On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Well, if you expect all advanced others to be utterly Darwinian and
> expansive then your argument seems tight. But that assumption is just
> that, an assumption. It is probably as pointless for us to attempt to
Not quite, it's a statistical argument. Out of a population of cultures,
only expansive ones will autoamplify for their signatures to become
detectable over astronomical distances.
All the other ones are irrelevant, charming and sophisticated that they
surely are.
> say what all post-Singularity species will be like as to attempt to
> say in any detail what the local Singularity will be like. We are not
The local Singularity is not a process involving a single agent, but a
population of agents, (though the nucleation event might involve a single
entity, but it obviously can't last). Unless there's a sterilization
mechanism associated with operation of a class of agents, you've got the
stellar substrate nucleated already. As soon as we get into space, but can
be damn sure the disaspora will begin, and the old self-selection game of
wavefront organisms will apply.
> remotely equipped to do so. But I would certainly hope that we can
> think of better games to play than infinite Darwinian expansion until
> we run out of universe or run into something more single-mindedly
> Darwinian and expansionist than ourselves.
Life expands, it's its nature. You may view it as horrific, or beatiful,
but the facts stand for itself. I personally don't have any voicable
opinion on it: either way it's fine with me.
-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:49 MDT