I doubt that the aliens will make the same exponential tech leap at the
same rate that we do. We're human after all and therefore special ;-{>
I feel the admin coming on, about to admonish us for going extra-Europa.
And Michael, I'm 48, chrono-years that is. Or about 1.3 to 10,000 tech
years ahead of you, depending upon whether it's 2005 or 2050.
Jack W Reeve
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 1:45 PM
To: europa@klx.com
Subject: Re: Active SETI Is Not Scientific Research
Jack Reeve writes:
> I wryly note the massive volume of speculation perpetually raging on
all
> regions of the space-alien sphere of thought.
Most of it very anthropomorphic in its assumptions about alien thinking.
> Some see panspermian-spawned humanoids, some see robots, some see gods
> or demons. Some see galactic bliss, some see extinction.
Nobody seems to see yet another source of spam, however. Puny humans,
your imagination is SO limited.
> All I see are a bunch of singularities hurtling toward us, all set to
> coincide about 2018 - 2020 or so, beyond which, I am happy to assure
one
> and all, not a soul amongst us has any inkling of what approaches.
I think this is a point that many miss: in a relative eyeblink of time,
aliens are likely to make the same technological transit that we
probably
will - from the rudiments of electronic communication to machine
intelligences that dwarf the alien's own - and our own.
> A case in point in the here and now is the existence of the internet -
> unforeseen before its current ubiquity.
Wait a minute, you're forgetting Al Gore. He predicted all this, he
even
invented it. Right? ;-)
> As we race toward the phenomenon of the technological advancement line
> going vertical, things are going to get very murky. Using the 365
days
> of the year 2000 as a base tech year, 2020 is likely 400-1000 tech
years
> from now - 2100 is perhaps 20,000 - 100,000 tech years away.
Uh oh, Jack, there you go predicting. If I may play Devil's Advocate
against the Singularity hypothesis: what if ALL life that
evolves to the point of being able to enable Singularity responds in
the same way: by forbidding it? This idea has been played with, of
course. Gibson's Neuromancer supposed there would be a Turing
Police, a global agency aimed at preventing the rise of superhuman
machine intelligence. Frank Herbert's Dune hypothesized the
Butlerian Jihad, to explain - or explain away - why a human
empire sprawling across many star systems, millenia hence,
did not have any appreciable machine intelligence. In his future
history, the appearance of machine intelligence thousands of
yeas earlier had spurred a backlash in which all major religions
agreed that machine intelligence should be prohibited: "Thou
shalt not make a machine in the image of the human mind."
Gary McMurtry writes:
> One last thought: any civilization capable of responding would likely
> not be too interested in us. I mean, really, what do we have to
> offer? Some pretty glass beads? People are so full of themselves.
It may not have anything to do with what we have to offer now
and everything to do with us as a possible long-term threat -
or as a source information about defenses against possible
long-term threats.
With their novel The Killing Star (which I read most of, in a
bookstore - I can't recommend it on literary qualities alone)
George Zebrowski and Charles Pellegrino introduced an interesting
twist on Asimov's Three Laws - a machine superintelligence
might evolve, but would be limited to protecting the species
that gave it life. Earth life is destroyed by "relativistic bombing" -
projectiles sent from this other civilization by accelerating them
so close to the speed of light that detection, interception and
destruction of the projectiles was virtually impossible. The
actual biological species being "protected" from us didn't come
up with this brilliant invention. Rather, the machines did - in
fact, they ignore any order from their "masters" to turn off
the defense system - or themselves. They also send
nanotech "scrubbers" to mop up any remnants. This
requires deceleration into the target star system, but that's
not too unreasonable: relativistic bombing to strike a shattering
initial blow, then nanotech scrubber to clean up any potential
sources of resistance or return fire arrive not too long afterward.
I truly loathe this hypothesis - the idea that all intelligent life
in a stellar locality could be destroyed by the first intelligence
in that locality to come up with this hyperparanoid defense
scheme, and that the existence of such a civilization can't
be ruled out. However, it doesn't lend itself to easy refutation.
And the lack of refutability may lead to an inevitable deployment,
if it's possible: "hit 'em before they have the capability to
hit you, and detect them by detecting the first signs of radio
communication." It seems game-theoretically determined.
If we were to receive some signal via SETI efforts that seemed
to utterly refute such a possibility, there would still be the chance
that the signal is only a kind of intellectual decoy or camouflage
for incoming relativistic bombs. In this dim view of things, the
only other intelligent life in the universe is life that has decided
to maintain radio silence, or life that is incapable of radio
communications.
Assuming such a "defense" system is physically possible (?),
I think the only countermeasure, short of adopting the
same defense, might be a very widespread and radical dispersion
of intelligence in a star system, together with nanotech antibodies
against any possible "scrubbers", making complete eradication
effectively impossible. And this possibility may embolden the
Singulatarians: they may argue that this defense capability would
be more quickly developed by a Singularity intelligence than
relativistic bombing technology, while also being the more
ethical defense. And they'll have a basis for an argument
from urgency: for all we know, a wave of relativistic bombs
started heading our way long before Zebrowski and
Pellegrino hypothesized it. A Singularity intelligence that
evolves any such dispersed-intelligence/antibody strategy,
and that determines its robustness to 100% confidence, might
then confidently engage in "Active SETI", with the content
of the signal being, naturally, this very defense design. The
subtext of any such signal would be obvious: "You have nothing
to fear from our intelligence, we have nothing to fear from your,
and you may have everything to lose from ignoring the warning
implicit in what we're communicating." On the other hand ...
well, see what I say about decoys and camouflage, above. If
WE were to receive such a signal, it might suggest to some
people only that the intelligence that sent it actually knows
better, and is sending us the design for a fortress with a
Trojan Horse access point built right in. One way or another,
you're looking at a leap of faith somewhere.
Jack again:
> For me there is no meaningful speculation of events on the other side
of
> this unprecedented horizon. Only awe and wonder. And joy at being
here
> to bear witness.
Well, we'll have to see how it turns out. I'm 49, and I can't
exactly rule out seeing the beginnings of it.
-michael turner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary McMurtry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 4:50 AM
> To: europa@klx.com
> Subject: Re: Active SETI Is Not Scientific Research
>
>
> A bit off topic, but interesting op-ed. I didn't know about SETI
> being active; I thought it was mostly passive, a much safer approach.
> Personally, I'm wildly optimistic that SETI will never achieve its
> goals. Therefore, there's no need to get worked up about aliens
> visiting us with mal intent, although the concept is great fodder for
> entertaining science fiction (War of the Worlds, etc., etc.). If you
> have no opinion or disagree, please read "Rare Earth" by Peter Ward
> and David Brownlee and get back to me.
>
> One last thought: any civilization capable of responding would likely
> not be too interested in us. I mean, really, what do we have to
> offer? Some pretty glass beads? People are so full of themselves.
>
> Gary
> ==
> You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list:
europa@klx.com
> Project information and list (un)subscribe info:
http://klx.com/europa/
>
>
> ==
> You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list:
europa@klx.com
> Project information and list (un)subscribe info:
http://klx.com/europa/
>
==
You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: europa@klx.com
Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
==
You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: europa@klx.com
Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
