From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Sep 04 1999 - 04:33:20 MDT
On Sat, 4 Sep 1999, Brian Manning Delaney wrote:
>
> How, after all, would one ground the notion that "the purpose is to
> have fun"? Not that, personally I believe such a view has zero merit.
> I just think it can't (easily, at least) be justified.
Justified in what sense? If we reject the idea that we are here
to survive & reproduce, it seems perfectly *self*-justified to
say I am here to have fun. Taking a different viewpoint --
"I am here to contribute to my fellow [trans]human" seems
much more difficult for me to justfy (to myself).
> re: ... mathematical proofs in philosophy ...
> The former is Russell (more or less), the latter is Wittgenstein.
> Wittgenstein, in my view, was closer to being on the right track.
You're in over my head here, since I've yet to read either of them
(though Russell is in the library), I'd have to defer to Max.
My philosophy pursuits always seem to get side-tracked pending
other nearer term stuff. I suspect I'll end up doing the cram
course the week before I'm scheduled to upload, then just
as I'm about to step into the transfer chamber, it will hit
me -- "Oh no, this process is pointless too!"
> > If you are talking about something that would
> > violate the laws of entropy I would have to
> > disagree.
>
> Why?
The simplest answer is that if I disavow some basic laws of physics
John Clark will have my head on a silver platter. A more complex
answer is because a big chunk of what I've been researching the
last two years (what are the limits to computing [intelligence])
rests on the idea that you can't violate entropy. So I've got
a vested interest in SIs having limits. I would probably believe
that SIs have a better chance of tunneling out of this universe than
violating the laws of entropy. Finally, on the slippery slope
from classical physics to magical physics, I find it satisfying
to draw a line that says -- "This is as far as I go buddy"
(said with a John Wayne accent).
>
>
> I see. That makes sense, though the description should include something
> other than "quiescence"-like terms
Probably.
> But in deciding whether or not aliens might pervade our world,
> we can entertain other options.
Certainly, so long as they are "physically" possible.
If you start a discussion that the "aliens" are the
"ghosts in the machines", then I'll have to beg off.
Actually, having just said that, I realize that it is
physically possible that aliens could be the "ghosts
in the machines". The only two brains that have been
disassembled to the level that we might discover them
(NIH's visible brain project) were dead, so the aliens
would likely have departed.
I'm guess going to have to think a little more before I can
clearly state what the alien's can't be I guess.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:01 MST