RE: Are we Gods yet?

From: Ben Goertzel (
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 12:47:25 MDT

Yes, we're just dickering over a question of degree, I believe.

Of course, the modern individual and cultural mind-state is vastly different
from the Stone Age individual and cultural mind-state!

However, this transition has been gradual, not sudden like the one we're
about to see... and I also think that the coming transition is going to be
much GREATER than the transition from Stone Age mind-state to modern

I mean, let's face it, much of human life is still devoted to food, sex,
violence, status and other Stone Age ish things. Whereas the basic
interests and motivations of transhumans may be entirely different...

-- ben g

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []On Behalf
> Of lurskalot
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Are we Gods yet?
> On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 10:51, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> >
> > Well, I'm 35, and in my view the transition from 20 year old
> Ben to 35 year
> > old Ben has not been any kind of "subjective Singularity."
> Perhaps I'm overly skeptical, but I seriously doubt that your 20 year
> old self could have modeled the world at anything even remotely
> resembling the complexity that your 35-year-old self does. And
> multiplying that by several billion humans living longer than they would
> in a primal state leads to the conclusion that the world is vastly,
> subjectively different today than at any time in history.
> > Certainly nowhere near comparable to, say, the transition from
> primate mind
> > to human mind. And I think that the subjectivity shift to come, based
> > on neuromodification, uploading, and so forth, is going to be at least
> > as big as the shift from primate to human.
> Indeed. But arguing that *another* transcension is imminent in no way
> detracts from the position that we, as a species, have already
> transcended our historical notion of humanity at least once. Moving
> from nomadic groups of 30-50 individuals to a globally networked
> civilization with members who regularly interact with thousands of
> others is a change of such magnitude that it is hard to appreciate,
> especially from our privileged perch within the process, the true scope
> of the alterations.
> daniel
> --
> Clarke's First Law:
> When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
> possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something
> is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:40 MDT