Source: Philosophy of life as knowledge, panspermia, and the simulation hypothesis

Date: 2018-12-15T00:00:00.000Z
Author: SolSeed archive migration
Comment: Create maintainable Markdown archive revision
Size: 1814 bytes
Delta: —

*This was a session at the August 2018 [Resilient Communities Mini-Unconference](/Resilient_Communities_Mini-Unconference).*

### Attendees
- [Shawn](/Shawn) (convener)
- [Ben](/Ben) (note-taker)
- [Eric](/Eric)
- Steve
- Judy

### Discussion
Philosophy of Life as Knowledge
- At first the universe just knew how to exist, then chemistry, then with life, it finally found a way to persist knowledge
- The environment trims away knowledge (in DNA) that doesn't work
- Similarly in science, a model that is a better predictor (works better) will persist longer that one that doesn't

Panspermia
- Intelligence as fruiting body for life
- If we can't send ourselves to other stars, we can at least send microbes as [Dr. Mautner proposes](http://www.panspermia-society.com/)

Simulation Hypothesis
- Assumptions
  - An intelligence can create models of a universe and has some reason to do so
  - We're likely to be able to simulate, within these models, more intelligent minds than exist on Earth
  - The simulated minds won't be able to tell that they're in a simulation
- Steve: This relates to my skepticism about uploading: Can consciousness arise within a computer simulation?
  - Eric: John Searle argues that we have no idea if computing processes can map onto the consciousness process; I'm agnostic
- Shawn's similar argument about panspermia: if we can develop the ability to send life to newly forming star systems, and we find a reason to do it, and we send them to many such systems, we're probably the product of a similar project 5 billion years ago
  - Eric: The existence of Dr. Mautner proves that someone can find the motivation to do this, making it very likely that someone has done it in the past
- Fermi Paradox argument
  - Shawn: There's a very small chance that any given spore will succeed