those rights "inalienable" if you choose to be an extropian?
They are inalienable simply because you are a living sentient if
the word "inalienable" has any meaning at all. If it doesn't
then I am not so sure I want to join the party you have in mind.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:52 MST