From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Jun 26 2001 - 00:45:45 MDT
Russell Blackford wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins said
>
> >It is a bit strained to speak of our "naturalistic" framework
> >when we fervently
> >strive to overcome all the supposed limits of our nature that we
> >can. Perhaps
> >transhumanism could better be set to be based upon a
> >trans-naturalistic framework.
> >Or don't you find the posibility of simulations within a jupiter
> >brain much richer
> >than the natural world we evolved in to be a bit of a stretch to
> >strict naturalist
> >positions?
>
> Samantha, I think I'll end the debate here, at least my end of it and at
> least for now. We seem to be speaking different languages. In particular,
> "naturalistic" simply means "involving no supernatural element or factor".
> This is standard philosophical usage. I am not familiar with your usage.
>
> There is no supernatural element in the jupiter brain scenario.
Actually, I did look it up and it refers to there being no
underlying intelligence behind nature. While that is probably
where we came from it seems to me that many of us have on our
agenda working to insure it is not where we end up. That is
what I was referring to.
>
> At this point, I'm afraid that whatever I say will be misinterpreted in some
> way and that you'll reply to an idea which I never expressed. You may well
> have the equivalent fear. For all I can tell, we may both we misreading each
> other wildly. I've learned that ongoing debate under these conditions is not
> constructive.
>
> I send you my best wishes and good will
>
I send my goodwill too but I am not sure you are hearing what I
attempted (no doubt poorly) to get across.
But thanks for the exchange.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:17 MST