Re: gods, AI and the human ego. (fwd)

Robert J. Bradbury (
Wed, 11 Aug 1999 11:02:38 -0700 (PDT)

> Mike <> wrote

> But even amongst different plain ol' ordinary humans,
> there are diffrent interests. To a biochemist, bacteria
> slurping up glucose *is* probably quite interesting.

Yep, because we don't understand the processes (yet) in all cases. However, we do the crystal structure of Glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase just one time. Once we have it there is no point to doing it anymore. [We might experiment with it to see if we can improve it, but we *don't* repeat knowledge acquisition processes once we complete them (unless we forget them)].

> How can you say that some SI would *not* be interested
> in a particular subject?
Because the capacity an SI (a trillion trillion+ times greater than our own) is so large and they are probably so old (billions of years) that they have been there and done that for most things. The probability is much greater that we are an experiment.

> We might not be the most dazzling thing in the
> universe, but with all their brainpower, maybe there
> are many fields SI's would look at (including "boring"
> hominids).

Only if we are unique or new in some respect. You have to make an argument that we represent something they haven't seen before. You also have to make an argument that we are more interesting to them than the dustballs in your house are to you. Yes, you can study dustballs and there are even a few people that do. Most of us however either pay no attention to them or simply get out the vacuum when they happen to register at a conscious level. :-)