From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 15:16:07 MDT
Hello Sébastien,
> I used the word "extropians" in a serious discussion recently and once again
> was reminded that extropians sound like goofy cultists.
Are SETI enthusiasts (i.e. the people who dedicate their spare
computing time to SETI@HOME -- *not* people who believe in UFOs)
"cultists"? [One could ask the question about many other distributed
computing projects with the possible exception of GIMPS -- we all
*know* Spike is a cultist... :-?]
I think one of the key questions to pose is "Does this have a reasonable
chance of working?". Followed by "Yes, I *know* it has never been done
before -- but look at the history of development of literally *everything*
difficult -- the automobile, the airplane, the VCR, the heart transplant,
the defeat of communism -- *all* of them have *never* been done before.
> Not being able to find out why they were thinking that,
Because a "reasonable" reaction to something "never done before" is
to believe that it cannot be done. One has to make a reasonable case
otherwise.
> or have them forward me a link where one serious extropian sound
> like they say,
I try to "sound like I say" (though a few familiar with my comments
over the last 5 years might object to several cases).
It is *very* simple for me. "More information is better than less
information" -- or perhaps "Complexity is good" (though this gets
a bit more problematic if short term complexity reduces long term
complexity).
I believe one can derive most extropian principles (and perhaps a
complete moral philosophy of extropianism and transhumanism from
such a starting point).
[I disagree slightly with Natasha with regard to the specific
differences between extropianism, transhumanism and posthumanism
["the 3"] as I believe some fairly reasonable differences were outlined
recently at the World Transhumanis Association conference, esp.
during its introduction seminar. But these differences tend
to be *very* minor compared with the gap between "the 3" and most
other religions, philosophies, political or moral systems, etc.]
> What would be the best answer to someone who would say that the primo body
> and mind uploading are allegoric figures that transhumanists and extropians
> are offering that permits to fantasm a body removed from it's attaches with
> the present, the here and now, impossible bodies,
If I understand this statement correctly, esp. "allegoric" and "fantasm",
the answer for me is that we are *not* proposing allegorical or fantasy
bodies. We *REALLY* intend to do it (or we think humanity will do it).
Although a "primo body" or a disembodied upload state are "impossible"
now -- that is no proof that they are forever impossible.
> wich makes them promoter of an ascetic ideal, who hates the body and
> the flesh (and are possibly even worse than christians at it,
In some sense, at least for extropianism, there is the promotion of
an "ascetic ideal" (e.g. more information is better than less information).
It is not that one "hates" the body, it is just that one can recognize
there are potentially improvements (from bodies to other forms)
that can contain more information (or may allow a more creative
exploration of the "form" space).
> (alienation is to be understood here as "being estranged to oneself").
One does not have to be in any way "estranged". We could not be here
without having gone through the entire journey that evolution previously
laid down for us. It is simple to respect and value that. But that
does not prevent us from believing there may be better ways (as in
improved bodies, cyborgs, uploads, etc) with which the future may be
explored and complexity increased to a greater extent than current
bodies allow.
(at least those are my opinions -- I cannot speak for other extropians)
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 15:25:24 MDT