Hi Ben,
> I like your line of thinking
Why? :)
> but I'm pretty reluctant to extend human logic into the wildly
> transhuman future...
You don't have to. If the idea I put forward makes sense to a human, it
might also make sense to an early stage, but clever, AGI. If the clever
AGI thinks about this issue and finds it of value it will translate it
over time in whatever way makes sense to it and/or its peers..... into the
wildly transhuman future. You don't need to make the projection, the
wild-transhuman can do it.
> The very idea of separating persistence from change is an instance of
> human-culture thinking that may not apply to the reasoning of a
> transhuman being.
I don't think the ideas of change and persistence need be hermetically
separated from each other. I don't think such a separation is essential
to the argument I was trying to make.
> Consider for instance that quantum logic handles disjunctions ("A or B")
> quite differently than ordinary Boolean logic. What kind of "logic"
> might a massively transhuman mind apply?
Sorry, the practical import of this has gone right over my head. Can you
express your point in a way that is accessible to a non-mathematician/non-
quantum physicist? :)
All I'm trying to say is that, in the face of ongoing change in the
system, if something (anything) is to persist through deep time (other
than by a most extraordinary [and probably very boring] and unpredictable
accident) then some conscious goal-directed effort will need to be
directed toward this outcome.
More simply, persistence through deep time, of anything, is unlikely
without some conscious effort somewhere.
Cheers, Philip
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
