So you know the Great Filter, right?
It’s what happens when you look up at the stars and ask “Where the fuck is everyone”.
There are so many planets out there, yet it’s radio silent. The intelligent life to planet ratio is really, bad. So far we’re the only ones.
You gotta ask, why?
Enter, the Great Filter. Something, at some point in the pipeline, prevents planets from developing and maintaining intelligent life capable of electromagnetic communication.
We don’t know what it is. Maybe it’s a quirk of chemistry that makes the chance of multicellular life forming ridiculously low. Maybe it’s a quirk of biology that makes sapience incredibly rare. Maybe it’s a hyper intelligent space worm that eats any civilisation that makes too much noise. Maybe it’s runaway climate change.
The thing is, we really don’t want to be on the wrong side of that filter, because that suggests that an imminent demise is in our civilisation’s future. And with every discovery of non-intelligent life on other planets, it becomes increasingly likely that we’re on the wrong side of that filter.
Enter, the recent discovery of life on Venus. It means that we’re much more likely to be on the wrong side.
But, watching that debate tonight, I began to feel a sense of relief. At least if we’re on the wrong side of the filter, it’s not as though we’re wasting a once-in-a-galaxy chance. We’re just yet another civilisation that failed to get past that filter. I can live with being unexceptionally mediocre.
Evolution leads to something with general purpose problem-solving skills like humans and then evolution stops in humans because technology takes over. It should be possible to build immortal/transferable computer-based life and any aliens we find have a good chance of being created rather than evolved. Uploading human consciousness is a bullshit idea that assumes we have to teach the machines what is right rather than figuring it out themselves.
For spreading out into the galaxy, who cares if traveling to a star takes thousands of years if you are immortal? The pre-technology evolution track is cute (predator/prey, trees, flowers) and sustainable while the technology track is not sustainable without stronger laws that nobody seems to want. (Want to kill millions of sharks to make bullshit medicine that we don't need as a population? Nobody can stop you because we don't have the laws or enforcement. Or just do it as another entity that doesn't have to follow a common law).
We are in the singularity already with the invention of computers, the great filter we face now is running out of resources before we build intelligent machines that can go to Mars and explore the galaxy for us. Don't send me to Mars, it sucks there! If we fuck this up there will not be another opportunity on this star for a long time.
I'm other words, if the goal of matter is life, the goal of life is evolution, the goal of evolution is creation and immortality, and I don't know what's after that. Expansion? Fun with simulations?
Is immortality possible even for non-living things, though? If we are talking about the scales of millenniums. Any mechanical part is going to wear out. And you need mechanical parts for movement, resource collection and general interaction with material world. Even non mechanical structrures that you would use for computation eventually degrade. Takes a couple dielectricum breaches and your processor is no longer working correctly. Molecules breakdown over time. At large enough timescales atoms themselves will breakdown. To repair stuff you need additional resources and energy. But more resources/energy you pack the harder it will be to move.
Transfer of consciousness from machine to machine is viable, so replacement machines running the same software seems different than human to machine transfer would be. Redundant parts or fixing them as they break or upgrading hardware altogether solves this, so in effect the machine can be immortal.
Take GPT3 for example. It's a neural network that responds in certain ways, and you can copy it and run it on other hardware with the same result. It's not "conscious", but for several reasons, one of which is because it might just not be complex enough. But that argument is coming to an end in the next few years--neural networks will be complex enough to support general-purpose problem solving. The disconnect is that it doesn't have sensory inputs to the real world and also it has no body to preserve/defend so it has no real-world goals. Give a complex-enough neural network a body, goals, and make it understand that it has to preserve itself somehow, and you might end up with a conscious computer.
That is in the context of machines living in a machine society, but the context of machines trying to colonize universe with probes is different. The energy and resources would be limited and the machine could very well arrive dead at its destination.
deleted by creator
Inanimate matter can't build towards anything either. i just mean that life proliferates to the fullest until it reaches a general-purpose biological form capable of building machines that can build more machines. Instead of the stone age, bronze age, etc, there's the inanimate age, the life age, the machine age, then...? It's possible the machine age is really hard to achieve given the Great Filter of all things elsewhere in this post.
deleted by creator
Do you think there could be life for millions of years without evolution?
Or did you mean that life doesn't necessarily progress to building complicated machines? What other progression would it take?
deleted by creator
I'm not confused about the details of evolution, nor am I elevating humanity in particular as better than other life. I'm trying to figure out what happens after evolution.
The universe is a big sandbox where anything that doesn't violate the laws of physics is possible. Life is probably abundant, and evolution is just how life changes where it exists (allow me the liberty of this definition). The more interesting thing to me, what I'm trying to talk about, is what happens to break out of evolution being the driving force of change on a planet to something else being a greater factor. It took 3.5 billion years for life to get to where we are now, and in the last 100k years we have changed from evolution being the driving force behind human development to technological progress taking over that role.
If evolution doesn't produce a technology-developing organism, that is the boring case. How are you going to send radio signals/explore the galaxy with biological evolution only? Of course the life can still be there, but it's trapped on the planet.
I don't know that I have a point, just getting some thoughts down. Thanks for your critique, I don't know where to take this discussion but I'll check out your reference and next time I'll try to be more convincing that I understand evolution.
deleted by creator