[MD] Transhumanism

[John Carl]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:

> [John]
> Krimel the baby-butt-wiper,
>
> [Krimel]
> What point are you trying to make with this?
>
>

John:

Glad you asked, krimel.

First, not a derogatory one.  YOU brought the subject up in a way that made
baby-butt-wiping sound like a high-quality activity.  AS an experienced
butt-wiper myself, I totally agree and would ask you, is there any possible
way for scientific progress to improve upon the root experience?  Would you
be a happier person if you could just plug the kid into the holodeck and
perform the delicate task with Waldos or robots?

These real organic-matrix connections with parts of our selves cannot be
reduced to task or functions.  The smell goes into our brains. The activity
becomes part of our relationship.  Heck, I've got aunts and uncles today who
in the midst of argumentation throw down the trump card, "don't get smart
with me young man, I used to change your diapers."  And I know what they
mean, it's not a derogatory thing at all.  It's a declaration of intimate
connection.  Kin.  Kind.  It's deeper than holodecks can transmit.






> [John]
> Well I see that Biblical ignorance in scientific circles is at least as
> ubiquitous as scientific understanding in religious circles - as a reader
> of
> the bible, I'm sure you're aware that what his talk should have been called
> is "rebuilding babel".  The translations of the babel event in the bible
> describe man's efforts to encapsulate the human experience from before the
> flood, in the very manner your presenter describes and it was God who
> supposedly confounded the whole project by changing the rules of language.
>
> [Krimel]
> Look up the dude's presentation for yourself. He may have misused the
> biblical metaphor a bit but his point is well taken and his project is
> bringing knowledge to a great many people in the third world to whom it
> would be otherwise inaccessible. I might also point out that Biblical
> ignorance is far greater in religious circles than you might think.
>
>

John:

I doubt there's much you can teach me about religious circles Krimel.
However I completely agree with your point.  Most religious people are very
ignorant of what the bible actually says and there's no greater disparity in
the world than the disparity between what a fundamentalist thinks the bible
says, and what it actually teaches.

A fundamentalist is somebody that fundamentally agrees with everything his
pastor/priest tells him to believe.

However, you can teach me about scientific circles, and that's an ongoing
fascination for me, so thanks for that.

However, as to my original point, "tearing down babel" isn't just a
misunderstood metaphor.  It's a description of activity exactly antithetical
to the original story.

I'd find that discussion intriguing, if you wanna go there.  Why does God in
the bible seem so anti-intellectual?


[John]
> But as an aside, I just picked up a pretty cool book at a yard sale ( a
> couple of pretty cool books, actually) and it had an article by Howard
> Bloom
> about a survey of newspaper editors across the country in 2000, which
> revealed that half of them thought that humans coexisted with dinosaurs.
>  Howard pointed out the appalling job science has done in the areas of
> public relations, but no wonder when our chief pundits to the community
> evidently got their scientific education from watching the Flintstones.
>
> [Krimel]
> It is not like you have to look very far to find ignorance about science,
> religion or anything else. That is not nearly as disappointing as the
> number
> of people like yourself who see it as a virtue.


John:

wha..?  Me?  Where do you get that I see ignorance as a virtue?


Krimel:


> Seriously, what is the
> virtue of ignorance? Why are you so quick to dismiss intellectuals while
> obviously pretending to be one on this forum? Really, John I don't get it.
>
>
John:

You'll have to explain why and where you get this view.  Just because I'm so
disparaging of the ontological significance of randomness?   Just because
I'm contemptuous of the sort of dumbing down pandering that happens when TV
tries to explain science?    Really Krim, you don't get it at all.  I agree
completely.




> [John]
> So now that you've seen a presentation on meditation at an actual
> scientific
> seminar (woo hoo!) Krimel, you give examination of the navel a little more
> cred?
>
> [Krimel]
> I think the points that were made have been made in any number of
> scientific
> studies on a variety of religious practices. Meditation, prayer positive
> thinking and ritual practices confer a great many health benefits.
>
> [John]
> Or are we gonna have to wait for it to be advocated by Nova?
>
> [Krimel]
> That, as you have pointed out would require the economic wherewithal to
> purchase a flat screen. Better for you, I suspect, to keep watching the
> shadows on your cave wall.
>
>

John:

At least until I can invent something as brilliant as the creator of Chuck
E. Cheese, I guess.

I live a life as rich and varied as any in my peer group, with at least as
much luxury as the inventor of Craigslist.  My shower is just as wet, and my
comfy bed gives me just as much sleep.  You've got some social status
hangups, in my opin.


>
> [Krimel]
> It might add more credibility to your case, whatever that is, if instead of
> bad mouthing intellectuals you could point out just a few of the advantages
> to ignorance and stupidity besides letting you off the hook for not owning
> a
> TV.
>
> [John]
> Right.  CEOs of big companies are citizens too.  I guess we all are, when
> it
> comes down to it.  What else is there?  Illegal immigrant scientists?
>
> [Krimel]
> I merely pointed out the theme of the conference was citizen involvement in
> science as a response to Platt's ludicrous claim that it was a bunch of
> liberals looking to fleece the taxpayers. In fact most of the CEO's who
> talked were involved with small companies and if anything they were fishing
> for venture capital. One guy for example had developed an electronic box
> that could detect nerve impulses in the severed legs of cockroaches. The
> impulses can be recorded to an iPhone ap and studied by high school and
> middle schools students. In fact the whole point of his project, Backyard
> Science was to encourage hands on science activities as a part of science
> education. He has also developed a pilot device that uses electrical
> stimulation of roach antennae to allow you to remotely control and drive
> your own cockroach.
>
>
John:

Science proudly marches on!  Today Chuck E. Cheese, tomorrow the cockroaches
that live under the floorboards.  What a thrilling panoply you exhibit!

Personally, I prefer  looking forward to grandchildren.



> [John]
> It's happened already!  I gotta cousin who swears his magic 8 ball is a
> real
> consciousness communicating with him, however when I ask it whether its
> really thinking or not it just returns: Results are Doubtful.
>
> Is that logically confirmation or disproval?
>
> [Krimel]
> It is one thing to mock things based on even a simple understanding of what
> you are talking about but this folksy wood owl wisdom falls kind of flat
> when you are so obviously clueless. There certainly is a lot to debate in
> the field of AI but most of the debate that matters is among people who
> actually know something about it. In your case it sounds kinda like a nod
> is
> as good as a wink to a blind horse and Magic 8 balls are about the best you
> can hope for.


John:  Just the fact that you proudly post changing diapers on your
grandchild grants you a lot more credibility with me than I'll ever earn
from you Krimel.  I can see that.

But in my book, that makes you the "obviously clueless one".  And I doubt
I'm alone.

Consciousness can't be replicated through alogorithmic means.  I don't care
what Whoopi says.


Take Care,

John