> No, he said 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
> magic." He did NOT say that it WAS magic. THINK.
If something is indistinguishable, than what is the difference? (Which
brings us back to Leibniz's Law)
> > Anyway, since when is our destiny of a mundane nature? This notion has
> > been commonly believed for a very short duration of humanity's
> > I'd also argue that this notion is purely transitionary, a kind of
> > collective "dark night of the soul" (as a mystic would put it) before
ourinitiation into the Transhuman existence...
> Nobody is going to give us a leg up, there is no Galactic Confederation,
> Daniken was a moron, and Childhood's End was FICTION. Get over it.
I agree with all that you mentioned, but no one has yet explained why we
have not already been overrun by other transsentient cultures or see no
evidence of their existence- I see only three possible explanations-
1. We're the only planet in the universe that has developed sentient life.
2. All sentient cultures are doomed to destroy themselves- there is no
singularity, no offworld colonization, no transsentience- so your entire
extropian movement is moot, and we should best look elsewhere for our
3. By gaining cognition of the universe at a level beyond our comprehension,
they have gained an understanding that has allowed them to transcend the
objective universe and become, essentially, gods.
> Sagan was showboating buffoon who was doing memetic programming.
Yes, but he was a damn good one...
> Supernatural, adj. 1. Existing outside of, or exhibiting properties
> contradictory to the laws of, the natural universe.
> No, transhumans are NOT supernatural. Inhabitants of a Universe Prime,
> our universe as a quantum simulation, would be supernatural deities, but
> cannot interfere with the simulation.
Hah! You're forgetting something- our knowledge of the so-called "laws" of
the "natural universe" are, in fact, the most likely interpretations that
our senses and our limited brains are able to give us. A transhuman would
be supernatural, in the fact that through the knowledge and manipulation of
forces beyond the comprehension of "mere mortals", they could essentially
alter realities in ways that could only be seen as going beyond the "laws"
of the universe. Which, again, brings us back to Arthur C. Clarke's
> incredible: lacking credibility. Sorry, any Power I ever meet would likely
> very credible in its existence. Overwhelmingly so. It might be amazing,
> would not be mystical or supernatural.
This cannot be known until it has been experienced.
> > I'm one of those strange people who sees no contradiction between being
> > mystical and being scientific (and I don't even need some arcane
> > interpretation of quantum physics or feel the need to bend the rules of
> > probability to back me up).
> Then you need to drop the SF and start reading real science books.
Oh, I certainly read "real science books"- but what does this have to do
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:21 MDT