From: Rafal Smigrodzki (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2003 - 15:20:27 MDT
> From: Wei Dai [mailto:email@example.com]
>> It seems to me that whatever economic pressure exists towards
>> standardizing on verifiable mental architectures will apply
>> much more towards standardizing on motivations. A group of
>> agents with the same mental architecture and different
>> motivations faces huge disadvantages when competing with a
>> group of agents with a variety of mental architectures and
>> the same motivations. The latter group can optimize their
>> mental architectures for efficiency and specialization,
>> rather than verifiability.
> I think your mention of groups is quite interesting here.
> It does indeed seem likely that we'll see different groups with
> different mental architectures. That raises the possibility that
> transparency across groups will be much more difficult than
> transparency within those groups.[*]
> And transparency within those groups will depend upon the details of
> the mental architecture. While there are advantages afforded to
> groups that are able to achieve a high degree of transparency, there
> are also likely disadvantages resulting from the design overhead
> necessary to ensure that transparency.
> The disadvantages accrue to both solo individuals and to members of
> the group. The advantages accrue only when multiple individuals are
> cooperating. The advantages of transparency are likely greater for
> groups whose members cooperate more fully. This suggests an
> evolutionary feedback loop - as a group achieves a level of
> transparency it can achieve a level of greater cooperation which
> encourages an even greater level of transparency, etc...
> So one wonders if entities which are truly able to achieve mental
> transparency end up on a path towards merger into composite entities,
> whereas entities that are less able to achieve transparency remain
> more individual, and are perhaps pushed towards ecological niches
> where they can take advantage of the freedom their individuality
> affords them to rapidly experiment with new mental designs without the
> burden of transparency protocols and such which would otherwise limit
### Again, the Golden Oekumene gives an example - Neptunians, living a
hardscrabble life on the peripheries of the Solar System, with mental
architectures somewhat different from the participants in the mentality, and
perhaps more likely to be involved in shady dealings.
The fully transparent entities do not need to be composites, or mergers of
entities (although they could, such as the Eleemosynary and Bellipotent
Compositions). Even having a fully standardized operating system doesn't
mean you are one and the same as the other users of the system. As long as
you have mental modules with unique data, you are a unique individual.
When talking about standardization and uniqueness of mental architectures,
it's also important to ask about the copyright and other elements of IP.
Will specific architectures be owned by their users (from the principle of
self-ownership), or will they be owned by their designers? Will a person
assuming a certain architecture without the copyright owner's permission be
forced to pay restitution, or re-form itself back to its original mental
shape? It's worth noting that in the world of full transparency information
is no longer different from real property in terms of enforceability and
verifiability of contracts - it can be sold, and its theft can be prevented
just as in the case of apples. Therefore, thanks to improved verifiability,
an independent derivation of the same invention, mathematical formula, etc.,
can be treated just as the independent growing of another apple, eliminating
the element of monopoly inherent in the IP of today. If there is no
monopoly, there is no need for limitations on the duration of copyright
protection (just as in "The Golden Age").
The number of ideas that John Wright got right in his books, is simply
> * - The notion of groups who are able to achieve high degrees of
> internal transparency but are unable to achieve transparency with
> members of other groups is actually rather disturbing. It suggests
> the possibility of more deeply embedded tribalism among diverse future
> entities, with all the ills that tribalism brings.
### Wouldn't you call it rather "speciation"?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:34:14 MDT