From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Dec 05 1999 - 02:59:20 MST
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Gina Miller wrote:
> > Commenting on exchanges between Spike & I regarding how many
> > self copies are acceptable...
>
> I'm deranged just enough to visualize this multiple me plot, I'll take ten,
> but with slightly less intellects, enough to understand me, and converse
> with, but in lacking, so I maintain that edge of control and dominance of
> authority. Sick, aint it! Gina.
>
Actually, no. Given the "dominance" behaviors we *must* be programed
with, it would be *really* silly to want to create copies that are 100%
equivalent. What you really want is to create a divergent self
that can dominate a somewhat different ecological niche that you
can relate to on multiple levels. I.e. you want a mutated
self-clone in an alternate environment with whom one has some
identity/empathy.
This problem makes me doubt the appeal of scenarios where we have many
copies of ourselves. While I fully grant that having copies of
ourselves makes great sense from a survival standpoint, it makes little
sense from a competitive standpoint. Does Gina want to bid against
10 copies of herself as an information source?!? Then of course, you
have the problem of whether we could tolerate/enjoy talking with 10 of
ourselves. I have enough headaches dealing with the soft-selves
that I can create currently without having to worry about physical
instantiations of said soft-selves running on different hardware.
In situations such as these, I look very closely at my claim
that "you must be willing to give up everything you are for what
you might become". You have to believe in the process of evolution
much more than you believe in the preservation of oneself!
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:58 MST