From: Dan Adams (danadams@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed May 31 2000 - 10:56:54 MDT
--- Dan Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu> wrote:
[edited to fit in the time alotted]
>This IS
> spooky, and has
> nothing to do with bandwidth. This is metaphysical
> humanism, NOT hard
> science. (Look at their message! Why would they
> care about hard
> science? Look at how awful their science is!)
Sad, but true. It was a brilliant film with a
fascinating ontological thriller theme to it.
Nonetheless, the scientific predictions were, at best,
infantile underestimates supported by wave after wave
of hollow plot device and cleverly coined
phrase...Now, before I regret putting my home phone
number in my .sig file, let me once again declare my
undying loyality, unswerving devotion, and the full
dedication of my immortal soul to the movie!
Why? Because philosophically, they just don't come
any better! Now, each of us here is (probably) some
bizarre mix of technophile and transhumanist
philosopher [Note : In re-reading this before sending
I could hear the trumpets of the epistemology cavalry
sounding the charge in the distance - oops!] Thus,
we're probably skeptical to the point that we'd
require a ballistics test just to prove we'd been
shot! This movie requires (and, if you saw how they
just threw the "techno-explanations" together,
invites) us to suspend concern of scientific
feasibility in order to focus on the ontological and
metaphysical questions it raises. And those are rich
and varied (that has already been amply proven here
over the past two weeks - so, I'll spare you!) [yes,
you're welcome! ;-] Of course there are those among
us who think that presently fictitious ontological
scenarios, what-ifs, and thought experiments are only
some much philosophical hand waving (and, I won't name
names, but they might be a brilliant cognitive
researcher that lives in Europe and has the initials
A.S.). And, while I am forced to conceed that there
is little pragmatic use for such speculations at
present, I would remind my esteemed colleague(s) that
the very future we embrace and strive to create may
prove to be far more metaphysically unsettling than
any fictional/imaginary world today's art can
conjure...
[random example hoping to spawn another string : Star
Trek, The Next Generation. I loved that show as a kid
- best thing on TV and probably one of the impetuses
behind my latent technophilia. But, looking back with
my modest, but larger, scientific knowledge, I'm
appalled! If I'm hurling through interstellar space
in 4 CENTURIES on a giant hunk of composite metals in
a smelly primate shell with wonders such as "nanites"
that serve no useful function, an onboard computer AI
that's really only got the "A" part down, and
"diplomatic missions" to colonies of other skin bags,
there's gonna be hell to pay!]
Sorry, I'm moving tomorrow - there's a lot of pent up
stress ;-)
And, to Dan Faublich, I realize your original message
had a lot more important content than that which I
quoted. I'm hoping to really get to digest it tonight
at home and draft a worthy response.
Best,
=====
-------
Dan Adams
Boston College
617.782.4050
"I cannot articulate enough to express my dislike to people who think that understanding spoils your experience...How would they know?"
- Marvin Minsky
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:56 MST