From: Waldemar Ingdahl (waldemar.ingdahl@eudoxa.se)
Date: Tue Sep 04 2001 - 08:31:56 MDT
Hello everybody
I' ve been pondering some questions about the concept of singularity and its meaning in transhumanist philosophy.
Certainly the term is a bit difficult to trace sometimes, since it comes from Teilhard de Chardins thoughts of the Omega- point (now that is a shaaaky fellow, but more on TDC some other time) and also from the tiplerite tradition, but I have seen also less "mystical" definitions of the term.
Also, not all of us think that a singularity is possible- but is it desireable as a philosophical concept to be present in the discourse?
I ask my self: isn't the concept of a singularity the last grasp of Christian escathologism?
That the concept of an unlimited development became a far too great leap, that you had to invent an end time?
A time after which progress would be so immense that discussion of it would be pointless, often with the discussion falling down into an abstract paradise.
But hasn't the introduction of escathology also introduced the concept of immanentism in transhumanism, with all its perils?
Virtue is achieved through action, actions that may be very, very, very much more complex than ours- but there is still action required to achieve virtue.
The Omega- point seen as inert, thus it is not virtuous.
Thus the Omega point is not a state of Eudaimonia.
Could there also be a danger that the discourse about the concept of an Omega point damages transhumanist philosophy today? Sometimes when I listen to discussions about a possible Omega point I get very afraid.
It takes us out in very deep waters indeed, speaking about things we have very little knowledge of.
An indeed unknown future, that is very far ahead, while neglecting the path to it?
The truth is out there, but it is damned hard to reach.
I see the danger that we get into discussing how many angels (or Jupiter brains in our case) that can dance on a needle's head. The philosophical cul de sac that was broken so many centuries ago (but continues today with the postmodernists: how many different readings can you get on a single page of one of Zizek's books?). Philosophy is a search for the right goals in the lives people both as individuals and as part of a society. We may set our goals very high indeed, but they are still acknowledgable as a philosophic problem.
Comments?
Thoughts?
Yours questioningly,
Waldemar
Towards Eudaimonia!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:22 MST