[ExI] Sick of Cyberspace?

[Giulio Prisco (2nd email)]

The mainstream is certainly more open to the concept of
post-biological life than it was, say, 20 years ago, and this is a
good outcome in which our combined efforts played a part.

I see the _possibility_of post-biological life as compatible with the
current scientific paradigm, so I am confident (not certain, but
confident) it will be achieved someday. Perhaps not as soon as some
predict, but someday. And I think it is not only doable but also good.

However, we are going to remain stuck with biology for many decades at
least, probably some centuries, and of course we should try making the
best of it.

G.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> This is what I have thought as well, for 20 years, but I am thinking that it
> is has become just a bit dogmatic.  This could be because it has now gone so
> mainstream, even folks at TED are discussing it and now there is a
> university to pomote a watered-down version of it.  BUT, that does not
> change my view that it is wise to avoid sticking so firmly to an absolute
> and to always question our premises and consider alternatives as
> transdiciplinary ideas and new insights.
>
> **The chemistry of communication has been crucial for human evolution.  I
> simply wonder what its future will be.
>
> Best,
> Natasha
>
>
> Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco
> (2nd email)
> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 2:04 AM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Sick of Cyberspace?
>
> In the long term I see humans merging with AI subsystems and becoming purely
> computational beings with movable identities based on some or some other
> kind of physical hardware. I don't think there is any other viable long term
> choice, not if we want to leave all limits behind and increase our options
> without bonds.
>
> But this will take long. In the meantime there are many other stepping
> stones to go through, based on improving our biology and gradually merging
> it with our technology.
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/12/17  <natasha at natasha.cc>:
>>> Are we totally locked into cybernetics for evolution? I thought this
>>> next era was to be about chemistry rather than machines.
>>
>> I come myself from "wet transhumanism" (bio/cogno), and while I got in
>> touch with the movement exactly out of curiosity to learn more about
>> the "hard", "cyber/cyborg" side of things, I am persuased the next era
>> is still about chemistry, and, that when it will stops being there
>> will be little difference between the two.
>>
>> In other words, if we are becoming machines, machines are becoming
>> "chemical" and "organic" at an even faster pace (carbon rather than
>> steel and silicon, biochips, nano...).
>>
>> --
>> Stefano Vaj
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Giulio Prisco
> http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco
> aka Eschatoon Magic
> http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco
aka Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon