Anders Sandberg writes
> Zero Powers wrote:
>> That said however, given the choice I'd go for the cybergnosticism simply
>> because, given enough computing power, data and sensors a meat-based body
>> would be of no benefit. There would be no experience in the material world
>> which could not be compelling duplicated (even significantly enhanced) in
>> the VR world.
>
> I think there is an important difference between cybergnosticism as I
> described it and simply accepting uploading as a good idea. We all seem to
> agree that being digital and movable is a more practical form of existence
> for human flourishing than being tied to a certain computational matrix. But
> do you view the material world as something inherently bad, and the uploaded
> state as inherently good?
Let's agree that thinking the material world as something "bad" is a
very strange notion (to say the very least), and that we do not think so.
> A cybergnostic would do this, although many people who
> are in practice cybergnostics have not thought through
> these issues very carefully and simply reflexively say
> that uploading is good. Once you start to pick at the
> question *why* uploading is a good thing, then much of
> cybergnosticism evaporates.
It's such a catchy term, "cybergnosticism". Can you say anything
further critical about it beyond the "cybergnostics" think that
the physical world is inherently bad? Is there any reason that
we shouldn't co-opt (i.e. steal) the term from them?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:12 MDT