From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Mon Nov 01 1999 - 07:35:21 MST
Fascinating. So instead of living in an universe filled with sleeping
super-cats we might be living in an universe filled with super-cave
fishes...
"Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@www.aeiveos.com> writes:
> Given the above, you look at the SI, its in an environment similar
> to the cave-fish. It wants to *live* in the moment. Since nothing
> around it is a threat (all threats being handled by preprogrammed
> sub-systems) it becomes pointless to remember anything! Just
> as the cave-fish doesn't need to exercise its memory pathways
> to have stuff available for future recall, neither does an SI!
> So all the resources get devoted to short-term memory and
> computation of the current virtual reality.
Makes the behavior of the Transmuters in Egan's _Diaspora_ seem quite
rational. Maybe he was onto something?
> Extending my "We don't talk to nematodes and SI's don't talk to us"
> quote, "We don't talk to nematodes and SIs have forgotten us!"
> Both humans & SIs are totally "unaware" of the things they take
> for granted. Humans rarely think about or devote "long term memory"
> to breathing (exceptions being scuba diving, plane decompressions,
> astronauts and strangulations). Why should SIs devote thought or
> attention to the universe or the sub-entities in it? *Only* if
> surviving in the universe *indefinately* is a *possible*, but
> *very difficult* problem, will SIs pay attention to the universe.
If Dyson is right about the universe being maximally
interesting/complex, then it seems likely that the SIs would be up and
running with long-term memories. If the complexity of the universe is
too small, then being memoryless or asleep makes sense (however, SIs
have autoevolved from natural entities or been created by them, so
they might have residual fears of removing aversions against Eternal
Return and similar stuff). If the universe is too complex to be dealt
with (like living in a type III cellular automaton with gaslike chaos)
intelligence beyond a certain point doesn't help you any further, and
there would be an upper bound of necessary intelligence - resources
would better be spent on safety, backups and "entertainment".
> If its impossible or easy (which seem more probable) they may
> abandon the costs of long term memory for
> "Live for today, for tomorrow you *will* be dead".
> or
> "Live for today, for tomorrow the game is reinitialized".
>
> So, now we are left with one final "extropic" question --
> "Do you want to evolve slowly or quickly to that point?"
>
> If the energy available to do work is finite, and if we can
> use it slowly or quickly, but the work (thought quantity) that
> it can accomplish is the same, which do you prefer?
To me it doesn't matter, since I prefer to measure time in
thought. Not much time passes when I'm asleep, but a lot when I'm
meeting fellow transhumanists. So from my perspective the available
time above is constant, and the distribution of it in physical time is
a matter of aesthetics (and some practical problems). Most likely I
would like to do it slowly so I could see what happens.
"What do you want then, Presence?"
"I want what I already have! Eternal wonder, eternally fulfilled...
Not the eternal, even, just the Indefinite, that is where all beauty
is... I'll wait out the heat-death of the Universe to see what happens
next! And in the meantime, isn't it something, all of it?"
- Bruce Sterling, Schismatrix
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 - 15:05:40 MST