[ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.

Eschatoon Magic eschatoon at gmail.com
Sun Jan 18 07:56:04 UTC 2009

Mike: following Einstein, spacetime is more fundamental than 3D space
at a given time (different observers would not agree on simultaneity).
Nature can be defined as all that exists in spacetime. I hope not to
see the Sun going nova in my lifetime, but the event "the sun goes
nova" exists in spacetime (if our descendants will not be able to do
something about it). All future entities and events exist in

"once humanity is uplifted (by whatever means) there will be no
purpose for transhumanism as group." Well, once women were allowed to
vote, there was no purpose for the social movement in favor of voting
rights for women. But they repurposed and moved on other feminist
issues, and their struggle continues today. Similarly, transhumanism
is about leaving all limits behind, and I don't think we will be able
to do that anytime soon. There will always be new frontiers to explore
and new limits to overcome.

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Eschatoon Magic <eschatoon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tom, I think a belief in the "supernatural" is hardly compatible with
>> transhumanism, or with any system of thought based on the scientific
>> method. To me the "supernatural" does not exist as a matter of
>> definition: we define "nature" as all that exists, hence nothing
>> outside of nature exists. This is grammar, not philosophy.
> I'd say this is semantics.  If nature is all that exists, then what of
> the future?  Computronium, as commonly conceived on this list, does
> not exist - is it outside nature?  Do we hope to bring it into
> existence?  Is nature inclusive of all possible futures?  Are we
> defining nature to include multiple dimensions of space-time?  If we
> stretch the definition beyond it's commonly understood usage, it
> becomes nearly meaningless.  If we accept the general SL1-level
> understanding of nature as the concept associated with the term, then
> the ideas of SL3+ become supernatural by definition.  By this point we
> are discussing the denominations of transhumanism as surely as
> Protestant and Methodist are denominations of Christianity.
>> Transhumanists also think that everything in existence can in
>> principle, and should, be studied by science and improved (or built
>> from scratch) by engineering.
> By that definition, was Pythagoras a transhumanist?
>> Having said this, we should bear in mind that reality may well be much
>> more complex than we currently know and imagine, and that in this huge
>> complexity there may well be room for things that could seem
>> "supernatural", including an afterlife and one or more Gods. I am
>> referring to Clarke's third law and Shakespeare "there are more things
>> in heavens and earth...". But the wonderful things that may well exist
>> in the present or future universe are not supernatural, just beyond
>> our current understanding.
> Yes, and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
> from magic.  Wielding that advantage over the less advanced raises
> morality questions.  To borrow an example from SciFi's SG1 series: the
> Goa'uld posing as Egyptian gods was wrong, while the Asgard as Norse
> gods presented themselves to be benevolent protectors.  Both lied to
> their naive human wards.
> I do agree with you (Eschatoon) that transhumanism should be defined
> in a way that clearly reinforces the goal of reaching higher.
> However, if the goal is only to exceed Humanism - then once humanity
> is uplifted (by whatever means) there will be no purpose for
> transhumanism as group.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

Eschatoon Magic
aka Giulio Prisco

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list