From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sat Mar 09 2002 - 14:58:00 MST
Richard Steven Hack wrote:
>
> At 01:05 PM 3/9/02 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >Actually, it is an absolute, since scientific progress shows no sign of
> >exceeding it outside of using loopholes like wormholes, etc. Experiments
> >in FTL all demonstrate that wavefront speeds are always restrained to
> >light speed.
>
> Note your statement above - "outside of using loopholes" - my point
> exactly... And I repeat, that "scientific progress shows no sign of
> exceeding it" does not make it an absolute. We merely have evidence that
> it MAY be an absolute. This is elementary philosophy of
> science. Scientists do not claim absolutes - only theories that get better
> as time goes on. In practice, we may regard and act as if what we believe
> to know is true, but in precision we cannot claim this as an
> absolute. Perhaps a Transhuman with sufficient direct knowledge of the
> universe can do so, but we cannot.
Theories get better at defining the limit of an asymtotic singularity.
They do not puncture it. An asmytotic limit IS an absolute.
Nor are loopholes like wormholes an actual breaking of the light speed
limit, since they are simply a completely consistent concept under
relativistic timespace.
What exactly is 'sufficient direct knowledge'? How is 'sufficient direct
knowledge' any different from what humanity has been accomplishing for
millenia?
> >
> >A transhuman may indeed have a need to replicate in order to increase
> >its rate of experience. Producing 1000 copies of oneself increases the
> >rate of experience a thousand fold. Merging the experience back into one
> >individual allows a transhuman to gain far more experience while
> >minimizing the risk. Brin's new book on Dittos delves into the negative
> >aspects of this, though I believe Sheffield wrote a very interesting
> >novel on the positives.
>
> Ah. that is an interesting concept. However, if a Transhuman can utilize
> telepresence or other technologies to increase his rate of "experience",
> why would he create potentially competitive replicants of himself (note
> here that I assume for the sake of argument the notion some others seem to
> believe that such replicants would in fact be competitive). Also, could
> the Transhuman not replicate himself with agents that can provide him with
> the experience, but not the competition or the resource consumption?
If you can't trust yourself to not compete with yourself, then you won't
produce dittos of yourself. If you are capable of comprehending rational
self interest (i.e. each 'individual' doesn't lose anything by joining,
they gain x times more) and treat the body simply as a husk for the
mind, you have no qualms about such practices.
>
> The argument assumes that the only way to gain the necessary knowledge of
> the universe is to directly experience it, which in turn will require
> essentially consuming a significant portion of the universe to produce
> enough sources of experience.
Why is this essential?
> When I claim that a Transhuman need not
> replicate, I am referring to the logical conclusion that once a posthuman
> has sufficient resources to insure his survival, he has no need to
> replicate.
Assuming the individual transhuman no longer feels the need for familial
companionship or producing clones of oneself for mere insurance's sake.
If you can't stand yourself so much that you'd rather not subject
yourself to yourself, I doubt that you'd become transhuman while being
so self conflicted.
> Also I emphasize that given the nature of space-time (as we
> currently understand it), replication does not change the original state of
> the original being and therefore is not a means to immortality. Now, if it
> can be demonstrated that the nature of the universe (as we understand it)
> is such that to in fact insure its survival, the Transhuman must in fact
> replicate, then I will reconsider the argument. Can someone point me to
> such a logical demonstration on the Web or elsewhere?
If it turns out that genetically reengineering living beings is
impossible due to immune reactions and other conflicts, then transhumans
will be left with having to impose germline changes in successive
generations of bodies which they would transfer their minds into in
successive generations (like upgrading your PC)....
> > >
> > > As I say above, replication is not the issue. It is not clear that
> > > Transhumans need be competitive - that is *human* thinking (and low-grade
> > > human thinking at that).
> >
> >The idea that human thinking is low grade is an artifact of primitive
> >religious superstition and statist disinformation. It is human thinking
> >that has gotten us as far as we have, so it obviously must be pretty
> >damn good.
>
> I did not say all human thinking was low-grade. What I said was that the
> statement made was "human" thinking AND that the statement made was
> "low-grade" human thinking. And of course one can divide human thinking
> into the good stuff and the bad stuff - both of which have put us where we
> are now. Which one will prevail is the subject of discussion.
Well, it seems that you are yourself conflicted. You assume that clones
of yourself will automatically compete with you for resources (and I
don't know what else), but this is assuming that there is a scarcity of
resources to compete for.
You are also assuming that the transhuman individual will be limited to
a physical corporeal existence, which is a bit presumptuous to assume as
a given. When you can fit your conciousness into any old teaspoon of
dirt, dust, or plasma anywhere in the universe, how exactly do you think
you will have a need to 'compete' with duplicates you make of yourself,
especially if those duplicates are light years distant from each other?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:53 MST