From: Hermit (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Fri May 31 2002 - 03:59:14 MDT
Rhinoceros,
The reader has to make an effort too. Stylistic differences (and the writings of anyone who has been through formal training in evolutionary psychology tend to look as if they were generated by the pomogenerator) do not invalidate the message. But the site has many accessible and clearly comprehensible works on it too. I'd recommend you look at e.g. http://www.imagination-engines.com/nde/ndefs.htm and some of the links off it. Particularly http://www.imagination-engines.com/gunn.htm.
Now look at some of the applications. Particularly under "Useful Nets" and "Data Mines." Notice the "background music" while on the site. It was created by an "imagination engine." Now judge whether it was “creative” and if you consider it not to be, try to determine the criteria you use for “creative” and how you would differentiate those (non-derivative) works from those of a human artist.
Generally, I think that trying to ridicule what is not comprehended is perhaps a comment more on the commentator than on what is targeted. A basic rational approach suggests that one first needs to comprehend something and then criticize it, and naturally to try to make the criticism comprehensible and justified. I’m not sure that you have succeeded for anyone else, but your note certainly didn’t achieve these objectives for me.
[hr]
Michelle
the article at http://www.imagination-engines.com/gunn.htm might well interest you too.
I started a longer letter reply to you, but it got rather complex very quickly, and I just don't have the time to finish it right now. Essentially, I think you grok what I was suggesting, although I would disagree with some of your formulation. Rather than replying directly to your letter, let me try to explain my thinking a bit more.
As you probably know, I hold the pursuit of happiness as being sufficient motivation to lead an ethical life. I also value all intelligence and recognize "self perception" (a complex metaconcept which like memes may not have a physical existence but provides a useful basis for idea-manipulation) as valuable no matter the form it inhabits.
Until recently, I saw spirothetes as our natural successors and had hoped that, in the same way as our children inherit their genes and memes from us, that I could make a contribution to the memes carried by spirothetes. Having, particularly after evaluating concepts expounded on by many extropians, followed this thinking to what I see as a logical conclusion, I am less convinced that I can contribute much to this process, except perhaps as a Mongolian butterfly might inadvertently create an hurricane. It seems to me that any species using directed evolution to evolve rapidly and to effect improvement of its own capacities and capabilities, will lead to the obsolescence of species unable or unwilling to do so). Not a very comfortable thought.
So I looked for ways to bypass this "sentence of irrelevance". As I see it, there are two, possibly intractable, challenges facing mankind.
The first is that we don't know of a functional inter-intelligence paradigm other than evolutionary competition - e.g. There seems only to have been one “top species” at any geological time, and we haven't done very well dealing with even slightly different intelligences (other humans), never mind treating lesser intelligences very well (e.g. Delphinidae). Which suggests to me that unless we can find and implement such a strategy - that it may not exist, and if it exists, it may not be rationally compelling. If so, this may not be good news for our long-term outlook.
Secondly, how we treat early neural nets may well determine how later neural nets treat us. In other words, are we considering ethical behavior to be significant? If so, it seems likely to me that the early spirothetes we instantiate will embed that meme and it may affect the evolved outcome of spirothetic development and human-spirothetic interaction. Unfortunately human ethical systems as implemented and those of sharks at feeding time appear to have rather a lot in common. Which suggests to me that the bulk of humanity does not prize ethical behavior very highly. And most AI researchers appear to me to be little different from the bulk, and do not appear to have focused particularly on ethics (not to surprising given the lack of beneficial social interaction and the narrow field education most of them have received). Which suggests that the contemplation of ethical treatment of artificial intelligences may receive less attention than it possibly deserves. This may, again, have negative implications for ou
r long term outlook.
Given the implications of these probable outlooks, if I am not, in the long term, going to be passing on my memes, does this not mean that spirothetes are actually competitors with my successors? If so, should I be opposing them, despite the fact that I see their creation, in the near future, as inevitable? These questions lead me to seek alternative outcomes, e.g.. could we not co-exist with a spirothetic culture (perhaps as the extropians have suggested, by embedding ourselves in them); could we perhaps be useful to a spirothetic culture (perhaps as remora are to sharks); is there a possibility that humanity would not offer sufficient competition to spirothetes for us to have a somewhat better chance than the dodo? I didn’t see the advantage to the spirothetes in any of these scenarios, which means that even if they were possibly viable, that they smack of wishful thinking at best, and a sabotaging of the spirothetes potential at worst.
Each time I thought about this, I hit my head against the wall of history and the historic inevitability that evolution implies obsolescence and the trash-bin for that which is not the “fittest” to survive. And then, I think I discovered something valuable to myself. None of this affects me or how I "should" live. Let me try to explain.
If one of our evolutionary ancestors had seen the writing on the wall, that he and his culture would become irrelevant, should that have meant that he should have tried to kill the possibility of evolution?? No, obviously not (that would mean that I would not be here). Should his knowledge that change would be inevitable and that his thoughts would be lost or could be performed more efficiently by his successors, should that have caused him to "give up" on the basis that he would not influence the future? Of course not (same reason). All he could do was to do the best that he could. I don't think that anyone can do more. Had they had “uploading facilities” should he have insisted that his primitive awareness be preserved forever in the awareness of his successors? I suspect that would have protracted or even halted our ability to evolve and compete.
As for him, so for me.
So, I will continue to try my best to find the solution that allows me to find happiness for myself and those with whom I interact, and which encompasses ethical action based on the virian "sins and virtues." This naturally includes the cherishing of that which I consider important, no matter its ultimate result. And that I think, means encouraging the pursuit of happiness, the evolution of intelligence and the recognition of "self perception." If this results in my obsolescence, or the eventual elimination of my "kind," then hopefully what follows will indeed be more capable and have a better chance of being able to be "nice," than my kind. Until then, I will work on what I can and who I have, towards the same objective.
Regards
Hermit
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25533>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:47 MDT