From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Jul 09 1999 - 18:28:00 MDT
> "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> I really don't think we should strike at SETI.
I'm not "striking" at it, I'm bringing our thoughts to the table
for examination. See my abstact at:
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~meech/bioast/program/LEINT.1.9.pdf
The SETI effort IMHO is very valid (though
it has to be done a bit differently). What "our" ideas
(can I say that?!?) do is strike at, however, is "astronomy"
in general. There are many assumptions in astronomy
that are determined by Ockham's Razor [the simplest
explanation]. Unfortunately *almost all* astronomers
assume that the UFE (universal fatality [probability]
equation) for intelligent life = 1. Paraphrasing one
of the gravitational microlensing experts with whom
I dicussed these possibilities (and he was one of the
younger, presumably more open minded individuals)) --
"If what you are saying is true (that SIs are capable
of significant astroengineering), then we can't count
on anything". I would anticipate a lot more resistance
from the average astronomer than the average SETI researcher
for the simple reason that I'm telling the average SETI
researcher, you are basically correct, you just have limited
your thinking too much. In contrast, I'm saying to the
average astronomer -- you need to rethink your fundamental
assumptions entirely in the light of an "intelligent"
universe.
> For one thing, it's a perfectly legitimate endeavor,
> even if they're doing it for different reasons.
Agreed. And they aren't doing it for different reasons.
They want to detect "life" out there. The only problem
is that many people are limited by the preconception
that the life is like "us", "now".
> For another thing, perhaps, say, the New Agers are more our
> natural enemies than people who don't measure up to Singularitarian
> standards in every possible respect.
I'm not sure if I understand this statement correctly.
If you mean to say that because "New Agers" invoke or
rely upon "magic" for their philosophies or perspectives,
then I would agree. I have the same distaste for
new-agers that I have for hard-core physicists invoking
"new-magic" (why explain the missing mass as WIMPs
when it can be explained by SIs?). Existing, generally
accepted physics gives us a *lot* of room to play in --
lets completely explore that before we resort to "magic".
Fundamentally you are up against the meme (hope) that
there isn't an integrated intelligence out there that
is 25+ orders of magnitude above our level.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:26 MST