I'm really curious WAS-> Re: The non-existence of posthumans

From: Justin Corwin (thesweetestdream@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Feb 26 2001 - 14:36:27 MST

i think that you have a point, that trans/post/neo/X whatever *human is
really just a case of definition.

you call yourself posthuman. it seems to be just a less rigorous requirement
than i expect, because i'm using the scale of extropian trans to post(which
is supposed to occur when we all get natasha's new set of wheels)(and/or
stop with the exclusive humanoidism altogether.
but again, it's your definition, not mine.

however, i'm a little confused. you invoke MVT a lot. But i don't really
understand how this is a powerful philosophy, or exactly how it does the
things you claim it can.

as i understand it MVT is just a theory that states that information is
fundamentally different than physical structure. so in order to interact
with informative states, you need a non-physical structure, which is the
neuroanatomical "hole" around where the median eye(or whatever you want to
call it) used to be, before we stopped needing it to do what it does in
lower animals.


based on this, cetecarians(sp?) like dophins and such are concious, or at
least capable of being so. as well as a few other animals.

now where i get confused is when you say that MVT could produce mind-control
theorems, better hypnosis, that understanding it makes your psychology
different than mine.

what insights does MVT give you on human psycho-anatomy that is not just
syncretistic of other discoveries. and if you reallly have a lock on this,
why aren't you out there selling the results of this theorem, rather than
just the theory itself?

if you've really got something, people respond better when you show some
results, and they ask how you got them, rather than just telling them the
basis for something they've never seen before. (hm, bad sentence structure,
but i hope you get the gist)

>Of course, I understand MVT! My psychology is pretty unique.
>But we are still "remotely" ape-like in appearance, and I must appear
>remotely human and use your crummy languages in order to communicate
>with you .....

where is the functional difference that occurs when you "understand" or use
MVT? what kind of advantages do you have over us non-adepti?

<snip long reply to max more's post>

>MVT has been debated in depth on this list. The facts and claims have
>always been open to scrutiny and refutation.

out of curiosity, when was it debated, and who was involved? i imagine
eliezer would take umbrage at the idea that information processing on the
order of conciousness requires imaginary objects, and a lot of people here
seem to subscribe to the church-turing idea that all mindstuff can be
computationally modeled.

anyway, when it was debated, how did it turn out? MVT seems a little
philosophic for JR, and other people who like their houses nice and tidy.
and certainly seems to violate occams razor to me, but then, i don't really
know much past what i read on your website.


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:48 MDT