On 10/28/07, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/27/07, Stefan Pernar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Thanks Ben. > > > > As foundation of my AI friendliness theory I tried to figure out why we > > believe what good or bad is and came to the conclusion that humans, animals > > and even plants have evolved to perceive as good what is encoded into their > > genome/memome having been retained in the course of chance mutation and non > > chance retention in the process of natural selection. > > > This is certainly true! > > However, as we enter the transhuman era, won't this become less and less > relevant except as an initial condition? > > Already natural selection has arguably stopped working on humans, due to > the prevalence of birth control and the rise of culture. ( We may argue that > it still works on memes, sure, but that's another story.) >
Yes - evolution on a genetic level is negligible when looked at in human relevant timescales. Far too slow. Evolution on the memetic level however is much more rapid and far more relevant for an individual's as well as a group's fitness as I argue in Jame5 on pages 83 and following. You see - I use Valentin Turchin's metasystem transition theory (MST) as framework for my friendliness theory. A metasystem transition is the emergence, through evolution, of a higher level of control. Prime examples are the origin of life, the transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms, and the emergence of symbolic thought. A metasystem is formed by the integration of a number of initially independent components, such as molecules, cells or individuals, and the emergence of a system steering or controlling their interactions. (see "The Phenomenon of Science", Columbia University Press New York, 1977, http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POSBOOK.html) Applied to the evolution of cognition MST yields the following levels (modified from Turchin's original version): position movement (control of position) simple reflex (control of movement) complex reflex (control of simple reflexes) associative learning (control of complex reflexes) imagination/pretending (control of associative learning) thought (control of imagination/pretending) believe (control of thought) charisma/rhetoric/science (control of believes) In my model humans can hold essentially any believe - looking at the various religions, sects, -isms, and moral codes over the millennial somewhat proves my point. What one believe - or rather one's group, tribe or society - determines one's fitness in the struggle for scarce shared resources. That is why religions are so successful as a believe system: they allow the formation of large groups (adherence to a shared moral code) without the need for face to face monitoring (limits group sizes to a few hundred maximum) as an all knowing eye in the sky handles reward and punishment after death. Take communism vs. capitalism for example. Societies believing in capitalism completely marginalized communist societies. Soon we will be advancing not through evolution but through > self-modification. Meaning that the distinction btw the genome, the memome > and the mind will become all but obsolete... > Our self modifications will be guided by what we believe is 'good' for us. Those that believe in increasing their fitness will then marginalize those that don't. My super goal aims at preventing this Darwinism on steroids. Let me quote Turchin on this matter: "Let us think about the results of following different ethical teachings in the evolving universe. It is evident that these results depend mainly on how the goals advanced by the teaching correlate with the basic law of evolution. The basic law or plan of evolution, like all laws of nature, is probabilistic. It does not prescribe anything unequivocally, but it does prohibit some things. No one can act against the laws of nature. Thus, ethical teachings which contradict the plan of evolution, that is to say which pose goals that are incompatible or even simply alien to it, cannot lead their followers to a positive contribution to evolution, which means that they obstruct it and will be erased from the memory of the world. Such is the immanent characteristic of development: what corresponds to its plan is eternalized in the structures which follow in time while what contradicts the plan is overcome and perishes. Thus, only those teachings which promote realization of the plan of evolution have a chance of success. If we consider the cultural values and principles of social life which are generally recognized at the present time from this point of view, we shall see that they are all very closely connected with our understanding of the plan of evolution and in fact can be deduced from it. This is the common denominator of the ethical teachings which have made a constructive contribution to human history." >From "ETHICS AND EVOLUTION", http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading14 Kind regards, Stefan -- Stefan Pernar 3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden #6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi Chao Yang District 100015 Beijing P.R. CHINA Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931 Skype: Stefan.Pernar ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=58536944-648092
