From: Gordon Worley (redbird@rbisland.cx)
Date: Sat Jan 26 2002 - 10:09:48 MST
On Saturday, January 26, 2002, at 04:51 AM, DarkVegeta26@aol.com wrote:
> <<Perhaps that would work for a normative human. Last time I checked,
> though, I was actively pursuing behavior that is non normative for
> humans.>>
>
> I despite the norm. But some characteristics of the opposite sex, or
> the
> same sex for that matter have value independent of such norms. For
> example,
> novelty and intelligence is nearly always good.
Not to be rude, but this fascination with spiting the norm to spite it
seems to be pretty adolescent behavior. If I'm going to take on the
world, I make sure that I've got a damn good reason first.
> <<One thing that bugs me a bit in your reasoning is that you assume that
> the Singularity is beyond a doubt the most important thing ever.>>
>
> Yep, but getting to the Singularity is part of the Singularity, and
> getting
> to the Singularity can be *very*, *very* fun. So eventually we can all
> ditch
> our obsolete non-Singularitarian worldviews when the glory of the
> Singularitarian path becomes more clear, rapturous, and fun. Of
> course I
> could be wrong. What bugs you about this wordview, specifically?
My problem with this kind of world view is that it makes you blind. You
have a hard time thinking outside the box. You're so focused on
reaching the Singularity that you may completely miss when some new idea
X comes along that will achieve essentially the same results as the
Singularity but in half the time. For some time I have been involved
with political activities and this is the kind of thinking that hurts
the leaders of groups 90% of the time. They have some ideal solution, a
practical solution comes along, but they stick to the ideal solution and
get no positive end results. While I don't doubt that it is possible to
be dedicated to the Singularity and be able to step back and consider
the big picture, I get the impression that you don't do this.
> Like what? No matter what you do, it will help bring about the
> Singularity
> in some way. Microbes in an organic soup replicating have, in a very
> fundamental sense, the same "purpose" as human beings and our
> thoughts - to
> evolve, to proceed to the End. The "End" is the Singularity. Not in
> any
> negative way of course. You might as well optimize your activities to
> acheive the highest degree of Singularity-helpfulness now, because it
> will
> only get funner and more progressive as time goes on, leaving our more
> "mundane life" behind in the dust.
Yes, but I can't not have fun now. It's a trade off between future fun
and fun now. I just have to assess the situation and see how much fun I
should have now and how much I want to work to see in the future.
> <<Lots of different skills are needed and in the end I
> may provide some key bit of info to reach the Singularity safely.>>
>
> Absolutely, but wouldn't you rather supply more key info rather than
> less?
Well, I don't care how much key info I supply. If I supply none, then
that's life. But, if I've got the key info then I'll offer it up. The
thing is, I have no way of knowing what key info will be, so I work on
things that interest me, learning a lot, and maybe it will be useful
again some day.
> The universe wants you to acheive Singularity, I think.
There's more in that statement than I care to deconstruct. In short,
you are assuming that the universe cares. This is equivalent to saying
`It's God's Will!'. The universe is just where we live.
Of course, this statement is accurate, after a fashion, given Alpha
Lines and such. ;-)
-- Gordon Worley `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty http://www.rbisland.cx/ said, `it means just what I choose redbird@rbisland.cx it to mean--neither more nor less.' PGP: 0xBBD3B003 --Lewis Carroll
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT