Samantha wrote:
> > >But that is *not* a `dogma'--an obligatory tenet of an
> > >authoritative/authoritarian belief system. It's an opinion or hunch, one
> > >held as being of high probability by many transhumanists.
> >
> > I'm being slightly provocative :-) I will think about changing that term in
> > a future version, but the main point is that this commonly held belief
> > among transhumanists is false.
> >
>
>I don't see any basis for declaring it false so categorically.
>Nor do I see any necessity for already being in a simulation if
>we expect future descendants (if we are not ourselves immortal)
>to run us as simulations or otherwise "resurrect" us.
The basis is presented in the paper. Are you saying that you don't
understand the argument, or do you think you understand it but see some
step where it goes wrong? If the latter, please tell me your objection.
> I assume
>the falsity hinges on our patterns, once we die, being
>irrecoverable unless we are already in a simulation.
No, that has nothing to do with it.
Nick Bostrom
Department of Philosophy, Yale University
New Haven, CT 06520 | Phone: (203) 432-1663 | Fax: (203) 432-7950
Homepage: http://www.nickbostrom.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:23 MDT