[extropy-chat] How to be copied into the future?

[Lee Corbin]

Robert writes

>> > > Since I can't complain about you, then, maybe I can go after Robert,
>> > > who just wrote
>> > 
>> > Future "salvation vectors" are much more likely to be based upon
>> > "wisdom vectors" rather than "mercy vectors".  Wise actions will
>> > save many more people than merciful behaviors, particularly those 
>> > directed towards an improbable and unprovable direction.).
> 
>Oh  yea, pick on the minority will ya....

There aren't a lot of posts, right now---I just don't have much to work with.

> You, I hope, will note that I am not specifying directions,
> I am simply laying out possible paths. 

> > By "salvation vector" are you trying to describe a merit list of those 
> > who *deserve* to be saved?   If so, then this still smacks of a rather
> > vengeful God who punishes people in the next life for what they've
> > done in the first one.
> 
> God, can we scrap this vector?  There is no "god" and there is no 
> "salvation" vector".

Well, you're the one who used the term, such things whatever they
are being as you said more likely based on wisdom than mercy.

> Can we put it to rest in this forum, as a thread, forever?

Fine with me!   :-)

> Now, completely separate from that, one has a discussion of "who
> deserves to be saved".

Okay:  that is not a "salvation vector" which term is now officially
beyond the pale by all right thinking people  :-)   But we *do* have
a discussion of "who deserves to be saved"???

> I would argue that the "saving" paradigm is a brief intersection in
> the MBrain paradigm. There may be a few moments during which
> the saving of static paradigms is a default.

Translating into my simple-speak, I take you to mean that in the
likely course of evolution of super-advanced intelligence, the
preservation of static programs (i.e. people) may occur as a default?
For a while?

Thanks,
Lee