Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA22192 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 24 Jan 2002 09:10:50 GMT Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020124020550.0352a6e0@pop.cogeco.ca> X-Sender: hkhenson@pop.cogeco.ca X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 04:08:18 -0500 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@cogeco.ca> Subject: Re: necessity of mental memes In-Reply-To: <200201230401.g0N41ER03276@mail13.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
At 08:01 PM 22/01/02 -0800, "Joe Dees" <joedees@addall.com>
wrote:
> >Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:04:40 -0500
> > memetics@mmu.ac.uk Keith Henson <hkhenson@cogeco.ca> Re: necessity of
> mental memesReply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
snip
> >Susan is *technically* right on this point. It is the direct consequence
> >of the fact that everything is either directly caused by something else or
> >the result of a random event.
snip
>I consider it patently absurd to assert that every flickering thought and
>every crystal pattern on every snowflake, every wind current and the
>topography of every grain of sand was written in the fabric of the
>universe one Planck instant after the Big Bang.
So do I. But note that random is included.
Joe, this is one of those cases where if you take another viewpoint, the
problem might make more sense. Consider driving down a road. From your
viewpoint, *anything* could happen, rabbits run across the road, an
airplane land on the road ahead, etc. Now consider it from the viewpoint
of a person far overhead making a film. Now consider it from the viewpoint
of someone watching that film later. They will see the chain of events
where too much head wind and not filling the tanks caused an aircraft to
land on the road in front of your car. The problem is that unless you
grant some "outside the universe" cause to human brains, then everything
they do is either the result of a causal sequence or random effects. (I
lump quantum effects in with random.)
Now, what is the practical consequence of this?
Let me give you another even stranger viewpoint to ponder, one I used to
pull Hans Moravec's leg at that long ago A-life conference. Hans had a
manuscript copy of *Mind Children" in his hand and was enthusiastically
talking about the continuing development of computers and where we could
eventually be able to have computers able to support a human scale
intelligence.
I stopped him and asked him if he had considered how unlikely it was that
this was the first time we had had this conversation? Hans looked utterly
blank (because it had been a few years since the previous time we talked)
until I explained that he should take the drop in cost of computer cycles
much further, to the point a future version of the Society for Creative
Anachronism would simulate the entire 20th century! Of course if they did
it once, they would likely run it *many* times, so the chances were next to
zero that this was the first time we had had this conversation. (Hans took
my off the cuff story spinning seriously enough that I think it wound up in
a subsequent book of his.)
Now, what is the practical consequence of this?
To answer both of these, nothing.
In the first case, you just have to be ready to dodge planes or deal with
rabbits or whatever come your way as you drive down the road. You just
don't know enough about the rest of the system, nor can you learn enough to
change your driving habits.
In the second, if we are in a simulation, there is nothing we can do about
it. We just have to do the best we can with the cards we are dealt.
Now to show you that--even if you think like I do--the universe is wired up
such that what we do is the result of either random or causal effects, you
can (like I do) still work toward distant goals, knowing they may not
happen or may be inevitable. Of course, one way to be sure they don't
happen is to sit on your fanny!
http://www.grubbworm.com/sludge/html/adv-glos.htm
Far Edge Party: One of the main problems of exploring the stellar systems
of the galaxy even for very advanced civilizations is that a serial journey
even at the speed of light would take so long time that most of the stars
would have died during the journey. One solution is to parallelize the
problem: the explorer travels to a new system, creates a number of copies
(xoxes) of himself and sends them to other systems, while he remains behind
exploring the system (this is a variant of exploring the galaxy using von
Neumann machines). After around 10 million years, when all of the galaxy
has been explored, the explorers gather together at a prearranged place,
and exchange or merge their memories ("The Far Edge Party"). This was
proposed by Keith Henson as a possible method for a single individual to
visit all of the galaxy within a reasonable time. See also excerpt from the
Great Mambo Chicken by Ed Regis, which describes the party.
[There are two typos in the above. Dedicated explores would explore,
duplicate and leave. And assuming 0.5 c, it would only take about 1/4
million years. I expect in excess of 50 trillion people to show up for the
party. You are all invited. :-) Keith Henson]
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 24 2002 - 09:19:02 GMT