> From: Dan Clemmensen <dgc@cox.rr.com>
>
> > Sorry, but I respectfully and completely disagree. Our current concept
> > of the singularity is grounded in science, not philosophy. It is a
> > simple forward extrapolation of well-understood phenomena.
The development of technology on the largest scale, the autocatalytic
aspects of intelligence amplification (which we only partially have today)
and how all this interacts with human culture, adaptability and economics
are hardly simple or well-understood.
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 08:31:48AM -0400, Mark Walker wrote:
>
> Since we disagree completely (but respectfully) let us take this in stages.
> Let's work on the concept of transhumanism first, and then worry about the
> connection (if any) with a singularity. The understanding I offered above of
> transhumanism has a teleological and an ethical component. Perhaps we
> disagree on this. Your post emphasizes the predictive nature of science.
> Perhaps your understanding of transhumanism is similar to Robin Hansons:
>
> "Transhumanism is the idea that new technologies are likely to change the
> world so much in the next century or two that our descendants will in many
> ways no longer be "human." "
>
> (This quote is from Ander's site). This definition seems more in line with
> your comments than the one I offered. For myself, I not sure how
> enlightening it is to concentrate simply on the likelihood of various future
> histories. Suppose some Joyians (followers of Bill Joy) think that it is
> very likely that our descendants may no longer be human, but see this as a
> terrible catastrophe. Even though they understand that there is an extremely
> low probability of stopping these changes, nevertheless they valiantly
> struggle to stop the march of technology. On the other hand, suppose that
> there are some that think that we ought to use technology to perfect
> ourselves even though they think there is a low probabilty that we will do
> so. (Perhaps because they think that the disparate elements of society that
> are afraid of such changes will galvanize in opposition making progress
> impossible). Nevertheless, these heroic souls bravely struggle for "the
> cause". It seems to me that the latter are the transhumanists, not the
> former, even though they make rather bleak predictions. In other words, it
> is the ethical imperative that seems to me to be more central to the concept
> of transhumanism, as opposed to any predictions (short of certainty) about
> the likelihood of various future histories. Mark
This seems related to the discussions we had during the writing of the
transhumanist FAQ. The same issues came up there. Maybe we could
distinguish between radical futurism - the idea that the future will not be
like the present in some relevant ways - and transhumanism - the idea that
it is good in some sense to strive for some of these futures.
Traditionally it has of course been the transhumanists who have been doing
most of the thinking and imagining of radical futures. Recently radical
futurism is becoming more common, and this actually poses an interesting
challenge for us transhumanists: how do we justify our striving to others?
Previously the radical futurism was hard enough to sell, and most of the
efforts went into convincing people that nanotech or cryonics was even
possible. These days it is more a question about showing that many popular
radical futures are *not* possible (no clone armies!) and arguing against
future shock/reaction.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:02 MDT