Re: Free-will, interdependence

["James N Rose" <***>]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:47:55 -0500, Judith Rosen <***> wrote:

>Dan's post reminds me of a Star Trek episode where Data's rights
> were put "on trial" such that the issue became proving whether or not Data
>was ALIVE, in the same sense a biologically created, natural organism is alive.
> ..., it was demonstrated that Data had an "off button", which you can use to
> make him completely unconscious and inert, but not dead. This was held up
> as proof that Data was not alive and the issue was not addressed very will in the 
> episode.

Judith,

I adored Data in that series, I rooted for his 'sentience' in that and other episodes,
but when it comes down to it for me, that one activity - being able to disconnect
and revive - is a hard rule sufficient to separate preanimate from animate.  Knowing
of course, that if it were possible to put someone under aneasthesia for prolonged
times, or hibernative suspended animation, that would come awefully close to
toggleing an off-on switch.  That fine line could get awefully dicey.

So I like to go the other way in consideration.   If we posit a Godhead which
is 'all everything' such that all-information is all-available at all-times, then
the entities and 'life' forms it 'created' in this universe .. which come close to,
but aren't quite up to, the 'standards' for all-instantly all-instantiated god-qualities,
then -we- in fact are "artificial intelligences" from -God's- point of view!!!    :-)


>I wonder if it will be possible to apply the natural laws to artificially created
> life forms or artificially created intelligence that might exist independently
> of a "body" (except perhaps the substitution; a computer network)? I believe
> this question was what caused so much concern in my father regarding abuse
> of his theories if he published any kind of "How To" manual-- or anything that
> might be used as one.

Fascinating !  Did he discuss this with you?  Any recollections of coversations?

>The artificially created versions won't have an evolutionary foundation,
>which may well cause an entirely new kind of interaction, or causal framework,
>to form. Different doesn't always mean "worse", but there are no guarantees...

Yes, yes, yes!  The consummate distinction.  The evolutionary foundation
isn't just a local or even longline lineage issue.  It isn't even crucial re the
Darwinian quality of survival versus adaptivity/resilience capacity, though
that is indeed important.

Lifeforms have a direct causally integrated history .. a constant unbroken
communications line and performance involvement integration that goes
right back to the formation of the fundamental particles.  Slow, tested,
stepwise survival/lifeextension.  Future survival being dependent on
tested integration of fitting in on all levels of organization and performance,
with the world around.  "Contrived" systems can arise out of sequence and
without any pre-integration 'proving'.   They fit narrow requirements and
coordinations, and can be extremely negatively-integrated in other ways.


Except for the shift from anaerobic to aerobic life-systems on this planet
I can't think of any other occasion where 'toxicity' to the already existing
lifeforms biota was a positive thing to happen on the planet.


>Frankly, this divergence from an evolutionary process is something that
>I believe is already happening with humanity-- Our species is using our
>intelligence to subvert natural evolutionary processes-- both in our own
>physiology and in myriad other organisms we USE for some purpose of
>our choosing-- in favor of new, artificial evolutionary processes. It's either
>really difficult or truly impossible to predict what that might mean down
>the road.

I went to Hofstadter's symposium on 'Spiritual Robots' at Stanford a few
years back.  Wow, there is a gung-ho crew who's only vision of the best
future for humanity and life is for us to speciate into some sort of
combination carbon-silicon mix, or, to make an 'immortal' body and
transfer carbon sentience in to it.  Some of the attendees veritably
salivated and swooned at the possibility.

I like advancing technologies and such, but my money is with
Mae-Wan Ho and all other bio-advocates.  Organics haven't come
anywhere near 'peaking' in evolutionary potential.  I don't want to see
a single human on the planet 100,000 years from now.  I want
to see next speciation which is 100% organic and still 'more better'
than we frail species.  We're just baton runners, doing our bit,
so that the future can exist farther and better ... naturally.  :-)

>Judith

Jamie
11/12/03