From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Jun 04 2002 - 17:48:30 MDT
Wei Dai writes
> [Lee wrote]
> > Were alien technology to visit Earth and take over my arm,
> > then my arm would begin to experience, and (it is hoped) to
> > experience benefit far beyond my wildest imaginings.
> These two issues are related though. You seem to be saying that property
> rights are a cultural norm that is currently pro-progress. But if the
> alien technology were to visit Earth, people's property rights over their
> own bodies are no longer pro-progress and therefore the aliens should
> ignore them. Is that a correct understanding?
Yes, if the aliens are at a superior *enough* level, then
they should ignore our property rights. It is impossible
when compared to what they could do, I could do anything but
waste my property and its potential. They should upload me
and mine, following the Meta rule.
> If our current property right norms are not going to be sufficient for the
> future, what will replace them? You seem to be suggesting that property
> rights should only apply between individuals with similar levels of
> technology, while the Meta-Golden rule would apply between people with
> different levels of technology. Is that correct?
Yes, that sums up my view nicely.
> We can already see some of the limits [to how sublime matter
> and energy might be organized]. See for example my
> "ultimate fate of civilization" post archived at
> http://www.lucifer.com/exi-lists/extropians/1892.html.
Very interesting. But I choked on the part where you spend
a lot of energy moving matter around. Were you talking about
interstellar distances? Boy, I hope not. It also seemed to
me that we should stay away from black holes, because they
retard time and because they're such entropy sinks. Why do
you think it's appropriate to them?
> But perhaps you're right, even a tiny chance that more advanced life is
> possible could be enough to make it worthwhile to treat the less advanced
> life nicely, if doing so is sufficiently cheap.
Yes, exactly so. For a concrete example, if it cost me nothing,
I wouldn't exterminate the bacteria on my kitchen sink, but rather
follow the Meta rule and provide them with their own dish culture.
> > Moreover, I advocate that when the Meta rule is used, a controlling
> > entity at a high level permit total freedom at lower levels, just
> > so long as there is no immanent threat of losing control because
> > of the chance discovery of super-algorithms at the lower level.
>
> Sounds like Eliezer's Sysop Scenario, but arrive at from a completely
> different route. Interesting...
No, Eliezer and I have gone around this one before. He didn't
like total freedom at lower levels because even lower level
simulatees might be abused. Don't you agree with him? Above
you stated that a simulatee's permission should always be
obtained before he was run (which would make most historical
simulations very difficult). I, on the other hand, favor the
solution closer to private property.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:36 MST