[extropy-chat] against ID

[Herb Martin]

> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 02:03:22PM -0500, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> 
> > But many transhumanists do believe in ID in the guise of the 
> > Simulation Argument. 
> 
> Not this transhumanist.
> 
> Can we see a show of hands? Who of you here actually believes in
> SA in a strong sense? I.e., would you be willing to bet your life
> on it?
> 

Perhaps.

Intuitively it seems a terrible bet, but with consideration
of the evidence logically it isn't quite so obvious.  (Kurzweil
makes this argument in "The Singularity is Near" and it is 
logically compelling while remaining emotionally unsatisfying.)

The statistical argument is strong but not airtight.

If I MUST be my life on anything then I am going to go with
the logical and scientific odds in so far as I can know them,
but....

The terms AND context of the bet would have to be stated
explicitly, and very carefully, to make rational decision
possible, e.g.:

Would everyone who was WRONG about SA be destroyed too?
(Thus requiring one to choose between two-plus, VERY explicit,
choices, not just "SA" in general, unless that is the wording
chosen by this hypothetical executioner....but such deserves
to be made unambiguous and removed from the area of assumptions
and the normal "common sense", that of course "everyone knows.")

Referencing earlier in the thread (I have been traveling)...

Also, with ID, in THEORY there is no claim to a supernatural
mythological god of any particular religion -- that such a
position is disingenuous at best, was the reason for my mentioning
that ID enthusiasts in the traditional anti-Evolutionary sense,
would be upset to find that a scientific explanation of origins using
Intelligent Design would have to mention the Simulation Argument,
and would likely conclude SA was the MOST LIKELY scenario
were ID to be correct.

This would greatly upset most everyone who associates their
religious position with ID.
 
--
Herb Martin