bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (03/16/89)
In article <1339@hub.ucsb.edu> silber@sbphy.ucsb.edu asks: > Why SHOULD matter think? So that it may impede the heat death of the Universe by working against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. --Barry Kort
gary@hpfelg.HP.COM (Gary Jackoway) (03/21/89)
> In article <1339@hub.ucsb.edu> silber@sbphy.ucsb.edu asks: > > Why SHOULD matter think? > So that it may impede the heat death of the Universe by working > against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. > --Barry Kort ---------- Hmm, can we actually impede the natural process of the Second Law? Sure, we can move water uphill, but it takes us more energy to do that, creating more heat loss in the long run. We are a PART of nature; we cannot work against nature. Western philosophy has so stressed the human-nature dichotomy that we think of ourselves as separate, much as we think our minds are separate from our bodies. Eastern philosophies (and here I generalize a bit) recognize the close relationship between human and nature. Humankind is much more intricately tied to nature than we have been trained to believe. Alive in Colorado, Gary Jackoway
bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (03/23/89)
In article <550002@hpfelg.HP.COM> gary@hpfelg.HP.COM (Gary Jackoway) writes: > Hmm, can we actually impede the natural process of the Second Law? The Second Law says there is a price to create order out of chaos. It doesn't say we have to pay ripoff prices, however. Intelligent life has the power to minimize the expenditure associated with the creation of complex and stable systems. So the Universe created intelligent Life in order to increase its longevity. --Barry Kort
bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (04/01/89)
In article <8300034@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu> goldfain@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > The overwhelming evidence is that the higher the animal species, > the more rapidly it is helping ADVANCE the ultimate heat-death > of the universe, rather than the reverse correlation, as intimated > by a previous note. > - Mark Goldfain I don't deny the accuracy of your observation, Mark. I just don't understand why an intelligent species would consciously take self-destruction as a goal. --Barry
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) (04/05/89)
In article <47325@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes: > >I just don't understand why an intelligent species would consciously >take self-destruction as a goal. > Look at the people on Wall Street. Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs | "Porsche: Fahren in weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!njin!nyser!weltyc | seiner schoensten Form"
ssingh@watdcsu.waterloo.edu ( SINGH S - INDEPENDENT STUDIES ) (04/06/89)
In article <47325@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Kort) writes: >I just don't understand why an intelligent species would consciously >take self-destruction as a goal. > >--Barry Oh come on. No intelligent species would consciously take self-destruction as a goal. It is just a consequence of it being more complex that it is less efficient. The car you used to get to the milk store converts about 5% of the chemical potential energy in the fuel to work. The rest is heat. Your very thoughts are inefficient. They use energy inefficiently. (no insult intended) The list goes on...
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (04/06/89)
In article <47325@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) writes: > I just don't understand why an intelligent species would consciously > take self-destruction as a goal. Self-destruction is a _conscious_ goal of only the deranged. For most individuals, self-destruction is an accident of taking the route of momentary pleasure (e.g., nicotine and alcohol abuse). For societies, self-destruction is not a goal at all. Instead, it is an emergent property resulting from a collection of entities each trying to maximize its claim on available resources while minimizing its personal effort. Designing complex nonlinear systems to have arbitrary pre-specified emergent properties is quite beyond the state of current engineering (see the papers of Steven Wolfram). > --Barry Dan Mocsny Snail: Internet: dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU Dept. of Chemical Engng. M.L. 171 513/751-6824 (home) University of Cincinnati 513/556-2007 (lab) Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0171
cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550) (04/08/89)
In article <5778@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> ssingh@watdcsu.waterloo.edu ( SINGH S - INDEPENDENT STUDIES ) writes: >Your very thoughts are inefficient. They use energy inefficiently. Not mine. My thoughts are very efficient: they use negligibly more energy than not thinking :-) But if you want to cost _all_ the overheads, note that evolution already did that: investing in brains is cost-effective. -- Chris Malcolm cam@uk.ac.ed.edai 031 667 1011 x2550 Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) (04/09/89)
In article <838@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) writes: >For societies, >self-destruction is not a goal at all. Instead, it is an emergent >property resulting from a collection of entities each trying to >maximize its claim on available resources while minimizing its >personal effort. Local stability (I got enough for me) gives no indication for global stability (if I get enough now, that assures that no-one will have enough tomorrow). -- O----------------------------------------------------------------------> | Cliff Joslyn, Cybernetician at Large | Systems Science, SUNY Binghamton, vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .
bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) (04/09/89)
In article <47325@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.mitre.org I wrote: > > I just don't understand why an intelligent species would consciously > > take self-destruction as a goal. To which Dan Mocsny (dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU) responds in article <838@uceng.UC.EDU>: > For societies, self-destruction is not a goal at all. Instead, > it is an emergent property resulting from a collection of entities > each trying to maximize its claim on available resources while > minimizing its personal effort. Designing complex nonlinear systems > to have arbitrary pre-specified emergent properties is quite beyond > the state of current engineering (see the papers of Steven Wolfram). Ah, then it is our collective ignorance which leads us to steam off in the direction of disaster. I understand that. Perhaps if we took turns standing on each other's shoulders, we could see a little further beyond the horizon. --Barry
rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.) (04/14/89)
In article <5778@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> SINGH S writes: >Oh come on. No intelligent species would consciously take self-destruction >as a goal. It is just a consequence of it being more complex that it >is less efficient. Curiously, I see the entire human endeavour toward increased capability and knowledge as just this drive toward self destruction - the destruction of the self as it exists now; that is, a transcendence. There are even those who consider the destruction of the ego (perhaps more a shifting of its dominance) as a (necessary) stage in human development. This, though, is getting somewhat far from AI, so I suggest that any followups go to Talk.philosophy.misc. R. -- Ray Tigg | Cognos Incorporated | P.O. Box 9707 (613) 738-1338 x5013 | 3755 Riverside Dr. UUCP: rayt@cognos.uucp | Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3Z4