From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Nov 02 1999 - 17:07:25 MST
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Billy Brown wrote:
> Robert J. Bradbury wrote a summary of alternatives to the "Prime-Directive"
>
> As the above list makes clear, you have a much bigger implicit assumption
> that is very improbable, and therefore requires a great deal of
> justification.
A list of "or"-ed alternatives is an attempt to outline the possibilities
from which (given an Eliezer framework) one begins to assign probabilities.
> Specifically, you are assuming that no SI ever wants to do
> anything that would be especially visible to us.
No. *Only* if they want an experiment where the dumb-ones (us) think
they are at the top of the tree of life would they consciously hide from
us. Now, if they are in a situation where they want to increase diversity
in the universe (suppress convergent evolution due to meme sharing) then
they may do this.
What I do lean towards is -
- interstellar colonization is of very small marginal benefit
(so it only occurs rarely and proceeds slowly)
- SIs evolve towards the most efficient structures possible.
- If some SIs do evolve an aggressive consumption strategy then
that explains galactic voids & walls
SIs don't go out of their way to be "invisible", they are "invisible"
because the most efficient structures are those that radiate their waste
heat at the lowest possible temperature. This is evolution to the
limits of physics.
> They don't disassemble solar systems to build things,
> they don't reorganize galaxies to optimize the mass distribution,
> and they certainly don't to any recognizable sort of cosmological engineering.
I'm not sure why you think I'm taking this position. I would argue that
(a) they do disassemble solar systems;
(b) that galaxy consumption/optimization is variable depending on some
initial conditions (as Eliezer has discussed);
(c) that our galaxy is by and large a Kardashev Type III civilization
(with ~90% of the mass astroengineered).
>
> We've been doing that ever since we learned how to pray.
Have we? Most people praying are praying to an omnipotent being.
SIs know they aren't omnipotent, just very very powerful.
What is the point of responding to someone praying if you
are not whom they were praying to?
> If sincerity were the key we'd already be talking.
We aren't so it isn't.
> If correctly understanding what they are is important we still have a
> long way to go.
Step by step, inch by inch...
> Either way, I don't see that posting a message on the Internet is any
> more likely to work than striking up a conversation with the nearest wall.
If we *knew* the wall had nanobot monitors in it then that might be a
good strategy. Unfortunately we may be dealing with a question of --
Are the majority of people "ready" to accept us? A responsible
individual never knocks an expression of art off its pedestal
unless it is prepared to catch it before it hits the ground.
SIs could prevent most humans from despair but it would require
a massive intervention that destroyed the experiment.
>
> What could possibly convince every single individual of every sentient
> species within a billion light years to abide by such a code?
First you *assume* that in sentient species we remain "individuals".
I would argue in the long run that "individuality" may carry a price
we are not willing to bear. Borg-ites may be a natural choice of
rational thinkers. Even if you chose to remain individuals you
have to assume that galactic species are "unaware" of the mistakes
made in interference. If the history of "contact" is littered
with the remains of species whose "will to survive" has been
prematurely ripped away from them, then *rational* species will chose
to avoid such contact.
I would hope that natural selection and species evolution favors
"rationality" over "irrationality". If it doesn't I fear we are
doomed.
> The Prime Directive is a human invention founded on the idea that
> all cultures are equivalent and meaningful improvement in the human
> condition is not possible. Neither of these propositions is true.
Huh? That isn't my impression. If you lose even 1 culture because
it discovers itself to be woefully inferior does that justify the
marginal advancement of 10 other cultures? There may be something about
this point that I just don't see, if so please be more explanatory.
Ultimately contact involves the meeting of different social, developmental
levels and philosophical perspectives. It would seem that the probability
for "mistakes" could exceed the probability for "success". In that case
contact should be avoided and any "justified" miracles should be "cloaked".
> If primitive sentient life has value then allowing primitives to die while
> they struggle towards understanding is immoral.
I've discussed this before (within the last week or two) with regard to
male dolphins raping female dolphins. Morality seems to be *highly* "level
of development" and "environment" specific. You cannot extrapolate our moral
perspective to the realm of SIs. What you view as immoral, SIs may
view as natural selection. Would you argue natural selection is immoral?
> If primitive sentient life does not have value then why not convert the
> solar system into something that does?
What is "value"??? A new supercomputer in a galaxy filled with 200 billion
of them? Give me a break. Only if the marginal benefit of ~1/10^11
of what you have is better than some unknown proability of developing
something you don't have (or don't know you don't have) does this make
sense.
> Either way, you don't get the world we live in.
Perhaps. But I'm not saying "this is the way it is". I'm saying
"this is the way it might be" and people ought to seriously look
at it and raise questions about the way they have traditionally
perceived things.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:41 MST