Re: The Immortal "I" (fwd)

From: Party of Citizens (
Date: Fri Jul 27 2001 - 21:07:03 MDT

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Franklin Wayne Poley <>
To: Ronald Jump <>
Subject: Re: The Immortal "I"

We never did solve that problem of "robo-sentience" when you were on R4P,
Robo-Ron. When homo sapiens has highly sohisticated robots, some time in
this century and robo sapiens surpasses h.s. in intelligence, strength and
good looks, what will you say about the Immortal I of r.s.? Can we expect
to see, not only a robot for president some day but a robot for pope?

On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Ronald Jump wrote:

> Hi, Gene --
> Tell us more about it. Steve Palmquist is very familar with
> Kant, and Kant wrote on "the transcendental Ego", which
> might have something to do with your thesis. It might also
> be common knowledge, that everyone calls him or her self
> "I" and always did, and always will, which is down my alley.
> But from what you've said, which is about the cost of the book
> and its availablity, it's hard to tell what you think. Between
> books and ideas, isn't it always the way, that the former is
> at best a poor representation? Some of the best thinkers
> of all time never wrote a book. (Buddha, Pythagoras,
> Jesus, Gandhi.) Those of us who do, and
> who study books, have to keep that in mind.
> Ultimately, this topic leads into another one, the difficult
> duty of coming to understand each other's freedom, and
> comprehending our own autonomy, which distinguishes
> us living beings from the inanimate objects, and the
> comprehension of which allows the formation of a
> satisfactory society and culture.
> Say more, and maybe we can get into this.
> -- Ron Jump
> The Institute of Formal Social Sciences
> Systematic Philosophy

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:57 MDT