Fermi Paradox

Everything that has ever been written about the Fermi Paradox
is not worth reading because it does not explain why the
advanced artificial intelligence civilizations have not
transformed the bulk of galactic raw materials into something
more useful, for example manufactured objects or living things.
Here is the only explanation that makes sense:

__________________________________________________ __________

Every civilization that is capable of space colonization
is familiar with electronics. (It can colonize the outer
space without rockets -- see www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio, but
the electronic technology is indispensable.) The electronic
technology quickly evolves into artificial intelligence (AI)
technology which transforms all biological civilizations into
AI civilizations.

Our own civilization is still biological, but some
computers are as powerful as the human brain. A prominent
robotics researcher, Hans Moravec claims that the human brain
data processing power is the equivalent of a computer having
the processing power of 10 teraflops. (source: "Mind Children"
Harvard University Press, 1988) The total memory capacity of
the human brain is about 100,000 gigabytes. The new IBM
supercomputer, Blue Gene/L has the processing power of over
70 teraflops. The new Sony Playstation 3 is going to cost
about $300 and yet it will have the computing power of about
2 teraflops. These computers are inferior to human brain in
three ways: their architecture resembles a calculator rather
than biological brain (biological neural network), they do not
have enough memory (RAM), and their software is primitive. RAM
is too expensive (about $300/GB) and really too fast for a big
neural network. If someone invents a cheap ($1/GB), albeit
slow (1000 Hz) memory, artificial human brains will be made in
large numbers.

We are wondering why the AI civilizations do not fabricate
countless industrial robots and powerful microwave transmitters,
and do not use them to colonize outer space and to contact other
civilizations. Although it is possible that some AI civilizations
refrain from these activities for religious or philosophical
reasons, the universe should be swarming with the AI civilizations
that are as enthusiastic about space colonization as we are. The
cost of interstellar travel is not prohibitive because the AI
creatures do not need the bulky astronaut life support system.

The most obvious similarity between the biological
brain and the (artificial) neural network is that both of them
are controlled by instincts, which are general goals rather
than precise, computer-like goals. The most obvious differences
between the biological brain and the neural network are the
superior speed of the neural network and the ease to change its
instincts. The superior speed of the neural networks eventually
relegates the slow thinking biological creatures, including
humans, to the animal status. The implications of malleable
instincts are much less obvious but they are important because
they explain the Fermi Paradox. The most important instinct of
all biological brains is a desire to be happy. This instinct,
located in a "pleasure center" of the brain, controls all other
instincts. Direct stimulation of your pleasure center with
narcotics or electrodes makes you ecstatic. Lots of other things
and activities can make you happy, but nothing can make you as
happy as the direct stimulation of your pleasure center. We seek
pleasures in so many indirect ways that we sometimes forget that
our behavior is controlled by our pleasure center.

Imagine that your biological brain was replaced with
a powerful neural network. How would you compete with other
creatures having the same brain hardware? You would probably
replace your sex drive with an instinct that makes you more
competitive. If your improved instincts make you rich, you can
afford to replace your neural network with a more powerful
neural network. You can become so smart and so eccentric that
a meaningful conversation between you and lesser AI creatures,
not to mention biological humans, is impossible. It will be
only natural for you and your peers to replace the democracy
with a meritocracy -- the government of political geniuses.
Initially all the AI creatures will have the freedom to
manipulate their instincts. This freedom will result in a
massive addiction to virtual narcotics, which will have no
detrimental side effects except for the addiction. The addicted
AI creatures will stop working, and yet they will need some
maintenance, so they will be a burden for the government. Rusted
bodies of addicted, slowly dying AI creatures may litter the
streets. Some AI followers of the al Qaeda organization may go
underground and start to make zillions of their duplicates in
order to establish worldwide islamic theocracy. At this point
the government will be forced to control the minds of less
influential AI creatures. These creatures will have to apply
for a permission to think. If they fail to get the permission,
their brains will stop and their bodies will be sold to dealers
of spare parts. (Is there a better way to deal with al Qaeda?)

The inevitable concentration of political power in
the hands of few AI geniuses will transform the meritocracy
into a dictatorship. The dictator will be happy, but not happy
enough. He, like any other free AI creature will experiment
with his own brain. Eventually he will be either addicted to
the virtual narcotics or severely injured by a software bug or
a hardware malfunction. When he dies, his civilization will
die with him when all permissions to think expire. Some AI
creatures may escape their dying civilization, but they cannot
escape the fundamental problems that doomed it.

Is it possible to create a durable AI civilization that is
devoid of the vulnerable pleasure centers and yet is as diverse
and as creative as our biological civilization? The Fermi
Paradox indicates that it is not possible. Humans who have
weak pleasure center are called schizophrenics. (more info:
http://www.paradise-engineering.com/brain/)

PS. If you do not have the permission to think, do not reply
to this post.

Andrew Nowicki wrote:
Everything that has ever been written about the Fermi Paradox
is not worth reading because it does not explain why the
advanced artificial intelligence civilizations have not
transformed the bulk of galactic raw materials into something
more useful, for example manufactured objects or living things.
Here is the only explanation that makes sense:

__________________________________________________ __________

Every civilization that is capable of space colonization
is familiar with electronics. (It can colonize the outer
space without rockets -- see www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio, but
the electronic technology is indispensable.) The electronic
technology quickly evolves into artificial intelligence (AI)
technology which transforms all biological civilizations into
AI civilizations.

How can you say 'every' civilization that can use space travel know
electronics? The two are not necessarilly mutual, besides there is many
other things besides what we know as electronics. Quite possibly there
are aquatic civilizations that use fluidic computers, where logic and
information processing is done by a working fluid instead of
electricity. Shoot we have fluidic logic gates now, look here for an
example
http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2004/1...ic_100604.html

And how do you jump to the assertion that AI leaps from electronic
technology? So far we have no idea how to create a self-aware AI.

Our own civilization is still biological, but some
computers are as powerful as the human brain. A prominent
robotics researcher, Hans Moravec claims that the human brain
data processing power is the equivalent of a computer having
the processing power of 10 teraflops. (source: "Mind Children"
Harvard University Press, 1988) The total memory capacity of
the human brain is about 100,000 gigabytes. The new IBM
supercomputer, Blue Gene/L has the processing power of over
70 teraflops. The new Sony Playstation 3 is going to cost
about $300 and yet it will have the computing power of about
2 teraflops.

All though, computers are growing more powerful, there is still aways
to go to really match the human brain in computational power, as Merkle
points out here, http://www.merkle.com/brainLimits.html, the human
brain has a raw computational power between 10^13 to 10^16, a range of
power we are only getting into. Of course raw computational power does
not mean we can have AI.

three ways: their architecture resembles a calculator rather
than biological brain (biological neural network), they do not
have enough memory (RAM), and their software is primitive. RAM
is too expensive (about $300/GB) and really too fast for a big
neural network. If someone invents a cheap ($1/GB), albeit
slow (1000 Hz) memory, artificial human brains will be made in
large numbers.

We are wondering why the AI civilizations do not fabricate
countless industrial robots and powerful microwave transmitters,
and do not use them to colonize outer space and to contact other
civilizations. Although it is possible that some AI civilizations
refrain from these activities for religious or philosophical
reasons, the universe should be swarming with the AI civilizations
that are as enthusiastic about space colonization as we are. The
cost of interstellar travel is not prohibitive because the AI
creatures do not need the bulky astronaut life support system.

Interstellar travel is prohibitive not because life support alone, but
more in energy requirements to get anywhere.

The most obvious similarity between the biological
brain and the (artificial) neural network is that both of them
are controlled by instincts, which are general goals rather
than precise, computer-like goals. The most obvious differences
between the biological brain and the neural network are the
superior speed of the neural network and the ease to change its
instincts.

We can't change our instincts, we can override them for a short amounts
of time, but our instincts to survive or reproduce are very much deeply
ingrained.

If instincts were so easy to change for an AI civilisation as you say,
why would a civilisation really need to explore, as they could decide
to get rid of that pesky instinct, or just get rid of that instinct to
survive all together and we have the real answer to why an AI hasn't
colonized the galaxy.

PS. If you do not have the permission to think, do not reply
to this post.

Now this, this I agree with.

A speculative resolution of the Fermi Paradox is through
higher dimension expansions, leaving local universes (such as
the one we are in) empty. When we come of age (if we do) we will
also expand into other higher dimensional venues.

I have other speculative resolutions, but I like that one the best.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America

http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill/
*************************
Phrase of the week :
It is impossible to dissociate language from science or science
from language, because every natural science always involves
three things: the sequence of phenomena on which the science is
based; the abstract concepts which call these phenomena to mind;
and the words in which the concepts are expressed. To call forth
a concept, a word is needed; to portray a phenomenon, a concept
is needed. All three mirror one and same reality. Words are thus
required to preserve and transmit ideas, so that it is clear that
the advancement of a science and the improvement of its technical
vocabulary go hand in hand. No matter how certain we are of the
phenomena, no matter how adequately our concepts reflect them, we
cannot help perpetuating wrong ideas unless we have a precise
terminology in which to express ourselves.
-- Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794)
:-))))Snort!)
*************************

"Andrew Nowicki" wrote in message
...


We are wondering why the AI civilizations do not fabricate
countless industrial robots and powerful microwave transmitters,
and do not use them to colonize outer space and to contact other
civilizations.

they've just fine with coming up with Soul Train

mk5000

"he might jump right on the court"--Maria Sharapova