From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Thu Mar 04 1999 - 11:48:47 MST
I think the problem not just for extropianism but for transhumanism in
general is that as we are growing, we also need better
self-definitions, firmer foundations. But most of us likely do not
want to make them too rigid or excluding. So we end up with a dilemma:
Either some fuzzy definition, that allows just about anything to call
itself transhumanist (like the first definition on the WTA list, which
would have made Jeremy Rifkin a transhumanist :-) and would make it
harder to see the serious, valuable part for all the junk. Or a
stricter definition which of course invites to quarrels over who is
and isn't a Real Extropian (tm), and how to modify these definitions
well.
We clearly need to find some dynamical balance between these two
extremes that avoids getting trapped there (hmm, sounds like the
border of something... ;-).
Jfvirey@aol.com writes:
> Moreover, the various "ingredients" of extropy contradict one another. Take
> order and capacity for improvement, for instance. Doesn't Stuart Kaufman argue
> that evolution takes place in areas where a balance between order and chaos
> can be found, and that extremes of chaos and order prevent it? Well then, it
> is impossible to maximize both order and capacity for improvement.
Actually, I think this is a mistake. What is meant by "order" is
unfortunately rather fuzzy. It is important to distinguish between
information (which is high in chaotic systems rather than "ordered"
systems) and order, in the sense of a system having symmetries and
regularities of low algorithmic complexity. There is a big confusion
about the meaning of these terms, but I think it is clear that the
principles do not say the goal is to minimize the complexity of the
world, neither do they advocate turning it into randomness.
One can do an analysis of the mutual information between an evolving
population at time t and t+1 using information theory (Adami,
Introduction to Artificial Life), and it suggests that there is an
optimal rate of mutation where this information is maximal: too much
and important information about the environment is lost, too little
and the rate of evolution is too slow. It seems that we want to keep
in this optimal region, if we generalize (perhaps dangerously) from
genes to memes.
> "Extropy" is therefore an invalid, self-contradictory concept. This is why the
> philosophy will soon dissolve in the kind of nonsense that has almost always
> been coalescing around it, and why there's no way we can save it from such
> trash.
So you have abandoned dynamic optimism? :-) Seriously, this is
obviously something that can be rationally studied, discussed and
fixed. No need to be defaitist.
So, the main question seems to be: how do we define extropy?
(and what units is it measured in? Felix suggested money as the
natural unit of value)
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:14 MST