From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Sep 08 2001 - 05:09:43 MDT
Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 02:16:46PM -0700, Mark Walker wrote:
> > From: "Anders Sandberg" <asa@nada.kth.se>
> >
> > > Hmm, do you mean that since some philosophers thought comprehension of
> > > eudaimonia was not possible for the many and the singularity is also
> > > incomprehensible, there is a link? That sounds rather far-fetched.
> > Really? What exactly do you find far-fetched? It seems to me that in both
> > cases there is said to be an epistemic gap between (t least some) humans and
> > those that are more godlike in their wisdom. If this epistemic similarity is
> > not sufficient to constitute a link reflect on the fact that it seems to
> > raise the same sorts of ethical and political consequences. If the
> > postsingularity beings are wiser than us then they may have a better idea of
> > what are eudaimonia consists in than we do; which is analogous to the
> > position Plato attributes to the philosopher-king as compared with the hoi
> > polloi. Plato thought the philosopher-kings and the guardians would be
> > justified in bringing the many into line by force and deceit. Will the
> > postsingularity beings be similarly justified?
>
> I think you are mixing up the concept of the singularity with the
> putative properties of posthumans. Using this way of reasoning christian
> theology is clearly linked to eudaimonism, since God ought to be very
> good at understanding eudaimonia. What Waldemar was originally pointing
> out is that the singularity concept in our discourse tends to draw undue
> attention to highly hypothetical futures which are also implied to be
> unknowable and quite often appear static, and asking whether this
> wouldn't limit our eudaimonic striving.
>
There is nothing necessarily "Christian" about such
speculations. Aristotle and Plato were certainly not
Christian. Nor are such ideas foreign to many cultural
institutions, religious and secular. The fundamental question
doesn't seem so unreasonable.
> I agree with Charles that the idea of philosopher kings being justified
> in using force to bring about their ideas is largely discredited. At
> least I do not wish to support such behavior, neither of philosophers or
> posthumans.
>
What will you recommend when those who will oppose the very
existence of any trans/post-humans take up force to stop such
coming about? Assuming adroit side-stepping of such blockage,
what will be your post-attitude toward various factions of
current level humans attempting endlessly to wipe each other out
largely from little more than some errors in their thinking
based in limited understanding, training, biology and so on?
Will you sit and let them kill each other utterly? Or might
you, given the power, back all of them up continuously with DNA
samples so that they can have another go until they grow up a
bit? Or perhaps slap them in a Matrix like arrangement designed
for their eventual (at their own pace - no force) evolution into
more enlightened beings?
Honestly, what would you consider the most moral and ethical
course and why?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:25 MST