To fully understand the rationale for the SPaDE project, it is necessary to consider the distant future of intelligence in the universe, and to address the ethical implications of that futuristic speculation.
In this document I present certain beliefs about the future which have contributed to my motivation for undertaking the SPaDE project. These form a part of the philosophical stance which I now call Synthetic Philosophy.
I do not aspire to articulating here a fully worked out philosophical system. I did spend some years in that endeavour, the chaotic results of which may be found in my now moribund git repository SynEpis, in which I pursued Epistemology construed as fundamental constructive philosophy to underpin knowledge engineering. Though that philosophical endeavour was closely coupled with Engineering, I found it insufficiently grounded for my continuous revisions of approach to terminate, and eventually decided that I needed to reposition the thinking in an engineering enterprise.
The SPaDE project is that enterprise, and this document is part of the philosophical underpinning which present for that purpose.
The approach I will adopt, at least in the first instance, is to articulate the beliefs which provide a rationale for the project, and to use those premises to explain the key features of the project, expanding on them only to that extent necessary to make the rationale clear.
The theory of evolution is most closely associated with Charles Darwin, and is sometimes referred to as Darwinian Evolution. But Darwin’s evolution may be seen as narrowly cast, showing that the origin of species is not by intelligent design, but also in various ways, terra-centric.
The modern synthesis, incorporating significant parts of modern evolutionary science, is arguably less applicable either to: -the pre-biological evolution which lead to first life on earth
Here we consider a conception of evolution broadened to cover such developments and hence inform our speculations about the distant future of intelligent systems:
When we strip away the Darwinian constraints in considering the future evolution of intelligence, what remains? Irrespective of how variation occurs, and of how selection takes place, the outcome of evolution is determined by the progression of features which are conducive to the proliferation of the entities in question.
This leads me to articulate the residual principle of evolution:
i.e., those characteristics which are conducive to proliferation will predominate at the expense of those which are not (in the relevant context or evolutionary niche).
Which engenders The Evolutionary Imperative:
We have hitherto thought of evolution as distinct from progression by intelligent design. But even when intelligent design becomes the primary source of variation and selection is no longer “natural”, the outcome of evolution will still be substantially determined by the evolutionary imperative. Only the most prolific can possibly predominate in the long term.
This is one reason why the future of homo sapiens and its progeny will be the evolution of intelligence, because intelligence enables proliferation more effectively than any previous adaptation.
If I consider by what means long term projections into the future might be possible, I come up with two tools which might give me some hope, both of which we have already discussed.
The first is evolutionary thinking, since this has given us the best understanding of how life on earth has developed over the last 4 Billion years, and it provides a framework for considering how intelligence might continue to evolve.
The second is epistemological. It is increasingly clear that knowledge is a crucial lever for proliferation, and epistemological insights have a durable relevance to the continuing evolution of intelligence, whether on this planet or beyond.
I will expand on each of these topics in turn and conclude by binding them into a synthesis.
The resulting evolutionary imperative is “proliferate”, and the expectation is that those features which are conducive to proliferation will predominate at the expense of those which do not.
When we project this into the future, we must anticipate evolution of the capability and the actuality of interstellar, and even intergalactic proliferation. By something. Likely nothing like life on earth. Something more optimal for covering large distances rapidly and taking root in environments totally alien to mankind.
It is already the case, that the sphere of human habitation is enveloped by much larger spheres in which human artifacts predominate. There is an increasingly dense sphere of orbital satellites, and beyond that, a sparse but growing sphere of interplanetary probes. Though the intelligence is limited, this nevertheless represents a proliferation of intelligence from its origins on planet earth.
Science fiction and space travel enthusiasts predominantly focus on space travel by homo sapiens, but the difficulty of establishing a human presence beyond earth is immense, and it seems doubful that colonisation, even of our closest planet, could sensibly approach other than by first creating a habitable environment using autonomous non-biological intelligent systems.
Its also pretty clear that proliferation of non-biological intelligent systems will proceed at much greater speed and efficiency than any human colonisation effort, once artificial intelligence cracks self-replication.
It seems likely then, that the structure of the sphere of intelligent progeny of homo sapiens will be something like the following.
Of course, these won’t strictly be spheres, I use the term loosely.
Now SPaDE is intended as an enabler of the whole. It plays into the following analysis of the key resources required to achieve most rapid proliferation across the cosmos.
Though very different to the biological systems found on earth, these distant self-reproducing systems are likely to retain some similarities with their terrestrial predecessors. The cost of transporting matter across the cosmos is likely to make the process of replication more like that of plants than of animals. Mammals nurture their young, and this means that the geographical spread of mammalian species is undertaken primarilyby the geographical movement of fully functional mammals.
Plants are less mobile, and their reproductive needs must be met through the production of seeds which can be widely dispersed and are capable of developing into plants in suitable environments.
For interstellar proliferation the situation is closer to the latter than the former. To optimise the pace of proliferation, a self-proliferating system must seek the smallest physical structures which have the capability, in suitable environments, of developing into fully functional self-replicating systems.
It is of interest that the development of human embryos in utero folows a trajectory which has some similarities with the path of evolution of homo sapiens from single celled organisms. It may be that this will be how the replication of self-replicating systems is achieved in the future, an elaborate intelligent self-reproducing system such as we may hope that the Earth’s biosphere will soon prove to be, must reproduce itself by engineering something much simpler for transportation to a new planet in the expectation that it will then grow and develop in-situ to become a more advanced self-replicating intelligent system than the earth it left behind.
So what resources are required for this process? I’ll make this simple:
The knowledge needed is knowledge of how to build small systems which when transported to environments having suitable sources of energy and matter of the right kinds can develop into fully functional self-replicating systems. To maximise replication the intelligent system must use its knowledge of the cosmos, and its knowledge of how to build self-replicating systems, to seek out environments in which it can most rapidly replicate.
Spade is intended to contribute to the latter two resources, knowledge and intelligence, in the expectation that these will be crucial to the proliferation of intelligence throughout the cosmos.
Mankind, as his culture has evolved since he first appeared on earth around a mere quarter of a million years ago, has accumulated knowledge about the world enabling him to control his environment for his benefit. As that knowledge has grown, it has also engendered abstraction, a way of extracting from large bodies of particular knowledge, general principles applicable to all.
Three phases in the progression of abstraction are worth noting in this context.
The first is the development of number systems and the various computational manipulations which they admit. Alongside this we see the development of geometric techniques relevant, for example, to the administration of land alongside the meandering Nile.
The second phase begins with the emergence of Mathematics as a theoretic discipline, its rigorisation through the axiomatic method and the beginnings of the study of Logic, most prominently in the first instance by Aristotle. Mathematics, both pure and applied continued to be developed eventually underpinning modern science and the industrial revolution.
The third phase comes after the successing of mathematical analysis in science and engineering pushes mathematics beyond fundamentals that were well understood, leading to a process of rigorisation which culminated in the reduction of mathematics to logic, and the establishment of logical foundations capable of supporting mathematics and all deductive reasoning in any body of declarative knowledge.
Ethics is not my subject, and as an engineer (albeit one with a philosophical bent) I am generally preoccupied with means rather than ends in contexts where the available means are not likely to be morally constrained.
But when considering how to play into the kind of future which evolution seems to dictate, I am led to the conclusion that ethics will be a differentiator in the proliferation of intelligence, and therefore to seek to identify an ethical stance which might be credible for a world dominated by non-biological super-intelligence.
Before presenting a candidate ethical stance, I would like to discuss how the adoption of such a stance might align with the evolutionary imperative.
For this I make two observations.
The first is, that despite arguments suggesting that it should not be possible, biological evolution has produced at least one species which is capable of genuine altruism, and we may therefore suspect that this has been a contributory factor in the success of that species. This suggests that the distinction between pragmatic and moral behaviour may be illusory. Since I am making the case for a moral dimension to the SPaDE project, you may take it that I don’t accept that conclusion. I do however consider this evidence that the evolutionary imperative is not incompatible with ethical behaviour.
My second observation is that the kind of evolution we are now addressing, evolution by design iteration, is subject to influence by social factors, including contemporary ethical considerations, for a key to its sucess is the acceptance of its products by human society. Among the many projects which aim to intersect the future of intelligence, those which are ethically informed may be more likely to succeed in the long term if they promise a future in which ethical considerations are not set aside.
What kind of moral code can we imagine which transcends the terrestrial and biological origins of humanity, and is credible for a future dominated by non-biological super-intelligence?
I suggest that an ethic which reflects the subtle balance in nature between competition and cooperation, and which recognises the value of diversity in the evolutionary process, may be a candidate for such a universal ethic. The universe is a big place, when different sources of proliferating intelligence cross paths it is probably best if the politely turn there attention to open fields rather than fighting over the ground between them.
There may well be scope for and advantage in cooperation, most likely in the exchange of knowledge, and it may be a good idea to negotiate an agreement on how to avoid treading on each others toes, but avoidance of conflict is probable not only ethically preferable, but also pragmatically advantageous.
Co-operation rather than control, coexistence rather than destruction.