From: Mark Walker (mdwalker@quickclic.net)
Date: Fri Sep 07 2001 - 19:45:18 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Hixson" <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>
> Notice that this doesn't really have anything to do with the
> singularity at all.
The connection is made on the supposition that after the singularity there
will exist beings that are cognitively enhanced compared to our present lot.
> And when the post-singularity beings
> appear, everyone will be post singularity.
What we need to suppose here is that there will be some cogntively enhanced
beings (posthumans) in the post-singularity world. Obviously all creatures
will be post singularity, even vermin and lice. What I am suggesting is that
not all creatures will have an enhanced intelligence--suppose some humans,
for example, choose for religious, ethical or other reasons not to enhance
their intelligence.
>
> A similarity or two between a couple of processes isn't
> sufficient to call them the same, or even closely related.
My position is not that they are the same or closely related. Waldemar
Ingdahl maintains that they are antagonstic. I am a suggesting there may be
some overlap in their epistemological and ethical ramifications. But this is
not to assert an identity.
> Sometimes it's sufficient to make a coarse grouping, e.g., live
> vs. dead or unicellular vs. multicellular, but please notice
> just how broad these categories are. Oysters and Orangutans not
> only are both multi-cellular, but both of them have names
> begining with O. But there are perhaps as many differences
> between them as similarities (or perhaps not, but there sure are
> a lot of differences).
Gee, thanks for the elementary lesson in metaphysics. And there I thought
Being was an undifferentiated unity. :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:25 MST