Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox

From: Dagon Gmail (
Date: Sat Apr 21 2007 - 11:51:17 MDT

The implication would be, the galactic disk would be seeded with a steadily
growing number of "bombs",
i.e. extremely defensive automated civilizations solely dedicated to keeping
intact the minds of its original
creators. Just one of these needs to experience a machine rebellion and the
precarious balance is lost. A
machine rebellion may very well not have the sentimental attachment to the
native dream-scape. Machine
civilizations could very well be staunchly objectivist, dedicated to what it
regards as materialist expansion. Any
such rebellion would run into the (alleged) multitudes of "dreaming" or
"virtuamorph" civilizations around.

And we are talking big timeframes here. If the statistical analysis has any
meaning, virtuamorph civilizations
shouldn't be a de facto dying process; for a dreaming civilization to have
any other meaning than a slow
abortion they have to last millions of years; millions of years means a lot
of galactic shuffling in terms of
stellar trejacteories. There would be many occasions of stars with
"dreamers" drifting into proximity, giving rise to
paranoid, highly protectionist impulses. After all, if all that dreaming is
worth anything in subjective terms the
civilization doing it would fight realworld battles to defend it, and not
just dream about it in metaphorical terms
of +5 vorpal swords.

Unless the mindscapes have a way of closing off access to reality, i.e. they
materially escape this universe.
But then we introduce new unknows and arbitrary explanations.

Maybe it's simply easier for civilizations to maintain their consciousness
> in worlds of their own creation rather than expend energy and time in this
> one which is outside of their complete control. It would seem to me that
> being able to create a paradise of information and experience from the
> substrate of this world would be a better existence than existing in this
> world as is. Once to this stage, maybe to other civilizations simply do not
> want to be bothered by lesser beings in this reality who might upset the
> balance and control they desire. One would only need to be able to generate
> the prime number sequence in order to create an infinite order of
> probability densities with the next higher prime as the next iterative seed
> value. In this way, one could mimic true randomness. A civilization could
> at both times experience truly unique experiences yet have complete control
> over their reality. The reality they experience would ultimately be limited
> by the available energy in this reality but hypothetically, they could
> manipulate time in such a way that one second here would be a million years
> in their experienced reality. Ultimately, their fate would be dependent
> upon the goings on in this universe, but they could develop machines to
> gather energy and other resources to maintain their minds in the
> sub-realities.
> They would need to build machines incapable of communicating or avoid
> communicating with minds in this reality while they experience a completely
> unique reality of their own choosing through technology. The machines in
> this time and space are drones programmed to protect the mind(s) living
> within the created world(s). You could go so far as to model this entire
> existence where each individual mind shapes vis own reality which is
> protected by drones in the higher reality with the ability to transfer one's
> mind between realities as one sees fit or keep others out as one sees fit.
> Universes could be born by the integration and random sharing of minds
> thereby generating more unique child realities.
> The ultimate liberty would be to give each person vis own ideaspace with
> which to construct their own reality and experience it as they see fit.
> It would be really cool to be to the level of existence as a universal
> mind integrating with other universal minds creating completely new
> universes.
> Why would you want to exchange this kind of ability for the lesser
> existence of an entropic reality?
> *Stathis Papaioannou <>* wrote:
> On 4/20/07, Gordon Worley < > wrote:
> The theory of Friendly AI is fully developed and leads to the
> > creation of a Friendly AI path to Singularity first (after all, we
> > may create something that isn't a Friendly AI but that will figure
> > out how to create a Friendly AI). However, when this path is
> > enacted, what are the chances that something will cause an
> > existential disaster? Although I suspect it would be less than the
> > chances of a non-Friendly AI path to Singularity, how much less? Is
> > it a large enough difference to warrant the extra time, money, and
> > effort required for Friendly AI?
> Non-friendly AI might be more likely a cause an existential disaster from
> our point of view, but from its own point of view, unencumbered by concerns
> for anything other than its own well-being, wouldn't it be more rather than
> less likely to survive and colonise the galaxy?
> Stathis Papaioannou
> ------------------------------
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.<*;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM->

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT