From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 12:57:46 MDT
On 7/22/2003 I wrote:
>Robert Bradbury has proposed that advanced life naturally acquires
>preferences that make it want to become invisible and not want to
>spread. It seems to me that in doing so Robert has taken his desires and
>projected them as the desire of most/all advanced life, and in the process
>fundamentally misunderstood evolution. Short of a unified control over
>the universe there is simply no such thing as taking over evolution on the
>long timescale. And given that evolution rules, the only natural
>preferences are those that result in the "most" progeny, regardless of
>other consequences.
On 7/23/2003, Robert Bradbury wrote:
>It would appear that one might have:
>(a) random evolution (e.g. order arising from chaos -- the Earth to date);
>(b) other directed evolution (e.g. we are all running in a simulation);
>(c) self-directed evolution (e.g. we drive ourselves in some
> direction -- say determined by something like the extropian
> principles).
>
>My position with regard to the F.P. seems to be based on (c)
>and the idea that many, if not all, logical, intelligent,
>technological civilizations reach the same conclusion with
>regard to the best direction(s) in which to drive ones
>own self-evolution.
>
>Can anyone offer reasons as to why (a) or (b) trump (c)?
>(And we are talking variety of time scales ranging anywhere
>from thousands to trillions of years).
Life is made up of "creatures" that reproduce, and "genes" are whatever
physically codes for their behavior that is passed on to
descendants. Reproduction is part of a creature's behavior, and so a
creatures genes says how it reproduces. Most animal's genes are in their
DNA. Some human genes are now found in human culture. With uploads making
copies, genes will reside in upload memories and other mental structures.
DNA genes now say whether a creature reproduces sexually or asexually, and
whether the mutation rate increases in response to recent environmental
stress. Genes tell humans which kind of partners they want to mate with
and when in their lives to do it. For Lamarkian creatures, genes would
tell them how to change their genes in response to the environment they
experience. All of these seem to be examples of "self-directed evolution",
in the sense that aspects of reproduction are coded for within a creature.
The heart of evolution is variation and selection. And given sufficient
variation, the key is the selective pressures. In the examples above
"self-directed evolution" does not reduce the strong ability of selection
pressure to mold creatures. What kind of ""self-directed evolution" do you
have in mind that could do differently?
If all life on Earth came under the control of a single power, that power
might control who lived and who died, and so direct selection pressure
toward its chosen ends. But even then, if that single power does not
control the rest of the universe, it may eventually have to complete with
powers elsewhere, and selection can still determine how much of the
universe becomes like that Earth power.
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 13:06:09 MDT