> > > > > > > > so one of the inferences is that other countries are likely > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > making life with AI. my introject is planning for one of the > > > > > > > > dictator > > > > > > > > countries with planned history to have time travel via > > > > > > > > biological AI. > > > > > > > > it's kind of modeling that we would need to plan around that to > > > > > > > > not be > > > > > > > > taken over by that country [in something like an empire > > > > > > > > pursuit.] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ok, we have life creation with AI already _in normal research_. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so introject's country would try to combine our public research > > > > > > > with [ > > > > > > > timetravel > > > > > > > > > > > > this is something where dictators and traffickers would decide > > > > > > together who tries it out then other countries would adopt it if it > > > > > > looks interesting after seeing how it goes [situation heavily > > > > > > simplified] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we want to have diverse ways of life on this planet. we can't > > > > > > > > all flee > > > > > > > > to others. > > > > > > > > > > so, that gives us one of the many irritating questions the > > > > > dictator-rep AIs ask with us > > > > > - do we want to discover time travel by licensing an AI system run by > > > > > slavers? (like some political views say we have with e.g. cell > > > > > phones?) because they would cast it is not requiring a planned future, > > > > > resell it, and it would be starting trying to discover whatever > > > > > physics would be needed to do it for real. > > > > > - or do we want to appropriately negotiate that situation including > > > > > all this new information, to protect the reality and human need of an > > > > > uncertain timeline? > > > > > > > > > > of course we can't actually not have an uncertain timeline, we'd die > > > > > from lack of diversity like happened to all of life's ancestors, we do > > > > > need to reduce our suffering-- > > > > > > > > universality of cellular biology is the counterpoint to the concept of > > > > the inherent protection of diversity. > > > > diversity is protected because life needs it to stay alive, but this > > > > only happens if it keeps doing that. > > > > > > there is proposed to be a lot of time before anybody tries to > > > license pseudo time travel technology to us > > > > concept of time not being relevant. possible concept of exposure to > > particular new information being what progresses events in the world, > > rather than the passage of time itself, for some > > > > we have a strong culture around freedom here still. we still speak as > > if we freely share relevant information. incidentally, our brains work > > that way -- we try to share relevant information as thoroughly as > > possible, so as to make decisions that keep us aliv-- . this means > > what i am saying here, is that the human brain needs to have > transparent access to useful information. > when our senses learn things, they need to share this information with > our knowledge, so that we can act on it. > > it's not helpful to hide things, normally. > > our highly-evolved bodies all share their resources via our blood. our > highly-evolved brain all shares its resources via our knowledge and > thoughts. > > i have a dissociative disorder. this is described as an injury, not a > natural thing. lsystems of multiple parties can have dissociation too.
[dissociative disorder similar to fight. when separate parts get on different pages from handling a stress the whole hasn't adapted to, they end up hiding information to help both parts make good decisions together, of a sort, because the parts haven't related what they know about the information they are separating, with each other. similarly, when we fight, we are on different pages about what is good together, but we don't have approaches to relate with each other productively about what and why this is. a dictator for example may think they know it is good to be in harsh charge of their group, whereas a group using direct democracy may think they know it is good to have shared decision making -- in reality we need to both of these, but we haven't explored using them together in relevence] > > > there is relevance regarding what is shared, but part of that, the > > more important part, is _sharing_ the needed information effectively > > (ie in a way it is all productively heard, learned, then acted on, > > rather than e.g. just making action and never being learned) so that > > the most good things happen that can.
