[ExI] Dealing with transhumanism bashing
ALONZOTG at verizon.net
Sat Jun 22 22:42:42 UTC 2013
Yes, Alex has some problems understanding some transhumanist concepts
however, I think his recent coverage (in the past few weeks) of
Kurzweil's ideas to be dead on accurate. =(
Why am I the ONLY person who always gets upset when people spew garbage
about how the entire universe will be converted to computronium, by
human intention, and that everyone will be uploaded by means of
destructive scanning, and, especially, that there is something *GOOD*
about that future...
I mean, why can't we have a discussion about how what criteria we will
use to determine which limited parts of the universe will be used for
computronium and which we will use for other purposes?
Why can't we have a discussion about how to preserve humanoid life as an
I've spent the last few months trolling for information about what good
things will happen to an upload, once it is duly scanned and simulated.
I have not gotten a good answer yet.
What I found is that most of the websites of the people I know to be
hard-core uploaders have been, um, *sanitized*. If you read their
rantings, they are still absolutely in favor of every available nucleon
being re-purposed for "simulation", whatever the hell that word means...
(What the hell kind of "simulation" actually substitutes for reality
instead of being a crude model of it??) -- I'm looking at you, Anissimov!
Actually, my only real find came last week when I came across:
Now how should I respond to this?
"Oh it's only fiction, just an idea..." ???
"How nice..." ????
Or, should I say:
"OMFG!!! Jeff Lutty actually intends to release the Nats, I've gotta
Even H+ magazine recently spewed out
where the alleged facts were hardly distinguishable from the alleged
misconceptions. Furthermore an entirely implausible argument was made
about how easy it will be to "modify" an upload. A moment's thought will
see that any low level emulation of a mind will be extremely difficult
to modify by virtue of it's extreme complexity. Furthermore, the types
of modifications possible will be tightly constrained by the limitations
of the software running the simulation, where in the physical world they
are effectively unbounded.
What part of that vision is supposed to be appealing anyway? Lets say
that everything this Paul Hughes character said was plausible, even
where it's logically contradictory. (ie, if the normal state of being is
a heavily medicated -- er, I mean mediated, self-delusion, then how is
that compatible with the existence of a simulated star-wars universe
where the beings would have to be forced to accept their provided
perceptions as the one true reality in order for them to be at all
interested with the problem the simulation provides them. Why would you
want to sit there and watch all the natural wonders of the universe
being obliterated by the expansion front? That would be a nightmare in
Here's another good question. Transhumanism seems to have degenerated
into discussing two things Uploading (not what life will be like after
being uploaded, but the process of uploading itself and only that) and
living long enough to be uploaded (cryonics, life extension etc...) Why
can't we talk about how awesome it will be to be a nano-cyborg and what
we need to do to push that type of technology forward? =\
Alex Jones is simply trying to invite more people to discuss this stuff
because it really is important.
Natasha Vita-More wrote:
> Hi everyone!
> Have you read the recent writings by Alex Jones and his
> transhumanism-bashing? If so, would you like to be a voice of reason
> on his ridiculous articles? (And another one which is far-fetched).
> (Rachel Maddow suggests Alex Jones is gaining momentum).
> (Alex Jones’ site).
> (by Mike Adams which like reading National Enquirer).
NOTICE: NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS, SEE ABOVE
Powers are not rights.
More information about the extropy-chat