hackenslash wrote:

epete wrote:I'd say he's qualified and supported his position sufficiently to speculate.

Well, opinions and arseholes and all that...

Indeed.

hackenslash wrote:No it isn't, or you'd have managed to do so by now.

How about "potentially supportable"?

hackenslash wrote:Ah, one of those truisms that turns out to be bollocks.

Because?

hackenslash wrote:And this is interesting to me because..? Again, tell somebody for whom your opinion is worth two shits.

Well, you seem to give enough of a shit to keep replying and offering your (mostly pitifully under-informed) opinions.

naffat wrote:How about "potentially supportable"?

Good enough.

Because?

I already answered that. Go and speak to Michelson and Morley.

Well, you seem to give enough of a shit to keep replying and offering your (mostly pitifully under-informed) opinions.

I don't give a shit about your opinion, but I do give a shit about ensuring that bollocks doesn't go unchallenged. As for my being under-informed, do keep erecting that trope despite mky having dealt with the fact that what I know or not about cognitive science is utterly fucking irrelevant to the topic at hand. I don't need to know anything about cog-sci to know that you're talking through your arse when you make categorical assertions that aren't supportable with anything resembling robust evidence.

naffat wrote:My central claim is that postbiological civilization has the opportunity to become greater than what will have preceded it on this planet, esp. given that ecological destruction appears to be in human nature somehow.

A few points:

1. I don't see how you define 'post-biological', given that all of life is but natural selection applied to a pool of replicating entities that mutate occasionally. I don't see how that is abruptly going to stop at some point. If you mean that as an end to carbon-based life forms, I don't think whatever comes to replace it will be above these simple constraints.

2. Defined that way, as in an in-silico version of the biological world, I don't see how consciousness is in any way relevant to its existence.

3. 'Greater' is probably an unqualified word. Depends on what you mean by it...

4. Ecological destruction is not in human nature. Maximizing the potential to replicate is what's in human nature.

Ecological exploitation and modification is in ALL organisms "nature".

Regarding the post-biological stuff, I think he's talking about AI/robots.

epete wrote:Ecological exploitation and modification is in ALL organisms "nature".

Naffat used the word 'destruction', I don't think that is part of any organism's nature. Sometimes, some behaviours or certain organisms coincide with our notions of ecological destruction. Not always. Exploitation and modification, as you say, are, by definition, defining features of any entity interacting with an 'environment'/'ecological niche'.

Regarding the post-biological stuff, I think he's talking about AI/robots.

I got that. I just don't see how that (if they ever come to replace life as we know it) will be any different from what we see now.

natselrox wrote:

naffat wrote:My central claim is that postbiological civilization has the opportunity to become greater than what will have preceded it on this planet, esp. given that ecological destruction appears to be in human nature somehow.

A few points:

1. I don't see how you define 'post-biological', given that all of life is but natural selection applied to a pool of replicating entities that mutate occasionally. I don't see how that is abruptly going to stop at some point. If you mean that as an end to carbon-based life forms, I don't think whatever comes to replace it will be above these simple constraints.

I think what is being referred to here are ideas under the label of transhumanism...

Wikipedia wrote:Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

... which some might say is a brand of techno-fetishism.

natselrox wrote:2. Defined that way, as in an in-silico version of the biological world, I don't see how consciousness is in any way relevant to its existence.

3. 'Greater' is probably an unqualified word. Depends on what you mean by it...

4. Ecological destruction is not in human nature. Maximizing the potential to replicate is what's in human nature.

Transhumanism is essentially an appeal to an ideal. Transhumanist would probably say that Transhumanism is a natural ends by which fiddling things like poverty, injustice, suffering, and death can be transcended and a greater, more epic purpose for our species than simply surviving can be actualised - this is not only what our species should become, but what it will become and, therefore, your resistance is futile.

natselrox wrote:

epete wrote:Ecological exploitation and modification is in ALL organisms "nature".

Naffat used the word 'destruction', I don't think that is part of any organism's nature. Sometimes, some behaviours or certain organisms coincide with our notions of ecological destruction. Not always. Exploitation and modification, as you say, are, by definition, defining features of any entity interacting with an 'environment'/'ecological niche'.

I think it's just a function of scale and magnitude. We are doing exactly the same thing all organisms do, it's just that there are shear numbers of us and we have technology to vastly speed up the process (and the level of modification). In the end, unless we change our ways, it's highly likely our ecosystem will self correct, either with a terrible famine or a global pandemic, or perhaps both at the same time. The same process happens on a smaller scale in all ecosystems on the planet.

Regarding the post-biological stuff, I think he's talking about AI/robots.

I got that. I just don't see how that (if they ever come to replace life as we know it) will be any different from what we see now.

I guess they'll be more intelligent, faster, stronger and more resilient.

epete wrote:

natselrox wrote:

epete wrote:Ecological exploitation and modification is in ALL organisms "nature".

Naffat used the word 'destruction', I don't think that is part of any organism's nature. Sometimes, some behaviours or certain organisms coincide with our notions of ecological destruction. Not always. Exploitation and modification, as you say, are, by definition, defining features of any entity interacting with an 'environment'/'ecological niche'.

I think it's just a function of scale and magnitude. We are doing exactly the same thing all organisms do, it's just that there are shear numbers of us and we have technology to vastly speed up the process (and the level of modification). In the end, unless we change our ways, it's highly likely our ecosystem will self correct, either with a terrible famine or a global pandemic, or perhaps both at the same time. The same process happens on a smaller scale in all ecosystems on the planet.

Oh, I think that's an inevitability. But I'd be surprised if it killed off all humans (I realise you didn't say it would, I'm just running with this idea). We're exceptionally resilient and adaptable. The only lifeform I can think of that is more so would be bacteria. Even the utter destruction of Earth wouldn't result in our extinction if it didn't happen for a couple of centuries. By then we'll have permanent footholds on other astronomical bodies... probably.

Regarding the post-biological stuff, I think he's talking about AI/robots.

I got that. I just don't see how that (if they ever come to replace life as we know it) will be any different from what we see now.

I guess they'll be more intelligent, faster, stronger and more resilient.

They'll likely be all of those things and more. In the second to last Alistair Reynolds novel I read (and I'm sure people are rolling their eyes here but I stand by my belief that science fiction is often a good predictor of the future) one if the minor characters who was the CEO of a large multinational had an "empathy shunt" installed. This allowed him to voluntarily shut down his ability to experience that emotion and thus be a more ruthless businessman. They say that psychopaths do well in big business for that exact reason. So doesn't it make sense that people who are "handicapped" by pesky human feelings may want to get rid of them if they can?

Probably from an A.I., it will make a rational calculation about earth's resources divided by humanities abilities, and come to the conclusion that its own survival depends on killing all of us.

Mayak wrote:Probably from an A.I., it will make a rational calculation about earth's resources divided by humanities abilities, and come to the conclusion that its own survival depends on killing all of us.

That's the premise of this book...


... it doesn't turn out well for organic life.

You know, I'm actually looking for a good book to read... Did you enjoy the story?