From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 19:29:17 MDT
Robert writes
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Robbie Lindauer wrote:
>
> > > Quite right. Robert and many others have made it clear
> > > that that's impossible. Besides, given how slow light
> > > travels, I have always thought that an integrated intelligence
> > > probably can't be more than kilometers in size anyway
> > > (depends on the kind of problems that it enjoys and the
> > > gratification algorithms it executes).
No! It was *I* who wrote that, not Robbie. Robbie
failed to give it any attribution at all. Not been
reading my posts, eh, Robert?
> It is correct that it depends a *lot* on the definition of
> "integrated" and a lot on how much time you have to think
> about a problem.
Yes, that's what I was getting at.
> If one has a long time to think about problems -- then
> distributing parts of ones mind across as solar system
> (say 10-50 AU) may not be a huge sacrifice while greatly
> increasing one's safety.
I do not see what safety has to do with it.
Yes, suppose that one is interested in finding the next
Ramsey numbers (a nice math problem). Then one has no
problem with off-loading a lot of the calculation to
Alpha Centauri, or participating in a galaxy-wide hunt
for the solutions.
> The capacity of a 1 cm^3 nanocomputer is roughly
> 100,000 human minds in something like 1/1000 the
> volume (of a brain). So I tend to use 10^6
> increase in intelligence as a conservative
> approximation.
Yes, and getting back to another issue, *this* is why we
would be so appealing for the beings of Tralfamdor to
colonize: we have plenty of unused cm^3s.
> The communications bandwidth to a copy 25 AU away *will*
> be low but it *will* be "you" (or a subcomponent of "you")
> and so there will be a lot of shorthand notation.
It's interesting that some remote copies you agree that
one should regard as self, while yesterday you seemed to
maintain that very remote Lee II's would be nothing but
threats eventually. Have you changed your mind?
> Yep, you could propose such a computer. But Robert will jump
> all over your butt for proposing "magic physics" on the ExI list.
> There are a couple of people who have "Get out of jail free"
> cards to do this (Anders & Robin come to mind since they know
> a lot more physics than I do). But anyone else gets jumped
> on unless it is a serious "what if" kind of speculation.
> (The primary objection at least in my mind currently is that
> for QC to be useful you are going to have to propose a method
> for generating and maintaining kilo, mega, and giga amounts
> of qubits. If there isn't a concrete proposal for something
> we can actually build, then one gets a "Go directly to jail,
> do not pass Go and do not collect 200 dollars" card.
Who wrote that? From the heading it appears to be Robert,
but then if so he is referring to himself in the third
person. Did I miss a post somewhere? Who else is quoted
above besides Robert, Robbie, and me (Lee Corbin)?
Lee
> [People who have not played Monopoly will not understand the
> references. Sorry...]
>
> Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 19:38:56 MDT