Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

I, Robot

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    I think that the advent of a post-human or trans-human species is a valid possibility. In fact, I would say that this is a necessary step in human
    Message 1 of 13 , Dec 29, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I think that the advent of a post-human or trans-human species is a valid
      possibility. In fact, I would say that this is a necessary step in human
      development. We disconnect from nature and create our own replacement. The
      movie I, Robot with Will Smith, shows an evil side which is also a
      possibility, but the movie does not negate the envisaged future of a race of
      robots that will carry on after us.

      Another movie on a similar concept is Blade Runner with Harrison Ford. The
      idea is presented that without a death gene, the replicants could live
      forever. We all want Rachel to live on. I like Roy's last little speech
      ....

      Roy: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off
      the shoulder of Orion. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the
      Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
      Time to die.

      eduardathome

      -----Original Message-----
      From: William
      Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:21 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Inner Space



      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
      >
      > Bill,
      >
      > The current trend is to predict a post-human or trans-human species, one
      > microchip enhanced and/or genetically modified. I don't think this will
      > happen because thought, though it tends to be slavish, is also rebellious.
      > Many people confuse power and success with intelligence, and it's my hope
      > this perception ends.
      >
      > Mary
      > Mary,I think at the core is the law. That which is written and signed has
      > the weight of full perusal and engrossed involement. Single person opinion
      > presents ideas but they are not ratified by any majority or judicial
      > authority. The law precludes anarchy and as Mao proclamed "all power comes
      > from the barrel of a gun".The law is backed up with force and post
      > modernist concepts of deconstruction and irresponsibility are just the
      > musings of disquieted individuals.Philosophy is an individual endeavour
      > and is thrown in the pool of ideas to be considered and endlessly
      > adjusted.
      I agree with you that no majority will opt for chosen mutation or chip
      driven mass culture. Democracy is big ship that takes huge energy to change
      course.The recent legislative debates in Washington demonstrate the slowness
      of process and the gradual evolution of law . I picked existentialism
      because it refuted moral authorites and said nothing contra to the law or
      science. I agree with you that science changes and it has an empirical
      substrate that sets standards that must be met.I find that rational and in
      line with Deccartes seminal concepts. Existentialism does not try to make
      law or force virtue. It sets forth a very general framework that spends more
      energy fighting moralisms and single person dogma.That sits in good
      position with the definition of philosophy as the things to which you cleve
      .You notice I do not use the term love.That is not a rational term and does
      not belong in my philosophy.Way too emotional with no thought out checks
      and balances.Existentialism
      in a basic way allows for change it takes into account very little, it is
      just a general philosophy that does not delve into personal specifics.
      Personal conduct is governed by law and customs derived in other systems
      already in existance. Any philosophy that imposes rules that have no general
      agreement as to their validity is beyond its scope and immediately
      suspect.Yes the things to which we cleve change. But all around us doe not
      move to our musings. Throw things out there as seeds an perhaps some will
      grow. Its a mesage in a bottle game. Bill

      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I think a couple of things are interesting about your perspective. The
      > > > limitation of knowing the entire or whole truth about anything and
      > > > this matter of interpretation aren't really an obstacle or hindrance.
      > > > These demonstrate not an intransigence on the part of phenomena and
      > > > appearances in preventing our understanding but a structural reality.
      > > > We don't try to get behind the appearance or to peel the layers away
      > > > to reach some absolute truth; there is nothing at the core; appearance
      > > > is reality. Certainly relative perception and personal experience play
      > > > a role in this endeavor, but ultimately all our efforts point to a
      > > > core of nothing rather than a something which is defying our efforts
      > > > to reach it. What I've come to accept about understanding and the
      > > > pursuit of truth is that the motion of thought itself demonstrates a
      > > > circling around any absolute. The movement between contradictions and
      > > > oppositions is just as significant. Scientific principles which are
      > > > discovered and applied are
      similar to philosophical ones in that they change and develop through
      sublation. Something is kept as true but something is also discarded as
      false. Perception, though differing from person to person, is universal. All
      humans perceive, so relative perception plays a role in our understanding
      and can be studied in regards to reason. If our particular or personal
      perception differs extremely from others it can also reveal something about
      perception as much as more commonly agreed upon perceptions. Differences
      don't necessarily lead us to relativism or nihilism. Difference itself can
      become an important part of understanding, truth, knowledge, or reality.
      Think of all the neurological studies that are done on the brains of people
      who differ severely from so called normal brains. The differences can inform
      what is previously understood as normal. The current and somewhat annoying
      meme "the new normal" actually helps explain this but only when taken more
      seriously. Truth is a development
      of a notion; only the idea is real.
      > > >
      > > > Mary
      > > > Mary, Those abnormal brains could be called mutants. It is mutation
      > > > that causes evolution . I think Dick says we are evolving toward his
      > > > new species. Mystics are fringe people who have had unusual
      > > > experiences. I will not go so far as to call Dick a mutant but I will
      > > > use the term other evolved. He does not think like the rest of us but
      > > > when he calls an end point something and we call it another we would
      > > > seem to be on a common progress. I would like for Dick to be correct
      > > > because he says it ushers in a better world. I would ask how these
      > > > edge of the curve individuals can ever hyperpersonalise when they are
      > > > the most distant and distracted of the species? I agee with you Mary
      > > > that at the crux of supposed truth os a ever changing nidus of
      > > > thoughts an as scientific theories are always susceptable to change.
      > > > This super human will have to be a more survivable species and so far
      > > > I see no particular group exhibiting vastly greater traits. I do not
      > > > want to try and out guess
      evolution and I would not try to predict it. Now I might say it appears that
      smart people will become dominant. OK, Ill go that far as a bigger brain
      is where the primate species has been heading. We could call that a solid
      postulate and fewer,smarter people could probably run a better world. I do
      not know if it will go that way and find a sudden leap forward to new
      specis would be counter to the present rate of evolution. So I agree the
      ideas seemingly at some core are just hubs of ideas that may or may not
      remain. Chardin strongly hinted that only god could push mandkind to unite
      with him in an Omega point. Just too much theology for me . It seems to me a
      most improbable outcome ,especially since I am an athiest. Bill
      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > I was speaking to the issue of whether humans can actually "know"
      > > > > the truth
      > > > > of something. My view is that we can never know the truth for
      > > > > reason that
      > > > > the means to our knowledge is always a matter of interpretation.
      > > > >
      > > > > I suppose that in a way, mathematics is an area for which the truth
      > > > > can be
      > > > > identified. 2 + 2 = 4. But then it is true because we say it is.
      > > > > It is
      > > > > not necessarily the case that 2 of something, plus 2 of something is
      > > > > actually equal to 4 of something. Sometimes it isn't, as say for
      > > > > example
      > > > > when the values are vectors.
      > > > >
      > > > > I am not saying that experience demonstrates what is true in the
      > > > > sense of
      > > > > absolute truth. What I am saying is that experience can get
      > > > > sufficiently
      > > > > close that we can accept it as true in a specific time and place. I
      > > > > guess
      > > > > the label here would be relativism or something like that. The
      > > > > "truth" that
      > > > > we identify in this time/place may not be true in some other
      > > > > time/place or
      > > > > for some other person.
      > > > >
      > > > > Something is said to be true if it works and yes that relates to
      > > > > experience.
      > > > > That the shadow is a coffee table is true, because I experienced
      > > > > pain in
      > > > > bumping into it. But even then it may not be true. The pain may be
      > > > > from
      > > > > bumping into a chair. The search for truth is like peeling an onion
      > > > > till we
      > > > > get so close that it is obvious or we say it is obvious because
      > > > > further
      > > > > peeling is unlikely to reveal something else. And the stress is
      > > > > upon the
      > > > > "unlikely". Sometimes "unlikely" is dependent upon the degree of
      > > > > effort and
      > > > > worth of going further.
      > > > >
      > > > > Some think that the "laws" of science point to some kind of truth.
      > > > > But I
      > > > > doubt that any scientist would say that it is absolute. A law in
      > > > > science is
      > > > > a best guess whose result is repeatable through experimentation. If
      > > > > we get
      > > > > a different answer, the law is modified or abandoned. So much for
      > > > > truth.
      > > > >
      > > > > eduard
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > From: Mary
      > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:00 PM
      > > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Inner Space
      > > > >
      > > > > What seems true to me, eduard, is that you specialize in a
      > > > > reductionist
      > > > > approach to phenomenology while mine is more dialectical. So it
      > > > > seems to me
      > > > > there is no out there, or ocean of phenomena, but an interactive
      > > > > relationship between objects in themselves, including human. Objects
      > > > > themselves are true in themselves as subject, and subjects are true
      > > > > objects.
      > > > > An appearance is truth but it's only arrived at dialectically and
      > > > > speculatively. Experience alone does not suffice to demonstrate what
      > > > > is
      > > > > true. The notion, concept, or idea of objects are an unfolding
      > > > > truth. Truth
      > > > > changes but I don't believe successful experiences alone determine
      > > > > it.
      > > > > Scepticism and speculative reason are philosophical thought.
      > > > >
      > > > > Mary
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Ultimately, everything is an illusion. That is, if you consider
      > > > > > an
      > > > > > "illusion" to be what we "think" we see. Humans are like the
      > > > > > captain of a
      > > > > > submarine. He moves his boat through the ocean by means of
      > > > > > sensors
      > > > > > instead
      > > > > > of "seeing" what is actually out there. We also have sensors
      > > > > > [taste, ear,
      > > > > > eye, touch, etc. ], but it still isn't a case of really knowing
      > > > > > the truth
      > > > > > of
      > > > > > something. We can, however, get close and this then becomes a
      > > > > > sort of
      > > > > > definition of how good is our interpretation. The "rightness" of
      > > > > > our
      > > > > > interpretation is the degree of its success. If at night I
      > > > > > interpret the
      > > > > > shadow in the living room as being the coffee table, the
      > > > > > "rightness" of my
      > > > > > interpretation is confirmed by the pain from bumping into it.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > The "truth" then becomes our best guess that is successful in time
      > > > > > and
      > > > > > place.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ------------------------------------
      > > > >
      > > > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
      > > > > nothing!
      > > > >
      > > > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >




      ------------------------------------

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.