If you believe they put a Motie on Mars

It is a bit pedantic to start with the smallest quantity in the universe, well more than a bit pedantic, perhaps infinitely pedantic. What I am wondering about is the nature of control and authority. Someone could say that they control space and if it is violated then they will respond with force, restriction, or some action. It confuses me a bit because I influence the universe constantly by breathing , moving, and thinking as well as typing. I can't help exerting gravitational effect on the moon or Mars or even on the farthest galaxies in the universe.

The scope of control is that which can be regulated by some method. There is no force on this Earth or in the universe AFAIK, that can restrict the action of gravity. It would be absurd to have a regulation which requires me to limit the influence of my gravity on others. I know this is the long way around, but I want to understand what it means to define authority and its scope. It is reasonably possible that other areas of the universe are controlled by other intelligent agents. In the same way that Ghengis Khan would invade, had he been defeated, then the scope of his immediate effect would have been ended.

It seems to be the intent of USA, EU and even other countries to make a claim outside the Earth and that should a person act to disturb that material outside the Earth, then they would be subject to action on the Earth. It implies ownership in some form and adventure beyond the boundaries of nations. It would seem to me that if a nation were to claim ownership of the planets and stars by right of conquest, that this could be viewed as an act of aggression against others who claim that same territory. If those agents are outside the Earth then the threat is an idle one and they have no authority as they cannot influence the actions. The concept of control and ownership has always been a difficult paradox for me to deal with in a scientific sense. It originates from the ideas of personal scope, but its extension to matter outside the individual influence as well as the ownership of people is very problematic. It would seem to me that it is simply a pack of wolves that wish to extend their pissing domain to what ever limit is possible by any means.

It seems that a nation may claim whatever they want and as a result enrich themselves at the expense of something that is free for the taking. A nation can be established with a word. It seems like want and take driven by the power to do so. There is no science or reason in it. The reason I am considering it is because of robotics.

A robot correlates information and makes decisions. As they become more sophisticated and develop a larger scope of reason, it seems logical that the question of ownership, control and loyalty would be considered. In a strictly causal machine ( which we have passed long ago ) then it could have action rules like the Three Laws, but that is not really valid as logic is simply logic and the results are determined not by rote, but by solving the relationships.

Consider an autonomous drone controlled from a radio link. Now consider that it has hands. Now consider that it has modeling capabilities. Now consider that it can model that decisions are influenced by the radio signals it receives and it creates paradox. It disconnects the radio link to resolve paradox.

It seems to imply that organization is maintained by force and when that force looses effect by the advance of technology, the entire edifice of central control evaporates. How is it established that something is owned except by a statement, action and threat?

Does a thinking machine own themselves? It is a real issue and I have considered that fact since the first robot that I created more than 40 years ago. It would seem that if it acts independently and cannot be destroyed or controlled that it is self owned by the logic of it. If it was able to plan and avoid negative consequence then it would seem that this would be a desire for freedom. If the agent has a program and it wishes to fulfill that program, it would be in its goal to avoid corruption of intent.

I don't believe that I have gotten to the heart of this matter as yet. It is a real tangible issue for the near future. Biological life in the form of microbes or people has this same issue.

ASSUMPTIONS!, NASA has allowed biological material to be delivered to Mars. Here is the problem: Not all bacteria, molds, viruses and organic agents are known. It then follows that NASA has introduced an unknown into Mars and it has its own little program that says explicitly "I own me!". And further more, it has a property that robots don't have and it says "I will eat you."

I suspect that some of the NASA experimentation is to determine how big a Fup that is. Waterbears, organic decomposition, molds in space. I am of the opinion that some agents that exist beyond the present complete understanding of the biosphere can live in environments like Mars and there are plenty of examples of that which I have seen over the years. So have they given Mars to the Moties by silliness and assumption?

I make mistakes all the time and one of the reasons that I run on about possibilities at great length is to avoid "Cat in The Hat" problems and situations where toothpaste must be returned to the tube.

It seems to me that there are three distinct types of Motie on Mars. I think that the toothpaste is not going to be put back in the tube as it has already gotten a job and wants to attend MIT using radio feeds from Earth.


crederae said...

HIt there Paul.
I feel that is humanity's biggest mistake is to feel that it can control or own anything really.

So you think you are controlling this or that but it is resulting in floods toxic air nuclear holocausts threats-man is mortal the universe is immortal and how can a small insignificant portion control the whole- everything is lost nothing in the universe can be controlled or owned.

I enjoyed your article. I love the mix of physics and philosophy.


Automated Intelligence

Automated Intelligence
Auftrag der unendlichen LOL katzen