From: Karl Jennings (karljennings@usa.net)
Date: Wed Jul 26 2006 - 14:11:27 MDT
What good is there in outliving all the stars in the universe? What good is
there in dying before you have to?
There is a fine line between humility and acquiescence. The one is a
necessary check against unfettered hubris; the other is what keeps sentient
beings just a step above beasts. What you call humility sounds to me a lot
like acquiescence. Why not accept your limited time on the stage,
especially when there's another showing right after the matinee? Because
transhumanists aren't just rehashing All's Well That Ends Well, we're hoping
to write the sequel. You may be comforted by a universe of endless
repetition. I certainly am not, and I have a good life. G-d help those
doomed to an endless repetition of a life of pain and suffering, not to
mention war and holocaust.
Is there a limit to our transcendent status? Who knows? Why did we ever
leave the caves? Why did we invent writing? Why go to school? The answers
seem so obvious to me that the questions seem silly. We are beings with
innate curiosity and a hunger for knowledge. As long as there is more to
know there is reason to keep the play going. I don't know the limits of
human and post-human potential, but I do know the limits of those who don't
try.
You wrote: "Even if I could create or destroy universes at will, that still
would not make me G-d. Extremely intelligent-- yes. Extremely powerful --
yes. But still not G-d."
Perhaps not, but it would sure make you a hell of a lot more *relevant* than
G-d to the inhabitants of those universes.
You wrote: "The best answer that I can come up with for justifying infinite
transcendence is that it would be fun! What other purpose is there once
you've crossed the boundary of all necessity?"
What is the purpose of *anything* once you cross the boundary of *bare*
necessity? Maybe "fun" is the only purpose. Maybe it's just a by-product.
I'm no great philosopher, but I do know that life, if nothing else, is
evolution and survival. Maybe "fun" is the reward for those who evolve and
survive the best. Death and endless repetition, while maybe my ultimate
fate, sound hellish enough to at least try to avoid. And if we can't avoid
being a re-run, then we should darn well make our episode a pleasurable one.
_____
From: owner-sl4@sl4.org [mailto:owner-sl4@sl4.org] On Behalf Of R. W.
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:10 PM
To: sl4@sl4.org
Subject: Re: CNN article with Bostrom interview and Kurzweil quotes
Yes. ACCEPTING mortality. I don't expect love or even rationality. In
fact, I don't expect any response. What good is there in outliving all the
stars in the universe?
There is an infinite holonic depth to knowledge. The question is: "What is
useful within the boundary and constraints of quasi-finite existence?" I
personally accept that my particular energy pattern which constitutes
"me-ness" is replicable given time, space, physics, and evolution, etc. And
that I may not be the first organization of "me" in time given the
combinatorial possibilites over an infinite expanse.
Should our goal be infinite transcendence or humility in quasi-finite
beingness. That question seems to be a critical underlying theme to the
singularity movement and its opponents. I don't need to be an infinite
transcendent being unto myself when I accept that I am already a finite
aspect of an infinitely transcendent being whose modality will reoccur in an
infinite manner across an infinite expanse of space and time. Would it
matter if I can not recall or have an awareness of everytime my specific
pattern of energy evolved into being? I don't have perfect recollection of
every moment I have experienced in this particular evolution! But being
that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but changes phase states,
there is a recombinant certainty that over the expanse of infinite time or
infinitely parallel time that my energy pattern will repeat itself just like
any prime aspect of an infinite continuum.
I guess I am simply comfortable with being a prime aspect of consciousness
with the certainty of replication at some distant and/or past point in time
with an infinite potential of replication. Hence 'death' as we perceive it
is a discrete step in a continual (i.e. not continuous) manifestation of
being.
Is there a limit to our transcendent status? Would having the ability to
create or destroy universes at whim be enough to satisfy our egos? Is there
a limit to perceivable awareness, i.e. at what point in the holon of the
mandelbrot set does the picture become inperceivable or just plain useless?
Can I be happy with a knowledge of how to live in complete harmony with
absolute chaos? Or maybe limited harmony with limited chaos? How much is
enough?
I keep repeating the question in different ways because I want to be clear
to most anyone capable of understanding that the people on this list are
capable, within my estimation, of realizing a technologically limitless
future where our transcendent power would be near limitless; but to what
end?
Even if I could create or destroy universes at will, that still would not
make me G-d.
Extremely intelligent-- yes. Extremely powerful -- yes. But still not G-d.
The best answer that I can come up with for justifying infinite
transcendence is that it would be fun! What other purpose is there once
you've crossed the boundary of all necessity?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT