tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post7889102711004903583..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: A Response to Michael AnissimovDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-22803060771442996912008-07-03T15:50:00.000-07:002008-07-03T15:50:00.000-07:00You make a richly compelling case, Dan. Score one...You make a richly compelling case, Dan. Score one more for the clearheaded good sense of the techno-immortalist robot cultists.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-24228582780398211442008-07-03T07:22:00.000-07:002008-07-03T07:22:00.000-07:00Dael Michael's response to your critique was subtl...Dael Michael's response to your critique was subtle and nuanced and your response to his response was the opposite. <BR/><BR/>He took on a down-to-earth tone and meticulously explained his positions and the logic behind them, and you resorted to insults, calling interesting points "infantile" without actually addressing them with the kind of subtle analysis that they deserved. The tone throughout was incredibly patronizing, yet most of your points were abstractions and a lot of them made you sound like an idealogue and not a well-informed thinker with a real grip on the subject at hand.<BR/><BR/>If you're going to beat an opponent in debate, you have to comprehend his side as well as you do yours. There are many interesting arguments against transhumanism that you could have referenced to bolster your points, yet I didn't see a link to a single one. In fact, all I saw were links to your own posts. In the rules of argument, referring to your own arguments as evidence is, at best, a weak tactic. At worst, it is pretentious.<BR/> <BR/>Taking a patronizing tone, being facetious, lobbing insults, and referring to yourself as to prove your own points all suggest that you know you are out of your league. What you've written here reads like a hastily constructed rant.<BR/><BR/>Next time, you might show some respect for Michael's intelligence, do some research and write a counter-argument with the meticulous thinking that Michael brought to his response to you. He showed you that courtesy. Perhaps in the future you could do the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-25123171127493455202008-03-09T07:05:00.000-07:002008-03-09T07:05:00.000-07:00> I guess I'm one of those boring "[can] we all ju...> I guess I'm one of those boring "[can] we all just get along" folks.<BR/><BR/>If "get along" means smile and agree and pat everybody on the back,<BR/>then clearly we cannot. And should not. People "getting along"<BR/>always entails disagreement, setting boundaries, and working out<BR/>compromises. Some people are born "arrogationists" -- they'll lay<BR/>claim to the moon and stars, if you let them. Those people don't<BR/>need more pats on the back. Other folks (I'm one of them, all<BR/>too often) are born doormats.jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-35367236617313991712008-03-09T06:51:00.000-07:002008-03-09T06:51:00.000-07:00Great post by Dale.Towards the end of the For Giul...Great post by Dale.<BR/><BR/>Towards the end of the <A HREF="http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2008/03/for-giulio-prisco.html" REL="nofollow">For Giulio Prisco</A> discussion I was wondering whether it was necessary that Dale pounced on Giulio with such a relentless vengeance. This, on the other hand, is more like it. I guess I'm one of those boring "[can] we all just get along" folks.<BR/><BR/>FrFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-18601649550598849172008-03-08T16:00:00.000-08:002008-03-08T16:00:00.000-08:00Dale wrote:> Michael, you seem to be laboring unde...Dale wrote:<BR/><BR/>> Michael, you seem to be laboring under the impression that you<BR/>> aren't immortal because there are people somewhere who don't<BR/>> approve of the idea that you be permitted to be. You seem to imagine<BR/>> that there is something daring or somehow provocative in contemplating<BR/>> a longer life, a healthier lifespan, or more generous capacities<BR/>> than human beings have hitherto enjoyed. You may be shocked to discover<BR/>> that these are thoughts that have occurred to the fancy of almost<BR/>> every human being on earth at some time or other in their lives,<BR/>> many by the age of two, that they have been voiced in every human<BR/>> culture in every historical epoch and often, thankfully, with a<BR/>> fuller measure of humor and creativity than transhumanists, I fear,<BR/>> tend to bring to this old topic. But it bears remembering, Michael,<BR/>> that not in one single case have such fancies contributed a single<BR/>> step along the developmental road that yielded any practical benefit<BR/>> to the health, span, capacities, or reach of anybody on earth. . .<BR/>><BR/>> [I]mprovements in our techniques are not fueled by some vacuous<BR/>> rebellion against limits in general, mortality in general, finitude<BR/>> in general, but through the application of human imagination and<BR/>> shared problem solving intelligence to present circumstances. <BR/>><BR/>> You say that you are to be congratulated for declaring no pain acceptable,<BR/>> no decay acceptable, no mortality acceptable. You will forgive me,<BR/>> but death, pain, entropy are indifferent to your declaration, and I find<BR/>> little worthy of congratulation in infantile denial.<BR/><BR/>"Unluckily, it is difficult for a certain type of mind to grasp<BR/>the concept of insolubility. Thousands...keep pegging away at<BR/>perpetual motion. The number of persons so afflicted is far<BR/>greater than the records of the Patent Office show, for beyond the<BR/>circle of frankly insane enterprise there lie circles of more and<BR/>more plausible enterprise, until finally we come to a circle which<BR/>embraces the great majority of human beings.... The fact is that<BR/>some of the things that men and women have desired most ardently<BR/>for thousands of years are not nearer realization than they were<BR/>in the time of Rameses, and that there is not the slightest reason<BR/>for believing that they will lose their coyness on any near<BR/>to-morrow. Plans for hurrying them on have been tried since the<BR/>beginnning; plans for forcing them overnight are in copious and<BR/>antagonistic operation to-day; and yet they continue to hold off<BR/>and elude us, and the chances are that they will keep on holding<BR/>off and eluding us until the angels get tired of the show, and the<BR/>whole earth is set off like a gigantic bomb, or drowned, like a<BR/>sick cat, between two buckets."<BR/><BR/>H. L. Mencken, "The Cult of Hope"<BR/><BR/>> [Anissimov wrote]:<BR/>><BR/>> > Another argument Dale often brings up in his posts. . . is that<BR/>> > transhumanists have a hatred of their bodies. This is absolute crap. . .<BR/>><BR/>> Any group of people exhibits diversity, Michael, and yet regularities<BR/>> are discernible. . .<BR/>><BR/>> In their discussions online and in person transhumanists endlessly<BR/>> pine for digital bodies and shiny robot bodies. . .<BR/><BR/>And not just bodies, but **minds**. There is a contempt for if<BR/>not outright hatred of human minds. Or any biological<BR/>minds forged in the crucible of Darwinian evolution (which are,<BR/>after all, the only kinds of minds that actually exist).<BR/><BR/>And they're not just pining after **accelerated** human minds,<BR/>they're pining after another kind of mind altogether. Something<BR/>clockwork, Vulcan. Shades of _David and Lisa_.<BR/><BR/>I alluded a while ago to people being banned from transhumanist<BR/>forums for uncongenial opinions. Somebody told me to cut the<BR/>crap, assuming I was referring to my own banishment from WTA-talk.<BR/>And so I was, of course, but there was another far more scandalous<BR/>banishment in another forum that hinged on precisely this<BR/>point -- whether certain human "irrationalities" (the kind<BR/>the "Overcoming Bias" folks like to harp on) are indeed<BR/>irrationalities after all, or only so from a certain tunnel-vision<BR/>point of view.<BR/><BR/>Some folks seem to be able to see so clearly this "other" kind<BR/>of mind. Thus Damien Broderick can say, in a talk about "the Spike"<BR/>( http://home.vicnet.net.au/~ozlit/edit9737.html )<BR/>"The distinction between human and AI will blur and<BR/>vanish – or rather, double and re-double in some chaotic<BR/>cascade of novelty – because we’ll see a fusion of the<BR/>two great orders of mind. "<BR/><BR/>Say what? What "two great orders of mind?" Poetic license<BR/>of the SF author -- make a story about it, and it **is**!jimfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04975754342950063440noreply@blogger.com