I was thinking of symbiont in terms of mitochondria, gut biomes, HERVs,
etc. I'm also rather increasingly fond of 1G, so if I am to give that
up, it doesn't seem to me that some long-term fractional G is going to
be worth it.
You are of course familiar with Golgafrincham?
On 6/10/16 9:23 AM, glen ☣ wrote:
On 06/09/2016 08:26 PM, Carl wrote:
One might do well to remember that we are symbionts (a Good Thing), so,
transcendence for who or what?
Excellent question! It's pretty easy to trash faith in various contexts. I do
my best to hunt it down and eradicate it in my own world view. But one article
of faith I'm having a hard time killing is that if _we_ go anywhere (including
across some abstract singularity as well as to Mars), we'll _all_ have to go,
or at least some kernel of us with a chance of growing into a robust ecosystem.
One of the better senses of the concept of "machine" comes (basically) down to
a machine is that which can be adequately sliced out of its environment. Life cannot be
so sliced out ... or at least I have yet to eliminate my faith in our systemic/social
nature. We are a film, a lumpy, gooey, sticky, mess.
On 6/9/16 6:50 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
The question I suppose, that I feel is in the air, is whether we are accelerating toward an extinction event
of our own making and whether backing off on the accelerator will help reduce the chances of it being total
or if, as with the source domain of the metaphor, will backing off too fast actually *cause* a spinout? Or
perhaps the best strategy is to punch on through? Kurzweil is voting for "pedal to the metal"
(achieve transhuman transcendence in time for him to erh... transcend personally?) and I suppose I'm
suggesting "back off on the pedal gently but with strong intent" with some vague loyalty and
identity with "humans as we are"...
You already know I agree with you. But it helps to repeat it. The "pedal to the metal"
guys sound the same (to me) as climate change deniers. There are 2 types: 1) people who believe
the universe is open enough, extensible enough, adaptive enough, to accommodate our "pedal to
the metal" and settle into a (beneficial to us) stability afterwards and 2) those who think we
(or the coming Robot Overlords) will be smart enough to intentionally regulate stability.
It's not fear that suggests an agile foot. It's open-minded speculation across
all the possibilities. But the metaphor falls apart. It's not out-driving our
headlights so much as barely stable bubbles of chemicals, which is what we are.
And it only takes a slight change in, say, medium pH to burst all of us
bubbles ... like wiping your finger on your face and sticking it into the head
on your beer ... add a little skin oil and it all comes crashing down.
so who am I to argue with the end of an individual life, culture or species?
Hear, hear. Besides, death is a process. And it may well feel good:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/brain-metrics/could_a_final_surge_in
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
