40 replies to this topic

[bgwowk]

Yes, of course that is true; replication is an essential part of a Darwinian scheme. We don't know, however, if Darwinian evolution continues forever. It might be the case that Darwin takes us to a certain point, and something else takes over. Look at the population declines that are occurring in many developed countries. Something non-Darwinian seems to be going on already. If mankind's pinnacle is a superintelligent AGI, why exactly would it care to colonize the universe?

The defect in this reasoning is the use of the singular word "it" in the last sentence. This is not a collective decision where all intelligent life on a planet monolithically decides whether to ever migrate. Or is it? Here's the key point: The ONLY way for a planet to avoid becoming a seed for space colonization is for ALL intelligent life on that planet to decide not to migrate for all time. How likely is that, especially since not migrating is suicidal?

Ironically there is a banner ad for the Lifeboat Foundation on my screen. Even now there is a minority that advocates diversification of human civilization into space as a matter of civilization survival. For immortalists, it's a matter of long-term personal survival as well. If technological progress and economic growth continues, eventually the wealth of a minority that wants to migrate will rise to meet the declining cost of actually doing it.

As long as there is diversity of thought, and as long as there is technological advancement, there will eventually be space migration. Diversity of thought and advancing technology seem hard to avoid without some kind of totalitarian collapse.

[niner]

Yes, of course that is true; replication is an essential part of a Darwinian scheme. We don't know, however, if Darwinian evolution continues forever. It might be the case that Darwin takes us to a certain point, and something else takes over. Look at the population declines that are occurring in many developed countries. Something non-Darwinian seems to be going on already. If mankind's pinnacle is a superintelligent AGI, why exactly would it care to colonize the universe?

The defect in this reasoning is the use of the singular word "it" in the last sentence. This is not a collective decision where all intelligent life on a planet monolithically decides whether to ever migrate. Or is it? Here's the key point: The ONLY way for a planet to avoid becoming a seed for space colonization is for ALL intelligent life on that planet to decide not to migrate for all time. How likely is that, especially since not migrating is suicidal?

Ironically there is a banner ad for the Lifeboat Foundation on my screen. Even now there is a minority that advocates diversification of human civilization into space as a matter of civilization survival. For immortalists, it's a matter of long-term personal survival as well. If technological progress and economic growth continues, eventually the wealth of a minority that wants to migrate will rise to meet the declining cost of actually doing it.

As long as there is diversity of thought, and as long as there is technological advancement, there will eventually be space migration. Diversity of thought and advancing technology seem hard to avoid without some kind of totalitarian collapse.

This is quite reasonable, but a few Lifeboaters heading off into space to set up an outpost or two is hardly colonizing the universe. Perhaps many or most advanced civilizations do engage in enough planetary diversification to ensure the survival of their species, but that wouldn't require them to spread to the far reaches of the universe. (If "far reaches" is even a valid term in this context...)

[Mind]

I am assuming that evolution leads to more complexity over time (and eventually intelligence, as it is defined here on earth). Maybe this is not the case, but it sure seems intuitive.

That is why I said that most of the proposed future filters would only be like a tiny speed bump, and the universe should still have signs of intelligent life.

[brokenportal]

Unless I read through this and think about it for an hour I keep forgetting exactly how this "probable" filter exempts the potential for other life in the universe. Can somebody rephrase and sum this up? I think about this from time to time. I bothers me, I wish could think of or see a better rebuttal.

In the end I think it must be ultimately wrong. It just doesnt seem that there could be any way that this planet could contain the only life forms in existence. Besides, if contact were ever to occur for the first time between beings in different parts of the universe, there would have to be a first time for it right? Maybe we are destined to be the ones that make the contact, and maybe other contact is being made amongst beings all over the universe, but that we just havent gotten there yet. Or maybe we were contacted, but written off when all they found was dinosaurs, and they havent gotten around to checking back yet.

[niner]

What if the ultimate evolutionary form of all life is a god-like entity that knows all things in all places at all times? If that were the case, there would be no need for them to travel anywhere because they would already be everywhere. Maybe they don't even have a physical body anymore. Maybe they permeate us even now. Maybe "God" is aliens, and heaven is everywhere. We are really in no position to do anything more than wildly speculate.

[brokenportal]

True, but the questions left by the wild speculations are a major part of the chase for this indefinite lifespans beast.

The speculation can help fuel the drive. Also, coming from a position of authority, Bostrom seems to be saying that this it the likely scenerio, and not a wild speculation, but we think it is a wild speculation, so we wild speculation him back.

Thats another good possibility though, some god like entity. It could be any of a million things. That might make for an interesting mini book. "1001 wild speculations on what in the hell is going on here in the whole of existence."

[niner]

True, but the questions left by the wild speculations are a major part of the chase for this indefinite lifespans beast.

The speculation can help fuel the drive. Also, coming from a position of authority, Bostrom seems to be saying that this it the likely scenerio, and not a wild speculation, but we think it is a wild speculation, so we wild speculation him back.

How do speculations like this have any impact on LE? Maybe by distracting SENS researchers from productive work... But that doesn't fuel anything, it slows it. I don't see where Bostrom derives his authority on this.

[John Schloendorn]

How do speculations like this have any impact on LE? Maybe by distracting SENS researchers from productive work...

Hey, I'm not reading this!

[brokenportal]

How do speculations like this have any impact on LE? Maybe by distracting SENS researchers from productive work... But that doesn't fuel anything, it slows it. I don't see where Bostrom derives his authority on this.

In the same way that thinking about how you might spend a lot of money drives a person to work to earn a lot of money. Im not saying that Bostrom is the Authority, Im saying that hes saying it from a position of authority, which lends it a greater air of automatic perceived credibility. Since it seems like a potential demotivator to those who may other wise want to chase the future more, it makes it more challenging to debunk. It also makes it more fun to try to debunk. Im not saying that we have debunked it, but if the discussion raged on you never know where it might lead. I think its fun, and necessary. Its another great way to keep thoughts of the amazing future churning in our heads and tantalizing us seductively, daring us to try to reach it.

[kurt9]

Advanced civilizations may adopt a more sustainable view. In the ultimate pursuit of intelligence, and the advancement of computation/storage I don't currently see how this could be possible. Science Fiction has addressed this in a multitude of ways, limits being imposed in various manners by authoritarian societies, democratic societies, and simply the self limitations inherent in the construct of our Universe. Seeing how things turn out was a motivating factor as I was a child, to try and see the future by becoming a cryonicist--supporting ending aging and A.I, as I became an adult and joined the transhumanist movement I realized that humans are actually engaged in the creation of the far future through their dialogs, planning, research and implementation.

Would we agree with advanced civilizations that we met? Would we expect them to adopt our own philosophies?

I feel there most likely is life advanced well beyond what we can imagine, god-like even--but we really can not know, I'm not going to transform the feeling into any belief.

A very common flaw in speculation about future advanced societies is the assumption that all of the individuals of an alien society think the same and share the same goals. The idea that everyone (or every alien) will adopt a "philosophy of sustainability", which is usually code speak for giving up growth and freedom, is an example of this flaw. As our own society has progressed, we have noticed greater diversity of life style freedom, choice, and personal world-views. Is it not likely that such diversity of opinion and choice will continue to increase into the future? It seems reasonable to assume so. At minimum, the burden of argument is on those who think otherwise. Any society has its dreamers and misfits who choose not to fit in, who choose to march to the beat of a different drummer. Indeed, America was founded by such misfits from European society. Perhaps seasteading and space colonization will be done by the dreamers and misfits who do not fit into existing society.

It would be logical to assume that the same process of diversification of opinion and choice would be true for any alien civilizations out there, if they exist.

Infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Infinite in all directions.

"Sustainability" is simply another form of mass conformity.

[kurt9]

Yes, of course that is true; replication is an essential part of a Darwinian scheme. We don't know, however, if Darwinian evolution continues forever. It might be the case that Darwin takes us to a certain point, and something else takes over. Look at the population declines that are occurring in many developed countries. Something non-Darwinian seems to be going on already. If mankind's pinnacle is a superintelligent AGI, why exactly would it care to colonize the universe?

The defect in this reasoning is the use of the singular word "it" in the last sentence. This is not a collective decision where all intelligent life on a planet monolithically decides whether to ever migrate. Or is it? Here's the key point: The ONLY way for a planet to avoid becoming a seed for space colonization is for ALL intelligent life on that planet to decide not to migrate for all time. How likely is that, especially since not migrating is suicidal?

Ironically there is a banner ad for the Lifeboat Foundation on my screen. Even now there is a minority that advocates diversification of human civilization into space as a matter of civilization survival. For immortalists, it's a matter of long-term personal survival as well. If technological progress and economic growth continues, eventually the wealth of a minority that wants to migrate will rise to meet the declining cost of actually doing it.

As long as there is diversity of thought, and as long as there is technological advancement, there will eventually be space migration. Diversity of thought and advancing technology seem hard to avoid without some kind of totalitarian collapse.

Of course.

The central tenet of transhumanism, or at least the libertarian strain of it, is the development of technology to empower individuals and small self-interested groups such that they can create their own futures, independent of the arseholes that seek to inhibit creativity and productive achievement in order to perpetuate hierarchical social systems (which really exist to serve parasites).