From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 16:44:12 MDT
Robin writes
> 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).
My own answer is summarized very well by the title of Kelly's
1994 book "Out of Control".
Robin writes
> 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.
with which I agree. However, depending on the steepness of future
technological advancement, I can see a *center*, such as the Earth,
maintaining its dominance at the center of its civilization indefinitely.
So indeed, as in (c), the successive algorithms emanating from Earth might
seduce all matter to which they are transmitted. But my hunch is that
even on Earth---if it is to remain competitive with its "colonies"---
any kind of centralized control will result in ossification.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 16:52:17 MDT