Re: [OT?] consciousness discussion on PBS
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 09:16:44AM -0700, Dan Moyer wrote:
<snip>
> > (I guess its possible for the humans to try to 'raise' the AI to be a bad
> boy
> > but I'd question how lasting such 'parenting' would be ... but the
> 'psycology'
> > we're going into at this point is a bit over my head so I can merely
> guess.)
>
> I'd see no reason that "as the twig is bent, so the tree grows" wouldn't
> apply to an AI, but you're right, it's just a guess.
>
Hard to even make an educated guess in this case (since any guess we make
about this subject is not really educated).
>
> >
> > > And, in a not very related vein, that doesn't even begin to touch upon
> the
> > > "assymototic cusp" of faster & faster technologic development leading to
> an
> > > *infinite* rate of technologic invention at some real (near?) time
> suggested
> > > by S.F. author Vernor Vinge, leading to an absolute inability to in any
> > > meaningful way conjecture about the future *after* that point in time.
>
> I misspelled asymptotic.
I knew what you meant.
>
> > >
> > For an infinite rate of invention wouldnt you need an infinite amount of
> > information? And for that wouldnt you need an infinite amount of matter to
> > store the info on?
>
> Yes, that makes sense, but your interesting "galactic park" idea could
> provide a way around that: some of those "parks" could be like "pocket
> universes", chucked infinitely full of information storage devices, perhaps
> an infinite number of them in a users pocket :)
That would imply that new physics will be forthcoming (even with modern
baby universe theories this is not possible, as the baby universes would be
too small compared to the parent universe, and also last only a small amount
of time relative to the time in the parent universe, if I understand the
subject correctly (which I probably don't btw :/) -- the only exception
to this would be multiple worlds/universe theory of quantum mechanics, but
in that case the universes wouldnt be able to transfer data to each other
anyways...).
<snip>
> > >
> > > Which also seems to me to be a reasonable argument *against* the
> existance
> > > of any extraterrestrial intelligences, because if there were, (which I
> would
> > > otherwise assume there to be), then some of them would likely also
> express a
> > > similar assymototic rate of tech invention, one of which would likely
> have
> > > happened already; but the one thing one might conjecture about reality
> > > *after* such an event is that it would probably be *non*-local in its
> > > effects, that is, it would probably affect the entire universe...and
> we've
> > > seen no such "universe shattering" event. Not a proof, of course, but
> not
> > > unreasonable.
> >
> > Of course, such an advanced race could decide to have special 'galatic
> parks'
> > which would be untouched by their infinitely advanced technology... and
> > we might just happen to be in one of those. (Much in the same way many
> > countries have nature preserves.)
> >
>
> Neat! I never thought of that. Perhaps as likely would be for them to
> *retreat* into such a park themselves, constructed so as to be non-ending
> and entirely separate from this "real" universe, and leave the ultimately
> dying real universe & its inhabitants to our own devices.
Interesting opinion.
>
> Dan Moyer
>
> > >
> > > Dan Moyer
> > >
<snip>
jbrown
--
/"\ ASCII ribbon | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/
\ / campain against | Linux User:190064
X HTML in e-mail and | Linux Machine:84163
/*\ news, and unneeded MIME | http://verify.stanford.edu/evote.html
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
