From: Timothy Jennings (timothyjennings@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Apr 21 2007 - 15:31:57 MDT
The obvious solution is "we are first".
"We" "[being] first" is only unlikely in the sense of "what is the chance of
that golf ball landing exactly there" said by a teenage caddy pointing at a
random golf ball happening to lie in a certain place when he happens to say
that.
On 21/04/07, apeters2@nd.edu <apeters2@nd.edu> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if "machine rebellion" is a workable concept here. If we are
> talking about a civilization able to build whole subrealities at a whim,
> we are
> already talking non-biological, uplifted sentience. Why would they make
> these
> (I assume lesser) guardian entities with the capacity to rebel, or even to
> want
> to rebel? Leave them with limited intelligence, perhaps a basic
> compulsion-program to ensure that they concentrate solely on defense and
> resource harvesting.
> Your other point - "bumping up against" other civilizations - seems like a
> more
> likely source of problems.
>
> Quoting Dagon Gmail <dagonweb@gmail.com>:
>
> > 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 <stathisp@gmail.com>* wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/20/07, Gordon Worley <redbird@mac.com > 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.<
> http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM-
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT