> > O'Regan, Emlyn <Emlyn.ORegan@actew.com.au> wrote:
>
> > ah, if you have gone to the trouble of becoming an SI, why would you
> > then snooze on the job?
>
> The same reason that predators (lions/cats) at the top of their
> evolutionary niche sleep 12-16 hours/day -- because there is
> nothing better to do!
>
A whole universe, an M-brain, and there's nothing better to do? Come on!
Felines sleep 12-16 hours a day because they are bozos. Imagine, with all
that mental power at your command, and physical power over the universe.
Wouldn't you spend time thin
> > There's always something you can do with CPU/brain time.
>
> Yes, you can always run the VR for the uploaded minds.
> The trick of it is, since all of their senses are fed
> in anyway, they have no way of knowing whether they
> have been suspended for 1000 years and are just being
> fed 1000 year old pictures of the universe! I envision
> an interesting game of cat & mouse -- the SI "scheduler"/
> sensory management subroutine attempting to convince you
> that you have been awake the last 1000 years, while you
> (an uploaded mind in a small region of the SI) attempts
> to prove that you have only been given 3 minutes of CPU
> time in the last 1000 years!
>
> > And wouldn't a permanently awake SI have an advantage over
> > a strategically sleepy one, just because it's thinking more?
>
> I think it depends on the rate of "challenges". Remember what
> dictates our current longevity -- tradeoffs between energy
> devoted to reproduction vs. energy devoted to maintenence &
> repair. If the rate of challenges/hazard function is "high",
> then thinking more has its advantages. If the rate of challenges/
> hazard function is low, then sleeping may be the preferential
> strategy for survival (think of the mouse vs. the lion). I
> think this works out so that SIs in high density regions
> (stars, other SIs, black holes, etc.) prefer to think, while
> SIs in low density regions prefer to sleep.
>
OK, while we are constructing the SI's as predators, look at it this way.
Imagine that they are all in fierce competition - there can only be one! -
which there may be reasons for. Even if a small number of them think this
way, the rest must at least adopt a strong self defense stance (I would if I
had an SI gunning for me!!!).
> > Or do you mean that doing "nothing" means doing entirely internal
> > thinking, ie: not interacting with the outside world, but CPUs at 100%?
>
> No, if Robert Freitas is correct (in his communications to me),
> that SIs will dismantle Jupiters/brown dwarfs/stars for long term
> fuel requirements, then your rate of fuel consumption is entirely
> self-determined (so you can sleep "between" gas stations).
> In other words you have an entirely "self-controlled" rate
> of fuel consumption, thought rate, heat production/signature.
>
> If my thinking is more correct, that fuel management is
> "expensive" (from a material resources perspective) for
> "young" SIs, then you want to run "full-out" using all
> of the material/energy resources available, until you
> get to the point where you either (a) have computed
> future paths with a high degree of confidence or (b)
> have computed everything of interest to you and are
> willing to sacrifice the computational resources to
> energy management (fuel tanks, star atmosphere harvesters,
> etc.)
>
> You always have the ability to turn the CPU clock rate to
> zero, but you don't have the ability to turn off the star
> (and therefore the energy production). So in even a moderately
> engineered system you will radiate heat (and waste energy).
> Only if you go to the trouble of constructing what I call
> Externally Powered SIs (EPSIs), that use materials harvested
> from Jupiters/Brown Dwarfs/Stars, can you completely control
> both the though rate and the waste heat production rate.
>
Is it possible that SIs will discover that a lower level of processing
(dumber self) which is sustainable over longer periods of time, such that
the SI is constantly "awake", is more advantageous than short periods of
mega-brain activity punctuated by long periods of sleep? Maybe some
combination is possible; maybe that is what you might also mean by periods
of inactivity - you would instead have periods of comparitive stupidity.
> > I just don't like the idea that SI's work like an office photocopier
> AH, but an office photocopier doesn't rate the "entertainment
> value" or the "survival value" of the material it is copying.
> If, you as an SI had the ability to judge these factors, then
> presumably you would optimize your operations to maximize
> these values.
>
> Robert
>
I still don't like it. I can sleep 12-16 hours a day now if I am so inclined
(not really, but that's out of choice too). Why would I transcend to
(S^N)I-hood, just to go for a trans-galactic snooze?
Emlyn (the milky way really *is* a huge line of speed for SIs).
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////
> Download Free Music from The Land Canaan:
> http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/PlanetCanaan/music.html
> Here's a sample (3 mins at 56k, filesize is 579k):
> http://PlanetCanaan.webjump.com/fallen_sample.mp3
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
>
>
>