I don't quite understand Nick's disproof of this transhumanist idea. I
thought that I understood the paper, but I don't understand Nick's
conclusion as stated in the paper and below.
Could someone please explain it, preferably in monosylables? And type slow.
Emlyn
(Thanks!)
> Damien Broderick wrote:
>
> >At 10:38 PM 12/1/01 -0500, Nick wrote:
> >
> > >It follows that the
> > > transhumanist dogma that there is a significant
> chance that we
> >will one day
> > > become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations
> is false, unless
> >we are
> > > currently living in a simulation.
> >
> >But that is *not* a `dogma'--an obligatory tenet of an
> >authoritative/authoritarian belief system. It's an opinion
> or hunch, one
> >held as being of high probability by many transhumanists.
>
> I'm being slightly provocative :-) I will think about
> changing that term in
> a future version, but the main point is that this commonly
> held belief
> among transhumanists is false.
>
>
> Nick Bostrom
> Department of Philosophy, Yale University
> New Haven, CT 06520 | Phone: (203) 432-1663 | Fax: (203) 432-7950
> Homepage: http://www.nickbostrom.com
>
***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this e-mail is not
the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,
disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us
immediately and delete the document.
Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's
responsibility. Our entire liability will be limited to resupplying the
material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus
or other defect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:23 MDT