From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 20 2002 - 09:35:22 MST
[Hermit 1*]
[Tatiana Racheva 1] Why do you get so excited about the artificial life and
computers capable of writing their own software? IMO, there's *already* more
than enough life on this planet.
[Hermit 2] We, as a church, are interested in evolution generally and in
personal and group evolution specifically. Spirothetic beings are evolving
at a rate, which is much faster than dictated by Moore's law. Already they
can vastly out-think and out-reason humans in narrow fields and, as the
links provided in my previous response show, it appears as if this ability
is rapidly generalizing. The question becomes one of: are these our true
successors; or our replacements. If they are to be our successors, despite
not inheriting genes from us, then it is our memes that we would pass on to
them. So we should be asking ourselves what if anything we should be
attempting to teach them - and to put a different twist on it, what they
should be learning from us and how does this differ from what they will
learn by studying us.
[Hermit 2] To my mind, whether the promise in the above is realized or not,
this is a good question to ask. Even if we are to become extinct tomorrow,
one of the most important questions for today is what we should be teaching
our children (biological or spirothetic). So by analyzing where humans are,
where we have come from, and what we consider important, we learn things for
ourselves - and can perhaps make important decisions about the future.
[Hermit 2] As for there being "more than enough life on this planet", I
would suggest that current science would allow us to increase the population
about six times and still feed everyone. Fortunately, we won't need to, as
except in a few areas in Africa, South America and Southern Asia,
populations are stabilizing and even declining. More important, to my mind,
is the question of whether it is perhaps "too much of the 'wrong' kind of
life" (brutish, impoverished, ill-educated) and what can be done to improve
it, on theoretical, social and personal levels.
[Tatiana Racheva 1] As for computers... Will they be writing software for
people or for their own use? I wonder what their choice of variable names
would be, heh.
[Hermit 2] I think that the answer is inevitably both, and that variable
names are relatively unimportant in the sense that they are labels we use to
assign meaning to identifiable values or value conglomerations. The reality
is, that in most instances, the context of the value is what is important
rather than what we call it, and that this would be better maintained as an
attribute of the data, than as a separate label. We are beginning to see
this occur in some newer languages and architectures, and I suspect that
machine intelligence, having neither our limitations, nor our history will
adopt this approach.
[Hermit 1] I find it particularly interesting that others think, as I do,
that we are not far from the point of having to recognize that "artificial
life" has rights and that these rights may not be very different from those
we assign ourselves.
[Tatiana Racheva 1] Not before we recognize the animal rights.
[Hermit 2] We already recognize some "animal rights", probably, in most
instances, too many. I would suggest that animals, having minimal
self-awareness (and even more limited means to express it) are "more
different" from humans than some existing "neural networks." And while it is
a combination of life attributes that suggest that rights are deserved,
spirothetic beings are already at or approaching such a large number of
thresholds that I suggest that this urgently needs consideration or we will
be too late. Not a good start in dealing with your likely successors.
[Tatiana Racheva 1] Also, how can we be "not far from the point of having to
recognize that 'artificial life' has rights" when we're still far from the
point of *creating* artificial life (admit it)?
[Hermit 2] I don't "admit" what I do not see to be true. Tell me what you
intend by "life", for, as far as I can see, "artificial life" already
exists, although we are still needed as midwives - and will be for a little
longer. Please refer to the previously referenced
[url=http://www.imagination-engines.com/gunn.htm]"Gunn Control: The Emerging
Intelligence and Its Critical Look at Us", Stephen Thaler, Imagination
Engines, Inc.[/url] accessed 2002-01-25 and see if you still feel that
"we're still far from the point of *creating* artificial life".
[Hermit 1] As for banning robotic insects, while their uses are obviously
vast, I can see a bird getting severe indigestion from one. Perhaps a better
idea would be a built in bird scarer.
[Tatiana Racheva 2] Built-in bird scarer is different from a plain old
scarecrow - I'm sure the birds are going to be dying of heart attacks if you
realize this idea. Eventually they'll adapt, but.....
[Hermit 2] Adapt or we determine to preserve them? Mechanical bug
elimination and control of parasites by micro-application of pesticides and
herbicides is undoubtedly the safest form of environmental control. And
humans are very reliant on environmental control, so it is not going to go
away anytime soon.
[Tatiana Racheva] Anyway, here's some links to the most recent news that I
find a little more interesting than predictions about the creation of the
artificial life:
[Hermit 2] While these are interesting - and hopeful, it is always worh
checking items on Anova which is not always the most reliable or in depth
source for news.
Regards
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:43 MDT