From: Joseph W. Foley (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Feb 25 2004 - 12:04:54 MST
I think the problem, as I defined it, was ill-posed. I simply can't
understand *why* a truly intelligent being would act out of pure
altruism, or anything motive at all that isn't self-interest -
especially if the being had to struggle for existence. So I can't
honestly claim to know what kind of example I'm looking for, as I can't
imagine intelligent altruism.
A super-intelligent entity would have less trouble than most in
"surviving AND treading lightly in relation to other life" alone, as you
suggest, but not if it were competing with an equally intelligent entity
that didn't play by those rules.
Past patterns do need to be destiny. My argument was that the successful
existence of an entity requires it to be self-interested, and that this
follows (however indirectly) from whatever laws of the universe (think
physics) we hold immutable. It's silly to argue from this standpoint -
and perhaps from any other - if we can't assume past patterns to return
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Philip
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: Intelligence is exploitative (RE: Zen singularity)
If one could demonstrate an intelligence that was not exploitative would
you deny its existence?
Past patterns need not be destiny, surely?
Perhaps an super intelligent entity could be good at surviving AND
treading lightly in relation to other life? Indeen the more intelligent
was perhaps the easier this multiple goal approach might be?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:46 MDT