RE: Re: Living under water

From: Mikael Johansson (mikael.johansson@wineasy.se)
Date: Wed Jun 27 2001 - 05:37:29 MDT


('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) ('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> Waldemars posts make my head ache -- most probably because I have
> to stretch so far out of my hermits life to relate to them.
>
> Ill simply point out some observations --
> - "extended orders", "social", and "economical" relations do not exist
> (or exist only at extremely broad reference points relative to
> those we are familiar with) when one considers interstellar
> civilizations.

I'm not sure I agree with this... A social relation would exist as soon as interaction between individuals occurs, and an economical relation as soon as this interaction calls upon either individual to /do/ anything at all -- or did I just misunderstand some basic concepts?

> - The concept of "a hermits life in isolation" is the "ground
> of being" for advanced civilizations in the universe.

Why?

> - "psychological needs" are entirely a product of evolution --
> once we have our "hands" on the dials the "conventional" needs
> become irrelevant

Why? It is not a self-evident development.

> (i.e. Waldemars/Daniels perspectives are
> *only* relevant for either (a) the next 20-40 years a most; or

Heh... Santa's coming, and he'll abolish all your need for other beings completely ;-)

> (b) if significant fractions of humanity choose *not* to play
> with the dials; or perhaps (c) if the Sysop AI says no-no-no,
> you dont get to change your own code...

Why not (d) We get to change our own code, but choose to keep social and economical relations in one way or another since it would be the more efficient solution?
 
> If we are the first species to encounter the singularity (which Ill
> freely admit the jury is still debating), then there are more than
> enough Brown Dwarfs to allow each of us to become an SI. > In that
> situation all of this discussion of "society" & "economics",
> "affection" and "approval" becomes pretty irrelevant.

Will it really?
Why should our becoming SIs abolish our wish to interact with each other?

> On the scale of the universe, which each of you potentially
> has the opportunity to participate in, you are debating whether
> or not the dust that has accumulated on your kitchen table
> over the last evening -- is or is not -- "appealing".

Ummm... You begin by arguing that everything will change so quickly in the coming 20 years so that everything Waldemar and Daniel say will be irrelevant, and continue to argue that what they are debating comes from a period too short(albeit with both longer span than the 20 years to Singularity Santa's arrival, and a much slower rate of change).... it seems to me that a slightly concealed selfcontradiction is present...

> Robert

// Mikael Johansson



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:18 MST