From: Ramez Naam (Exchange) (ramezn@EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.com)
Date: Mon Oct 13 1997 - 20:37:23 MDT
> From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [SMTP:sentience@pobox.com]
> My point is not necessarily that a given technology is feasible, and
> particularly not that it is feasible to us. The Unbreakable-Limits
> position
> says: "Such-and-such is theoretically and mathematically impossible
> under the
> laws of physics, in the same sense that you cannot add two even
numbers
> and
> get an odd number". I simply point out that the current, known laws
of
> physics make the limit a practical, rather than a theoretical, one.
The
> Constraintarians are reduced to saying: "Well, sure, it's
theoretically
> possible, but I don't think it's practical." Well, but then the SIs
may
> think
> otherwise. You are no longer arguing that a given end is impossible
> under the
> Laws Of Physics (which change all the time, anyway). You are arguing
> that a
> possible end is not achieveable - because *we* can't think of any way
to
> do it.
Right. Understood. However you're making a straw-man of my original
post: I was very explicit in communicating that a future being might see
past these apparent limitations. But simply waving away the discussion
by saying "we don't know, we're not smart enough" is sticking your head
in the sand. Let's think creatively about how we can apply our limited
intellects to glean at least /some/ understanding of the future. I'm
sure you have dozens of suspicions of what things will be like (in some
limited sphere) 50 years from now, and strong supporting arguments for
each of them. That's the stuff I'd like to hear, rather than constant
cries of "some smarter future being will figure /everything/ out".
On a totally separate note, nice to talk to you again, Eli. It's always
entertaining and enlightening, to say the least!
mez
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:02 MST