>On Mar 24, 3:54pm, Robin Hanson wrote:
>
>} but that most people don't feel very compelled to accept the axioms.
>} Thinking that these axioms will persuade very many people also seems a
>} sophmoric cognitive blunder, and does not encourage people to take the
>} other extreme views of these folks seriously.
>
>"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Everything in existence is ordinary.
Everything in nature is natural.
>That they can't identify itisn't important; the
>fact that they do have inductive experience countering our argument
>strongly suggests that there is a missing factor.
They lack the will to survive.
>
>(Was it this list or the transhumans -- Rich Artym? -- where the utility
>and quality of the social sciences were challenged?)
>
>} Here I also have to agree with the critics, at least when they refer
>} to people who expect remarkably rapid progress toward transhuman
>} technologies in the next few decades. This stuff will take a while to
>
Robots are cross-country drivers, runners, and janitors.
AI can follow a conversation better than some humans can.
Arms, legs, hearts, and some parts of brains are replaced with in/organics.
Communications are sent to other galaxies.
Packages can be sent to other planets.
People are brought back from the dead after an hour.
"This stuff will take a while"?
>} I have heard a related criticism that anyone who would especially want
>} to become transhuman is excessively selfish.
Every human dies.
IS IT SELFISH TO WANT TO LIVE,
to stop others from dying,
to continue to do good things instead of being dead?
U.Sov.