From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 17:39:18 MDT
Robert 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).
Not really; I think you are right that self-directed evolution is probably
has to be happening in any technologically advanced civilisation, just to
get to the point where it can enter space in a serious way, and be able to
attempt mega-scale engineering (which is
where you enter the realm of the fermi paradox).
However, I'd dispute the assertion that something like the extropian
principles are necessary. The extropian principles are a good guide (we
think) for individualists to progress technology and end up in the realm of
fp. However, I do think that many other entirely different intellectual
bases for action are possible, that can lead to this result (as I covered in
another post). So self-directed evolution could look wildly different, with
different cultural starting points and environmental factors.
I really think it's important when reasoning about possible alien
motivations, to acknowledge that we really don't have the "one true path";
we just have a way that we happen to favour. A lot of reasoning here seems
to point toward a hidden value of perfectionism, and an idea that there is
some kind of platonic ideal (a global maximum?) toward which we strive when
we progress.
Really, that is not even supported by extropianism itself, which is *not*
utilitarian, and is *not* perfectionist or platonist; it's a philosophy
about individuals doing their own thing in their own way, coexisting with
others. It's about diversity, not a drive toward ultimate sameness. Nothing
in our experience of the universe should lead us to believe that we are
evolving to some perfect form/perfect way, or that there is a perfect way to
be/behave. Complex systems just don't work like that.
That's my reading of it, anyway.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 17:48:40 MDT