[ExI] What % of H+ = Electromechanical Devices
natasha at natasha.cc
natasha at natasha.cc
Fri Jul 31 19:45:47 UTC 2009
"He who asks is a fool for five minutes, but he who does not ask
remains a fool forever." (Chinese proverb)
On July 30, Brent wrote:
> jameschoate at austin.rr.com wrote:
>> It means a human who has stepped outside of their biology.
> I believe this entire discussion of what is or isn't cyborg, human, or
> whatever is naively missing the most important part of what we really are.
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own
reason for existing. (Einstein)
Questing is not naïve, nor is searching for understanding in
dissecting meaning. Putting this aside, your post takes the
discussion (or lack thereof) into a different direction. This may be
meaningful, and probably is, but that ought not to deter the
investigation of how terms are being used in building theory.
Otherwise it is all crap.
> The representational and qualia theories of what we are described in
> the 'Consciousness is Representational and Real' camp here:
The issue of qualia and phenomenology is one aspect, and a crucial
one, of existence and consciousness. Are you sure that a cyborg and a
transhuman have the same eff? Wouldn?t that depend on what stages of
enhancement they are mechanized with in experiencing the world?
> Of course, whether you agree or think differently, the world would
> definitely like to know concisely and quantitatively, what everyone
> including you thinks. And we would like to track what you continue
> to think is the best theory of consciousness, as ever more
> demonstrable scientific proof comes in. Time is obviously running
> out in our great chance to be one of the first in the camp
> representing THE ONE true theory of consciousness everyone could
> possibly, due to the demonstrable science, soon accept as 'true'.
> Whatever camp this turns out to be will certainly tell us much about
> what is and isn't important to H+, electromechanical behavior,
> cyborgs, and so on.<
What I admire about your post is that it takes the discussion, or lack
thereof, into a fertile direction and I'd like to discuss this more.
What distracts me about the links is that the material is expressing
finality with no implication of possible alternatives or suggestion
that this is just one theory. A different theory could very well come
along and offer insights, with evidence. I could be wrong, although
it's a good idea to keep a window cracked.
More information about the extropy-chat