From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 18:41:23 MDT
Randall writes
> [Robert wrote]
> > But distributing ones intelligence across light years makes it
> > essentially "impossible" for Lee to function as a connected
> > intelligence. So you seem to be suggesting that "Lee" is
> > a socialist or a communist and that he is colonizing for the
> > "good" of the very loosely connected collective.
>
> By "collectively", I meant "summed over all entities with Leeness".
> Note that I'm sure that Lee can defend his own point of view better
> than I can,
You are doing a *great* job, thanks!
> and I only mentioned it as an example of how these
> discussions seem to go off track. :) It appears that I shouldn't
> have used the term "collectively", since it's so close to the
> term "collectivist", which isn't what I intended. Nor was it the
> case that I believe that Lee is interested (in this case) in
> distributing intelligence across lightyears.
Quite right. Robert and many others have made it clear
that that's impossible. Besides, given how slow light
travels, I have always thought that an integrated intelligence
probably can't be more than kilometers in size anyway
(depends on the kind of problems that it enjoys and the
gratification algorithms it executes).
No---whether it is a Lee II or a Randall II or a Samantha II
or even a FriendlyAlien II, all the true copies of me wish
them well, and want to live in peace with them. Hell, I even
want to live in peace with Osama, but he's got other ideas.
> > No, the point I have been trying to make (it seems like over
> > and over again) is that Lee II *cannot* provide any "return
> > on investment" to Lee I.
>
> The thing you're missing here, Robert, is that Lee I doesn't care
> (totally, at least) about ROI to Lee I, but about benefit to any
> person who is Lee, anywhere. Or, hey, maybe I misunderstood Lee,
> and you're right. :) Only The Corbin can say.
You're absolutely right, Randall. It's a *big* priority
with me that the other Lee's get a lot of run time, even
if this unit (or we) have been out of contact with them
for eons. But we must not lose sight of the fact that I
would like matter everywhere to be sentient, alive, and to
be enjoying life, even if I have no common history with it.
> > The only reason that Lee I would create Lee II is
> > out of some desire to propagate and Lee I would know
> > that propagation eventually has negative consequences.
>
> It doesn't matter that propagation eventually has negative
> consequences, *unless* you can prevent all propagation
> by anyone, anywhere. If anyone propagates, they will be
> disproportionately the ones that get to deal with the
> resulting problem.
Yeah, what is it about this aspect of evolutionary theory
(that evolution tautologically causes the predominance of
those who reproduce most) that is so hard for many to
internalize? As you and I keep saying, it only takes one.
> > Sure you can have evolutionary drives but
> > any advanced civilization will have regulated those drives
> > (witness the declining populations in Japan and Europe).
> > Now one might produce "offspring" if it were clear that they
> > were not going to compete with you (i.e. the children of
> > advanced civilizations exit from the galaxy due to the
> > temperature and thermodynamics reasons I have suggested).
>
> A civilization that successfully regulates its own growth, but
> not that of others, if any, will not be highly represented at
> a given late date. Even if humans are the only existing
> intelligences (and I would guess that we are), I see no reason
> why there wouldn't be escapees.
Maybe your prose will succeed, Randall, where mine has failed.
We must be running up against very deeply held biases or very
deep emotions of some kind.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 18:51:26 MDT