Re: italian interest

From: Steve (
Date: Mon Jul 10 2000 - 05:22:35 MDT

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 14:41:36 EDT
Subject: Re: italian interest

In a message dated 7/7/2000 10:34:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:

> Unfortunately it could also be an illustration of the same philosophical
> errors that some transhumans commit.

>PS: For the record, I think Tipler is a crack-pot along the lines of Rupert

I feel that I should jump in to defend Rupert (although I don't accept all
of his morphogentic resonance ideas)
since he has always been helpful to me, and is amongst those interviewed on
the new MVT documentary
regards phantoms and dream phenomena. He is not afraid of challenging the
scientific mainstream ...
and we must have mavericks and dissenters to shake science out of local
minima and blanket conventionalism. Every new breakthrough *a priori* must
contradict or stretch part of the conventionalist cannon, there are two many
yes-men and band-Waggoner's in academia (see site for academic
reform) and a huge shake-out is needed.

Since all the conventionalist knowledge can be represented on computers,
what is the point in supporting all the mainstream academics who share the
same views? It is only the Tipler/ Sheldrake types who are going to get us
anywhere in the future (even if not these two individuals in particular).

Subject: Re: Singularity vs. politics Re: omega-point-deity (was: from Italy
about exi)

In a message dated 7/7/00 11:47:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:

<< You can change the world a lot faster with a Singularity. Can you make an
 argument showing that it would be better to spend my time having political
 discussions, and generally "working within the system", rather than
 a bit with computers" as you so unbiasedly put it? >>
>That's assuming that Singularity actually arrives at the time and manner
>desire. It may take its own time for technical reasons. Certainly it may
>arrive all at once. Cool things like gestalt people with radio-telepathy
>described by Freeman Dyson) might be a step along the road; rather then a
>Vinge Explosion.

This singularity thing sounds about as scientific as those Xians hoping for
a "rapture" at the end of the last millennium. How much is it informed by
Leibnitz Monodology, Descartes' discussions on the indivisibility of a point
& more specifically, Dee's hieroglyphic Monad?

Methinks that only the satisfaction of Leibnitz Law and solution of the
mind-body problem (Schopenhauer's world knot) will explain consciousness
(thus the rest of quanta questions in physics) and bring about philosophical
and theological convergence around an agreed superior or "true" theoretical

Picking up on the thread about what is distinctively trans/post-human ....
and why the Italian businessman should bother with extropianism ...... I
hold that MVT gives an intertheoretic reduction to the MB problem, and
this combined with the unconscious
preconditioning to *change* by adopting a new affirmative "after-human"
label gives us a greater chance of survival in the future than those who
have less full information and are less flexible in their personal identity,
and limited to their received human-been conditioning.

Steve Nichols

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:19 MDT