From: Richard Steven Hack (richardhack@pcmagic.net)
Date: Sat Mar 09 2002 - 18:14:15 MST
At 04:58 PM 3/9/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Richard Steven Hack wrote:
> >
> > At 01:05 PM 3/9/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > >Actually, it is an absolute, since scientific progress shows no sign of
> > >exceeding it outside of using loopholes like wormholes, etc. Experiments
> > >in FTL all demonstrate that wavefront speeds are always restrained to
> > >light speed.
> >
> > Note your statement above - "outside of using loopholes" - my point
> > exactly... And I repeat, that "scientific progress shows no sign of
> > exceeding it" does not make it an absolute. We merely have evidence that
> > it MAY be an absolute. This is elementary philosophy of
> > science. Scientists do not claim absolutes - only theories that get better
> > as time goes on. In practice, we may regard and act as if what we believe
> > to know is true, but in precision we cannot claim this as an
> > absolute. Perhaps a Transhuman with sufficient direct knowledge of the
> > universe can do so, but we cannot.
>
>Theories get better at defining the limit of an asymtotic singularity.
>They do not puncture it. An asmytotic limit IS an absolute.
I believe I implied that. The question is whether we KNOW it to be an
absolute limit. I submit that at our present state of knowledge (since
there ARE scientists who dispute it) we do not KNOW that it is an ABSOLUTE
limit.
>Nor are loopholes like wormholes an actual breaking of the light speed
>limit, since they are simply a completely consistent concept under
>relativistic timespace.
The point is, if I understand the concept of wormholes, that while one
perhaps does not "break" the speed of light, one can "evade" it. I'm only
interested in results - if I can't do it one way, I'll do it
another. That's the difference between a Transhumanist and a pedant.
>What exactly is 'sufficient direct knowledge'? How is 'sufficient direct
>knowledge' any different from what humanity has been accomplishing for
>millenia?
By "sufficient direct knowledge" I mean being able to send the necessary
scientific instrumentation to and possibly direct eyeball (or whatever
transhumans use as "eyeballs") inspection of larger areas of the universe
than our solar system and the data we can gather via astronomy. It should
be apparent to anyone following the newspapers that every time science
moves out a little ways, the current theories tend to get mangled. The
size of the universe, for example, seems to grow substantially every few
years...
How is it different from what we have been doing? Degree... Or are you
assuming that a Transhuman entity with a brain thinking a million times
faster than ours and the ability to manufacture any scientific
instrumentation he can engineer and send it anywhere it can reach is not
going to discover anything new?
> > >
> > >A transhuman may indeed have a need to replicate in order to increase
> > >its rate of experience. Producing 1000 copies of oneself increases the
> > >rate of experience a thousand fold. Merging the experience back into one
> > >individual allows a transhuman to gain far more experience while
> > >minimizing the risk. Brin's new book on Dittos delves into the negative
> > >aspects of this, though I believe Sheffield wrote a very interesting
> > >novel on the positives.
> >
> > Ah. that is an interesting concept. However, if a Transhuman can utilize
> > telepresence or other technologies to increase his rate of "experience",
> > why would he create potentially competitive replicants of himself (note
> > here that I assume for the sake of argument the notion some others seem to
> > believe that such replicants would in fact be competitive). Also, could
> > the Transhuman not replicate himself with agents that can provide him with
> > the experience, but not the competition or the resource consumption?
>
>If you can't trust yourself to not compete with yourself, then you won't
>produce dittos of yourself. If you are capable of comprehending rational
>self interest (i.e. each 'individual' doesn't lose anything by joining,
>they gain x times more) and treat the body simply as a husk for the
>mind, you have no qualms about such practices.
Perhaps, but some other people on this list seem to assume that such
entities will compete. I don't claim to know . I tend to agree with your
view in this regard. However, my point stands - replication is not a given.
> >
> > The argument assumes that the only way to gain the necessary knowledge of
> > the universe is to directly experience it, which in turn will require
> > essentially consuming a significant portion of the universe to produce
> > enough sources of experience.
>
>Why is this essential?
That's not MY view - that's what I am questioning!
> > When I claim that a Transhuman need not
> > replicate, I am referring to the logical conclusion that once a posthuman
> > has sufficient resources to insure his survival, he has no need to
> > replicate.
>
>Assuming the individual transhuman no longer feels the need for familial
>companionship or producing clones of oneself for mere insurance's sake.
>If you can't stand yourself so much that you'd rather not subject
>yourself to yourself, I doubt that you'd become transhuman while being
>so self conflicted.
Familial companionship? For a Transhuman? I doubt that very much. And as
I have indicated elsewhere, producing clones of yourself does NOT insure
anything about YOUR survival - only about the survival of entities that -
at some point in time - used to be you. The last remark sounds suspiciously
like a sandbagging, so I'll ignore it...
> > Also I emphasize that given the nature of space-time (as we
> > currently understand it), replication does not change the original state of
> > the original being and therefore is not a means to immortality. Now, if it
> > can be demonstrated that the nature of the universe (as we understand it)
> > is such that to in fact insure its survival, the Transhuman must in fact
> > replicate, then I will reconsider the argument. Can someone point me to
> > such a logical demonstration on the Web or elsewhere?
>
>If it turns out that genetically reengineering living beings is
>impossible due to immune reactions and other conflicts, then transhumans
>will be left with having to impose germline changes in successive
>generations of bodies which they would transfer their minds into in
>successive generations (like upgrading your PC)....
Ah, I suspect a direct nanotech replacement of the body and brain would
overtake that technology very quickly...
> > > >
> > > > As I say above, replication is not the issue. It is not clear that
> > > > Transhumans need be competitive - that is *human* thinking (and
> low-grade
> > > > human thinking at that).
> > >
> > >The idea that human thinking is low grade is an artifact of primitive
> > >religious superstition and statist disinformation. It is human thinking
> > >that has gotten us as far as we have, so it obviously must be pretty
> > >damn good.
> >
> > I did not say all human thinking was low-grade. What I said was that the
> > statement made was "human" thinking AND that the statement made was
> > "low-grade" human thinking. And of course one can divide human thinking
> > into the good stuff and the bad stuff - both of which have put us where we
> > are now. Which one will prevail is the subject of discussion.
>
>Well, it seems that you are yourself conflicted. You assume that clones
>of yourself will automatically compete with you for resources (and I
>don't know what else), but this is assuming that there is a scarcity of
>resources to compete for.
As noted above, that is not MY argument - that is someone else's idea. I
have no problem with producing clones of myself other than the fact that I
see no need to do so. Nor do I assume that there is a scarcity of
resources. I believe earlier posts by others indicated that there might be
unconstrained replication which would eat up significant resources and thus
pose a limit on the survival probability of any given Transhuman. I tend
to doubt that because I do not see any need for a Transhuman to replicate
in such a manner unless there is an a priori need, i.e., some apparent
threat to its survival if it does not do so. I'm still waiting for someone
- other than Leitl who revels in incomprehensible prose worse than Hakim
Bey - :} - to produce an argument as to the nature of this need to replicate.
>You are also assuming that the transhuman individual will be limited to
>a physical corporeal existence, which is a bit presumptuous to assume as
>a given. When you can fit your conciousness into any old teaspoon of
>dirt, dust, or plasma anywhere in the universe, how exactly do you think
>you will have a need to 'compete' with duplicates you make of yourself,
>especially if those duplicates are light years distant from each other?
If you can fit your consciousness in a piece of dirt, how is this not
"corporeal existence"? That dirt - or any computer system - is subject to
the effects of the physical universe. The only argument I can entertain
here is the one which I originally read by Robert Ettinger - that any
entity occupying a single confined area of space/time cannot be immortal
because there is a greater than zero probability that the area of
space/time occupied will be trashed, and this probability approaches one
the longer the entity exists; his corollary is that if you somehow
separate yourself into more than one space/time location, the odds
flip-flop and your survival is assured.
The problem with this notion is metaphysical - how do you separate yourself
into more than one location in space/time AND still maintain the coherence
and continuity that is YOU? We don't know any technology to do it
(telepresence doesn't count - that does not move YOU, it merely extends
your perception and brings the universe to you; similarly, cloning creates
OTHER BEINGS - it does not separate YOU).
Actually, I am not convinced that Ettinger's argument is valid, or at least
that it too is some sort of absolute that cannot somehow be "evaded". And
in any event, it is not clear nor certain how long it would be before your
portion of space/time got trashed - a few billion years might be enough for
me if in fact there is not way to avoid it. Like a sci-fi novel I read a
couple years ago, I'll put a few trillion femtoprocessors to work on the
problem when I get around to it....
Richard Steven Hack
richardhack@pcmagic.net
--- Outgoing e-mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:53 MST