Just because something can be done does not mean that we ought to try it.

Yes, nature's evolution of which we are a part is exponential; that 
exponentiality has now brought us to the point where, as a species, we 
have our fate in our own hands. This gives us a moral choice: what do we 
do with these incredible possibilities?

Are we slaves of exponentiality? Do we allow ourselves to suffer the 
Singularity?

Or do we chose freedom?

/ L

On 31-10-2019 23:42, Brent Allsop wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, this part was intended to be before that last post:
>
> Lots of laughs.  This could end up being a transhumanist / anti 
> transumanist rant towards each other, both thinking the evidence being 
> presented works better in their favor, than the reverse.
>
> For example Zack asked:  “Why do we trust our technologies more than 
> nature?”
>
> I think the same argument supports my position much better.  Why do 
> you impose such a limited interpretation of nature? We, and how we are 
> progressing, exponentially, and have been obviously doing so, 
> unstoppable for millions of years,  in every way, is exactly nature.  
> Natures has ben working for billions of years, all of it seeking to 
> finally consciousness wake up.  We are what nature has been trying to 
> create for billions of years.  You think all the stuff out there we 
> can see with out telescopes is out there, just to go to waste?  You 
> don’t think it is all just waiting for someone like us to finally 
> emerge so it can all finally “wake up”?
>
> “Why is it believed to be so bad to simply die, as humans always have?”
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 4:41 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     To me, this is just obviously irrational and broken thinking,
>     bread into us to help us deal with our obviously devastating
>     mortality.  Do you ever fly? Up until about 100 years ago, nobody
>     ever flew. Should you also be arguing we wouldn’t be flying, if
>     this argument is legitimate?  Along with everything else we’ve
>     been doing the last 10 years that nobody has ever dreamed we’d be
>     able to do.
>
>     Zak also asked about my beef with solipsism.  This is mostly only
>     a beef with philosophers.  But for those that don’t understand the
>     significance of the argument, are leaving out some significant
>     theoretical possibilities of what we could uncover, as we dig
>     deeper into consciousness.
>
>     The far more interesting theory is “Substance Dualism”
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DSubstance-2DDualism_48&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XxAjnPm7CpWTLFhwoNuQ9ZQi_lDNc-q_kdyvzsO9OR4&s=s2SfLZccg7GoT7MYWTp6XswpWlsUoN2epAMuysZYvyA&e=>. 
>     As canonizer is proving, there are some very smart people that
>     point out that this theory has in no way been fully falsified.  I
>     think there is a clear scientific consensus, including Dennett
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DDennett-2Ds-2DPBC-2DTheory_21-23statement&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XxAjnPm7CpWTLFhwoNuQ9ZQi_lDNc-q_kdyvzsO9OR4&s=AzC9OS9S19PymamaEzhpUrF5kySrVUuODu_piDXD_oQ&e=>,
>     that there are qualia.  The only lack of consensus is the nature
>     of qualia. Nobody yet has a clue about what qualia are, or that
>     they are even “physical”.  Most everyone agreed with Einstein,
>     when we started looking into quantum mechanics, and figured: “God
>     doesn’t play dice.”  We all know how that turned out.  If we
>     falsify all known physical possibilities of what redness could be,
>     it then must either be some new physics, or some properties of
>     some spiritual realm.  I think people that don’t accept such ideas
>     as real possibilities are missing out on a lot of what
>     consciousness could turn out to be, and what the future holds in
>     the science and engineering of all such.
>
>     Zak said: “Consciousness cannot be moved between bodies via
>     silicon intermediaries.”  I’m not talking about anything even
>     remotely close to this.  You must not fully understand what I’m
>     talking about when I say “computational binding”.  Qualia are in
>     no way properties of silicon or anything done with silicone, and
>     “computational binding” is the opposite of any kind of
>     “intermediaries”.
>
>     I’m still struggling with understanding exactly what Zak’s
>     “metaphysical” ideas are, and why any of that would make any of
>     this impossible “period”. There is a near unanimous consensus that
>     all of consciousness is “approachable via science”
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DApproachable-2DVia-2DScience_2&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XxAjnPm7CpWTLFhwoNuQ9ZQi_lDNc-q_kdyvzsO9OR4&s=Jx7i1qikouejCt6p4DcSUVE-Bs6vsXKPIR-n4nCuFms&e=>. 
>     How could any of this be impossible “period”, if it is all
>     approachable via science?  Once we discover what it is, whatever
>     it is, we will definitely be doing everything we can to
>     amplifying, extending, sending it all out into the universe…. 
>     What part of it do you think is impossible “period”?
>
>     Even at the next level down, “Representational Qualia Theory
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6-23statement&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XxAjnPm7CpWTLFhwoNuQ9ZQi_lDNc-q_kdyvzsO9OR4&s=pGe5WBSRWq3Fh_ckd6FJPe8A5pUgCE48hm4umLEXtYc&e=>”
>     where there is almost as much consensus around the general idea
>     that we have qualia, and qualia are physical properties of
>     something in our brain.  It seems to me all of the experts
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_81-2DMind-2DExperts_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XxAjnPm7CpWTLFhwoNuQ9ZQi_lDNc-q_kdyvzsO9OR4&s=a30nSbdREZ24zEtdodOGqRFFz_NFZMIITNVaCkidC8E&e=>
>     that have discovered and build consensus around this theory would
>     agree that all of this makes everything were talking about, as
>     Chance McDermott said: “seems inevitable...”
>
>     I’m thinking your metaphysics must disagree with something in the
>     emerging near unanimous consensus that is rapidly developing that
>     is “Approachable via Science
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DApproachable-2DVia-2DScience_2-23statement&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XxAjnPm7CpWTLFhwoNuQ9ZQi_lDNc-q_kdyvzsO9OR4&s=GJejLOhYpfi8lWJxS7fBHJWoMm49AI4H5mwQerunyPw&e=>”
>     and “Representational Qualia Theory
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6-23statement&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XxAjnPm7CpWTLFhwoNuQ9ZQi_lDNc-q_kdyvzsO9OR4&s=pGe5WBSRWq3Fh_ckd6FJPe8A5pUgCE48hm4umLEXtYc&e=>”? 
>     What is it in your metaphysics that makes any of this impossible
>     “period”?
>
>     Could we get your metaphysics  “canonized”, so everyone can better
>     understand just what this metaphysics is, and how it is different
>     from what is there, and so we can see how many experts agree,
>     compared to competing ideas?
>
>     And for all you ditheists, if you really think you have some
>     justified rational arguments, we should surely get them canonized
>     here
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_67-2DYes_2-23statement&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XxAjnPm7CpWTLFhwoNuQ9ZQi_lDNc-q_kdyvzsO9OR4&s=0R9IxH35T1TDsJYwDUeUYkVB3oNsgrgIgs8M5HBiq3s&e=>. 
>     So far, no one has been brave enough to make a statement or any
>     justification for being a deathliest.  My thinking is that anyone
>     would think any such arguments would just be thought of as
>     completely insane and irrational.  The thoughts of only crazy
>     people that were about to die.  That’s all anything that has been
>     presented in this thread, seems to me
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_67-2DNo_3-23statement&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XxAjnPm7CpWTLFhwoNuQ9ZQi_lDNc-q_kdyvzsO9OR4&s=rY8p0brEhgWPScUAWTI_jutqAvnv3D00sYEVr5MANjI&e=>.
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: 
> mailto:[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or 
> click the following link: 
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1