Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Emlyn wrote:
> >
> > I was being 'orrible and flippant. But I had a point...
> >
> > Firstly, all this "mysticism" stuff. Gag me with a spoon!
>
> Well, if you insist. :-)
If I ever meet you in person, remind me to wear a suit of armour!
>
> >Special spiritual
> > insight, grokking the nature of reality; where does that really get you?
>
> Generally, a lot more integrated and peaceful. Sometimes admittedly it
> can leave you simply blissed out and rather silly.
>
> > You
> > feel like it does something positive, but I think it's really just
feelgood
> > crud; I'd say you'd be hard pressed to show any measurable benefit of
such
> > epiphany.
>
> I wouldn't be so quick to toss out as "crud" some of the central visions
> of human history. Some of these visions have fueled lifes of great
> importance like those of some of the greatest scientists in history.
> Some of them have fueled (admittedly not always for the good) entire
> civilizations. Learn from this stuff. Tap these energies if you can.
> This is not all fluff.
OK, it has its place, sure. Personal "mysticism" or "spirituality" has a use
as a source of inspiration, and as a motivator. I guess you need to get your
ideas from somewhere. What I object to is the terminology, I guess. What
does "mysticism" mean? What does "spirituality" mean? They remind me of
words like "natural"; loaded with emotional content, but vague and
undefinable. Semantically bankrupt?
>
> >It sounds suspiciously like the idea of psychedelic drugs
> > "expanding your consciousness". The idea appeals (at least under the
> > influence of them, as far as I recall), but it's pretty much meaningless
in
> > any tangible context. In the end, this stuff is the enemy of rational
> > thought, basically by definition.
> >
>
> Do you think then that rational thought is wholly and completely
> sufficient for all occassions and purposes?
>
No, I don't; rational thinking is not inspiration, and can never substitute
for it. Well, maybe a more intelligent being can use rationality to do what
a less intelligent being would have to use inspiration/intuition for, but
the more intelligent being can still use inspiration to reach even further.
But this is still in the context of, and entirely bounded by, rational
thought. You can use inspiration to decide what to prove/test, but rational
thought must do the proof/testing.
> > Secondly, and more importantly; this idea of building God for ourselves
is
> > downright dangerous. The god meme has appeal; it's nice to believe that
> > there's a point to the universe, after all (delusional as that may be).
By
> > extension, when you decide there isn't a God (or a Sysop), then it can
seem
> > like a good idea to make one, or become one.
> >
> >
>
> What the heck do you think building a Singularity is if not giving a
> tremendous "point" to the Universe or at least to human history? If
> there is no point then the only point is what we decide to make a point
> of. yes?
>
Heh heh. This implies that the Singularity is under control. I think the
idea of consciously building the Singularity is pretty reckless; we hope
it'll be a "good" thing (in our relative moral codes; I doubt the Amish
would agree, for example), but we can't actually demostrate this with any
surety. It's blind faith.
Yes, the only point, the only purpose, is the one we make. We must, however,
be careful about inflicting that purpose on others.
Actually, "must" is too strong a word; no one is compelling you to play
nice. But if you go down that path, I think the gloves come off all round,
and fair enough. In my subjective morality, anyhow.
>
> > What does that mean, though? If you are going to build a do-it-yourself
> > guardian (in the sense of Plato - it was Plato, wasn't it?) then I think
> > that's bad news; the best outcome we can hope for is failure. It's also
> > bloody arrogant.
> >
>
> If there is no God and mysticism is crud then in what context or in
> reference to what set of (presumably) rationally defined values is it
> "bloody arrogant"? Particularly if we are all the intelligent life
> there is (as far as we know) then it would be a great shame if we didn't
> produce something for all the bother.
>
Fair enough; the concept of arrogance is ungrounded. I guess I'm assuming
some rules of conduct in the universe, along the lines of "be excellent to
each other, dudes". If not excellent, at least don't defecate all over each
other. It goes along with relative morality; you need to adopt something
about letting others do things their way, and expecting that they'll respect
you doing things your way. Or else, I guess you can always have a big
punch-up to see who's right, but it would seem rational to avoid that as a
default behaviour.
Building something advanced and amazing, including an SI, is laudable! Of
course! But aspiring to build the cosmic ref, who'll enforce "be excellent
to each other, dudes" is arrogant, and dangerous. Who decides what this
absolute "be excellent" is? And who will guard the guardian?
> > If you are going to become one, you either envisage being such a
guardian,
> > or maybe raising everyone up to equal status. In the guardian case, the
same
> > arguments apply as above. In the egalitarian case, where is godhood?
It's
> > more powerful beings, sure, but a society of such. So the concept of God
is
> > not useful in that context.
> >
>
> The concept of a world of abundance, a world where many of todays
> horrors are things of the past (although who knows about new horrors?) a
> world where death is a thing of dim memory and the cosmos opens up
> before our expanded sentience is quite compelling and is as much of a
> "heaven on earth" as anything in any scripture.
All these goals are laudable, I fully support them. However, linking them to
concepts of "heaven" or paradise has a couple of problems. Firstly, it
underestimates the desires of humanity, which are usually relative to what
we already have; any finite heaven on earth is just going to seem like
boring old, everyday earth in quick order. Secondly, linking these (quite
earthly) goals to religious/spiritual concepts plays to the more dogmatic
tendencies of transhumanism/extropianism; the side of us which is less about
discovery and rational investigation, and more like a millenarian cult. It's
an aspect that we ought to struggle against, to retain credibility and
usefulness.
> Godhood is a relative thing in such a case.
> As minds merge and become ever more powerful I
> suspect you reach a Singularity of such dimensions that the result will
> satisfy any and all non-contradictory tests of God-hood that can be
> devised.
>
We are not going to be Gods. We may just end up as beings who are pretty
damned powerful when compared to present day humans, but we will still be
fallible physical creatures, made of atoms. Imagining godhood can only bring
bad things, in my opinion.
> > Basically, the concept of God is all about authority, control,
dominance.
> > The ideas of benign rule, divine right, perfection. If you have any kind
of
> > individualist streak, these are anathema.
> >
>
> That is one view of God is about. It is certainly not universal, not
> even among the world's major religions.
>
Well, not formally, anyway.
> > Gods will not help us where we are going. But they could seriously stuff
> > things up.
>
> So you're not objecting so much because you thing a god is impossible as
> because you think it would be a singularly bad thing (tm) if/when we
> manage to create one? cool.
Yes, because we will not be creating a God (whatever that is), no matter how
much we wish it were so. It'll just be another creature, made of atoms,
trying to find it's way (and it's lunch) in the universe.
Emlyn
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:21 MDT