The Baileys wrote:
> Scott Badger writes:
> >Are you conceptualizing this as though the two entities are
> >communicating with each other? If so, the acceptability of
> >the newer entity by the older should be fairly clear by judgement
> >time. If the newer entity, quite pleased with it's own development
> >despite the criticisms of the older entity, suspected that it was
> >about to be overwritten, then wouldn't it make a secure copy of
> >itself? No, you're scenario would require that only the older entity
> >could have the ability to overwrite or make copies. Yes? Otherwise,
> >info storage capacity problems are inevitable.
Here's a potentially better protocol:
First the entity must ask itself, what am I trying to accomplish, what am I
trying to become, what is my goal? Setting a goal is essential to actually
First the entity must ask itself, what am I trying to accomplish, what am I trying to become, what is my goal? Setting a goal is essential to actually getting anywhere.
Then the entity sets up a worldspace in which the entity populates with several copies of itself, which can interact, combine, reproduce by both asexual budding and bisexual intercourse, as well as being able to edit themselves and each other on a limited basis.
Entity copies within the worldspace can grow over time, but if they remain
static they die after a given amount of time. Those that lose various
competetive rankings more often than not die sooner rather than later. These
competetive rankings are based loosely on the goals the Entity Prime wishes to
attain. Over time, the entities in the world space evolve toward the goals of
the Entity Prime, to the point that those entities which attain the goals of the
Entity Prime can exit the world space. At this time, the Entity Prime can
overwrite itself with Entity(n).