Responding to my comments about the difficulty of not viewing advanced
SysOps as competitors or "parents", Brian D Williams wrote:
> How about "inherent order" or "inherent emerging order".
I don't like the idea of "emergent" because it suggests a
lack of "intelligence". Everything we see in Nature is
"emergent" and it is rather ruthless with regard to what
information it keeps (that which is optimized for survival
in a very local environment) and which it destroys
(that which is suboptimal for the local environment).
Intelligence would seem to involve some historical perspective
and potential predictive capacity such that would would not discard
information simply because it is not "immediately" relevant.
Perhaps another way of looking at this is that "emergent"
behavior is trying to defeat the "local" hazard function.
"Intelligent" behavior is trying to defeat the *global*
hazard function. (At least when viewed along the "longevity"
I don't think "inherent" works well because the intelligence
that one expects to be built into an "intelligent substrate"
is almost a post-emergent property, while "inherent" suggests
a pre-emergent property.
I think you want to reflect a globally dispersed feeling with
overtones of "goodness". Thinking briefly "The Wisdom Matrix",
comes to mind.
> >Since the vectors discussed are orthogonal we need a 3D
> >graph (or perhaps a space mapping) of the various positions
> >similar to that which Max provided for IDENTITY.
> A very good idea.
I second the motion. Anders offered a fairly complete view
of the anti-cloning perspectives. Max did the same for Identity.
These give us places where we can individually stand and reflect from.
We will continue to have neener-neener debates on the list until
we see the various positions clearly relative to one another
and are able to understand how others' experiences, history, genetics,
or education may be selecting for why they occupy some spot on the
To make this work such summaries need to be turned into reference
documents on the ExI site -- so when the debates come up on the
list from newbies, we send them off to RFM (Read the Foundation
With 90,000 messages in the archives one has to believe that
most of it has been said before and that someone actually distilled
much of it into something coherent. But finding it is problematic --
we need a program to turn pearls of wisdom into chariots of gold
free for the taking outside the forum.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:24 MDT