I consider myself an agnostic, but not in this sense:
In addition to the two phenomena of religion and anti-religion, a further basic orientation is found in the growing world of agnosticism: people to whom the gift of faith has not been given, but who are nevertheless on the lookout for truth, searching for God. Such people do not simply assert: “There is no God.” They suffer from his absence and yet are inwardly making their way towards him, inasmuch as they seek truth and goodness. They are “pilgrims of truth, pilgrims of peace.” They ask questions of both sides. They take away from militant atheists the false certainty by which these claim to know that there is no God and they invite them to leave polemics aside and to become seekers who do not give up hope in the existence of truth and in the possibility and necessity of living by it. But they also challenge the followers of religions not to consider God as their own property, as if he belonged to them, in such a way that they feel vindicated in using force against others.
These people are seeking the truth, they are seeking the true God, whose image is frequently concealed in the religions because of the ways in which they are often practised. Their inability to find God is partly the responsibility of believers with a limited or even falsified image of God. So all their struggling and questioning is in part an appeal to believers to purify their faith, so that God, the true God, becomes accessible. Therefore I have consciously invited delegates of this third group to our meeting in Assisi, which does not simply bring together representatives of religious institutions. Rather it is a case of being together on a journey towards truth, a case of taking a decisive stand for human dignity and a case of common engagement for peace against every form of destructive force.
That doesn’t really describe me at all. I don’t think that I “suffer” from God’s absence, and I’m no seeking Him in any way (other than in my religious belief that it is humanity’s teleological duty to bring life and awareness to the universe). I’m functionally an atheist, in the sense that I live my life as though there is no God — I’m an agnostic only in the sense that I know that I can’t know whether or not there is a God, so I’m not an evangelist of the belief that He doesn’t exist, as people like Dawkins and Hitchens are.
“I don’t think that I “suffer” from God’s absence.”
If you didn’t start out religious, it’s possible you do but don’t know it–how would you be able to tell? It could be like the story about Amazonian aboriginals being given ice cream and then acting as if it were hot–with no referent to “cold” you couldn’t tell what “cold” was. Or the way Japanese people have a problem distinguishing between “l” and “r”, or how westerners don’t get the tonal differences in eastern languages.
Observation, analogical reasoning, you know, the usual. It’s not like churches, bibles and religious folk are exotic goods in the US of A…
Observation, analogical reasoning, you know, the usual. It’s not like churches, bibles and religious folk are exotic goods in the US of A…
Do you think someone who is colorblind could learn what colors look like by observing people who are not colorblind?
Religious people have ESP now? Interesting…
“it is humanity’s teleological duty to bring life and awareness to the universe”
Interesting. Perhaps it’s because I’m poorly read, but I believe this is the first
time I’ve seen someone else state what I have thought since I was a teenager.
We are the Ancients, the Old Ones.
I’d suggest, Rand, that you are a “disinterested agnostic”, in that the existence or nonexistence of God is no more important than any other nonfalsifiable question of existence, akin to “do I or do I not live inside a simulation”. When it comes down to it, whether you are or not, or whether god is or not, is irrelevant to you being a good person and living a good life, you are able to define your morals and ethics without someone bossing over you.
“able to define your morals and ethics without someone bossing over you” = might makes right. No sale.
Except that you do so all the time, just like everyone else. By adulthood, it’s as natural as taking a walk and consumes the same conscious energy as moving one’s legs down the sidewalk. Thus, you take it for granted.
Curious. I assume you’ve read Aristotle’s Metaphysics. How do you square your belief in “man’s teleological duty” with your agnosticism? No telos, no teleology — and certainly no such thing as duty, unless you’re of the “‘duty’ is whatever I’m pointing at when I say the word ‘duty'” school.
And you can know the existence of God by reason alone — but I’m not going to preach you that sermon. You seem to be a smart guy with a good heart. God will lead you to Himself.
And when we follow to wherever it is he is leading us to, will he shows us that he/she/it can indeed create a rock so large that even he/she/it can’t lift?
Doh, typos! Trying to watch Rangers and type at same time isn’t working.
I read your words, but in that configuration they convey no meaning and make no sense.
I’ll assume you haven’t read Aristotle, Mr. Reiter.
How do you square your belief in “man’s teleological duty” with your agnosticism? No telos, no teleology
To the contrary, Rand spelled out his telos, “bring life and awareness to the universe”. It was empirically observable. So agnosticism wouldn’t apply.
And you can know the existence of God by reason alone
I’ll just note that it hasn’t happened yet. I have become over time a pure empiricist precisely because reason on its alone proves so very little. Arguments by pure reason depend on self-evident axioms, and there are very few of those.
>you can know the existence of God by reason alone
I’d say that only God could do that. And He wouldn’t need it!
I’m functionally an atheist, in the sense that I live my life as though there is no God — I’m an agnostic only in the sense that I know that I can’t know whether or not there is a God, so I’m not an evangelist of the belief that He doesn’t exist, as people like Dawkins and Hitchens are.
Describes my attitude as well as well as many people I know. I have respect for people who have “faith”, but it is just not something I personally feel.
Rand, are you agnostic with regard to just the Christian God (Judeo-Christian, if you please), or are you agnostic with regard to all Gods, such as Thor, the Thunder God, and Titlacahuan, “He Whose Slaves We Are”, Ganesha, the multi-armed Elephant God, and so forth?
As you know, there is quite a list of Gods, some which sound quite funny to our Western ears, but as far as I’m concerned, Pan, Thor, and Ganesha are only as ridiculous as Jesus… … Jesus, who was described by the Urban Dictionary as “a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree…”
If you make a special exception for the Jewish or Christian conceptions of God, then I wonder if that means you harbor certain religious beliefs after all.
In all fairness, there is a qualitative difference between a lightning-wielding god on Olympus (perhaps even a Jewish zombie god) and an elusive, formless all-powerful creator god of the Abrahamic tradition: the former can be disproved while the latter can always be beyond the limits of our knowledge (i.e.: God used to be in the sky, now he’s before the big bang). The hypothesis is deliberately unfalsifiable, thus outside the realm of science and knowledge.
Hmm, well, first, I have to point out that many religious Christians, Jews, and Muslims don’t think that God is just before the Big Bang — they think He is here right now, taking an active part in how the universe unfolds, and when Rand asserts that he is an agnostic, he is asserting something about an active and present God.
—
Also, lets take care to separate out the various aspects of the Gods and how they relate to the Abrahamic God:
Some are all-powerful, some are not.
Some are responsible for all natural phenomena, some for just one or a few natural phenomena, some for none at all.
Some are formless, some are not.
Some are supposed to be a source of morality, some are not.
Some are creators of the Universe, some are not.
And, you claim, some (or at least one) is deliberately unfalsifiable, and some aren’t.
Why do you think Jupiter more disaprovable than God? Because we can visit Mount Olympus and see for ourselves that no Gods live there? 10,000 people climb Mount Olympus each year – it is an easy climb, and I’m pretty sure people could do it in Classical times too.
Why do you think Thor more disprovable than “God”? Because we know where thunder comes from? I’m quite sure the religious could come up with an explanation that allows for Thor’s elusive existence that isn’t inconsistent with modern weather knowledge, just as people do for God (who, in the bible, has pretty firm control over the weather). Fortuna, daughter of Jupiter, is the Goddess of Luck, and it is easier than falling off a log to make her existence compatible with quantum mechanics.
—
Rand, I’m genuinely curious: are you an agnostic or an atheist (as you define the terms) with respect to Ganesha?
Come now, I’m not implying that fundamentalists do not exist, but it should be obvious that some “gods” lend themselves more do Deism that others.
True.
But I don’t see much (or maybe even any) functional difference between deism and atheism — a God that sets everything in motion and then never intervenes again is a God that you can’t have a relationship with. There is no need to praise or fear such a God; it is impossible to feel his love; it is not the sort of God you could use as a role model in your daily life; you can’t, to quote upthread, “suffer from his absence”.
I think deists are rather rare. It is quite common to hear someone say “I don’t believe in God but I believe in some higher power, something good that is greater than myself”, but such people aren’t deists (or atheists, imho), as they expect the Power to be playing some role in how the universe unfolds.
Well, you either live a religious life or you don’t, and all the various reasons for not living so (be you an atheist, agnostic or deist, etc.) tend to look very similar from the outside, but to go beyond that requires getting into someone’s head (i.e. you must take their word for it.)
I consider myself an atheist, not because I’m certain that Ganesha doesn’t exist, but simply because I have no reason to think He exists.
An atheist is, I thought, someone who believes that God does not exist, not someone who does not believe God exists.
If you are not God then an all powerful God does not exist (you would be an exception, a limitation, to God). To which some might say, I am God I just do not know it. To which I might say, a God that is not even aware that they are God obviously does not know everything. Sure other lesser fallible gods can still exist, that is fine by me, but that is something other (and one can not have total faith in them due to their imperfections).
I am an atheist because I am not God and therefore God does not exist. I am not so sure what an agnostic is, presumably someone who is still undecided as to whether or not they are or are not God.
Believing in things is still unnecessary assumed certainty for the sake of over simplifying things. On the balance of probabilities, life is a good thing, that is enough for me to go on, no beliefs necessary – beliefs are for religions (old and new). To be more accurate, in life I know there to be possibilities, in death I do not know there to be any possibilities, therefore it is better to err on the side of life.
Rand the Pope’s description of you comes from his quite opposite opinion that is “He is and ever shall be”. So naturally from that perspective he sees all others as struggling to get to where he is on the dark path, whether they see a path or not. He sees a light he believe is his savior. He hopes to gather as many others to follow with him, for what he believes is the best thing for them. The anti-religious would rail against you for not supporting their position because they think religion is a waste of time and must be abolished. Because they see it as dangerous and unproductive. I think both side need to look at the unintended consequences of both perspectives taken to their furthest extension. On one side we have religious fanatics that “Believe” there religious leaders are leading them to God by sacrificing themselves now to fulfill some vague Utopian model that will be brought to fruition though their actions.
On the other side there are those that see no moral code that applies to them and so logically, in the purest sense, there is no reason not to do literally anything they wish so long as they are bright enough to evade the authorities. I’m not sure which monster is more frightening.
It kind of amuses me when people equate morality with religion – morality is far, far older. For better and mostly worse, religion does use and dogmatize morality to its own ends, separating it from its fundamental source. Simply put, religion is to morality what scentology is to science.
Religions are the biggest gangs in town, and that is why they are useful and evolutionarily successful, the specific details of their belief systems/bureaucratized morality/truthfulness is largely irrelevant. For example, some religions have sustained very high levels of human sacrifice without compromising their survival. The survival benefits of religions out weigh their specific stupidities.
To me, agnostism boils down to three simple words: I don’t know.
I don’t know if there is a supernatural being or beings known as God, Jehovah, Allah, etc.
I don’t know if humans possess an immortal soul. If they don’t then the whole idea of an afterlife is meaningless – no heaven, no hell, just darkness.’
Because I don’t know, I don’t insist God exists or doesn’t exist. I see little evidence that could prove either conclusion. I respect the beliefs of others but don’t allow them to be forced on me. All I can do is live my life the best I can.
If you feel unsure about the existence of God, but you feel more sure that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist, than I think agnosticism doesn’t boil down to those three simple words for you. If God and the invisible Flying Spaaghetti Monster and Thor and Ganesha aren’t all equally preposterous, then I suggest you are harboring some religious beliefs in addition to your lack of certain knowledge.
I don’t know if God exists or not. Ridiculing the beliefs of others isn’t a sign of intelligence in my book, just arrogance. I’m willing to admit that I may be wrong. The hard core atheists are just as annoying as the most rabid Bible thumpers.
To me, agnostism boils down to three simple words: I don’t know…. All I can do is live my life the best I can.
Well stated.
I would add, however, that it is possible for someone who doesn’t know to make a conscious decision to believe because he thinks that is the best way to live his life. Like Mr. Puddleglum, who could recall no evidence that the sun or lions actually existed but chose to believe in themm anyway because he reasoned that a world with a sun and a lion was a better thing to believe in.
By living my life the best I can, I do it because that’s the way I want to live and to be treated by others, not because I fear repercussions in a possible afterlife. That many of the principles happen to be the same (e.g. not stealing or coveting) happen to be the same as what many religious people use is a good thing. If my guiding principles were radically different from the population as a whole, that would cause problems. I consider myself very fortunate to live in a country where such choices are allowed. In certain parts of the world, I’d likely be severely discriminated against – perhaps to the point of death – for my beliefs.
You didn’t mention your other religious belief — the coming of the singularity — which is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for “humanity’s teleological duty to bring life and awareness to the universe.”
Desiring to create an immortal computer program that simulates your outputs does suggest you agree suffering from some sort of unease (probably regarding your own mortaility) which you wish to alleviate.
I can’t imagine any other reason why you would care whether the Rand Simberg simulation continues to run after your death. (Except for personal vanity, but you don’t seem to be a particularly vain person.)
“I can’t imagine any other reason why you would care whether the Rand Simberg simulation continues to run after your death. ”
Wow. Harsh. In contrast, I think that other people actually value Rand’s existence. For example, in these pre-Singularity days, if a high-fidelity Rand Simberg simulation kept up this blog, I’m sure I’d enjoy it just as much as when the original author was posting.
I can’t imagine any other reason why you would care whether the Rand Simberg simulation continues to run after your death
That just says that you don’t have much of an imagination.
Well, Karl, I note that you lack the imagination to come up with even a single reason why future generations would show any particular interest in the Karl Hallowell simulatio, out of all the billions of people who have lived. You simply assume they will.
The fact that you don’t consider that to be personal vanity is interesting in itself.
As Larry Niven said about cryonicists, why would they assume that future generations would be interested enough in them, personally, to bear the expenses of bringing them back, reeducating them with current job skills, and reintegrating them into society?
When was the last time you looked at your great-grandfather’s photographs? Yet, you expect your great-grandson (or someone far more distantly related) to take a far greater interest in you?
If you expect/want/hope for a universe that cares about Karl Hallowell personally, then you want God (whether you recognize it or not).
Well, Karl, I note that you lack the imagination to come up with even a single reason why future generations would show any particular interest in the Karl Hallowell simulatio, out of all the billions of people who have lived. You simply assume they will.
Again, you have not thought this out. Suppose we had a such a simulation from any time period of the past with a minor role in history. That would have tremendous value to historians. Its stories and memories would be of interest to most people alive today.
Well, same with me. I lived through interesting periods of human’s history. Someone would find that of value.
Second, your previous comment wasn’t in the least about whether future generations would care or not. I have certain ambitions and desires that simply can’t be realized in a current human lifespan. I don’t think it’s relevant how much value future generations see in me. The value I see in me is more than sufficient.
Suppose we had a such a simulation from any time period of the past with a minor role in history. That would have tremendous value to historians.
It is doubtful that most of us will be of even minor interest to history.
Even if we were, why should you care whether some future grad student writing a paper is able to add your opinions as one more footnote?
I lived through interesting periods of human’s history. Someone would find that of value.
Really, Karl? Do you find historians consulting you on a regular basis?
Even if they did, that does not explain why it is so important to you to provide something that is valuable to them.
The value I see in me is more than sufficient.
But we weren’t talking about you. We were talking about a computer simulation of you. Your work might continue through your simulation but you wil not. You will still cease to exist.
Or not. But if you don’t, it will not be the Singularity that saves you. That’s the problem with the Singularity as a god-substitute. It is not a substitute for God.
Of course, if you see no value in yourself, only in your computer simulation, that may not matter — but no one ever says that.
It is doubtful that most of us will be of even minor interest to history.
I notice you don’t base that assertion on actual history.
Also, my whole point of this argument was to disprove your assertion that there would be no interest in a future simulation of me. I succeeded in doing so.
But we weren’t talking about you. We were talking about a computer simulation of you. Your work might continue through your simulation but you wil not. You will still cease to exist.
We may already be computer simulations, depending on what the universe is. And I have already changed. You are not writing to the same person you wrote to earlier. I have different memories and a different body to that Karl of yesterday.
Or not. But if you don’t, it will not be the Singularity that saves you. That’s the problem with the Singularity as a god-substitute. It is not a substitute for God.
But what is God good for, Edward? Dealing with the “unease” of death (that is, after all, what “saving” is about in Christianity and most other religions have a similar thing) and personal vanity (you have a all-powerful being looking out for you). Stop me when this starts sounding familiar and condescending.
I notice you don’t base that assertion on actual history.
I probably shouldn’t bother, because it’s obvious that you can’t be objective about your own religious beliefs, but what what actual historical evidence is there that historians will be interested in Karl Hallowell out of billions of people who are alive today?
Also, my whole point of this argument was to disprove your assertion that there would be no interest in a future simulation of me. I succeeded in doing so.
No, Karl, you didn’t even succeed in reading the words I wrote.
The point was that you will cease to have any interest in the simulation (or anything else) once you cease to exist. There is no logical reason why you should care whether the Karl Hallowell sim enables some future grad student to get an A+ instead of an A. (Look up “Ayn Rand” and “altruism.”)
Assuming some grad student really would be interested. You still haven’t presented any convincing evidence for that. You’re simply carrying on like a Hollywood actor who’s convinced that the public will be watching his movies forever. But even stars from a few decades tend to fade. Douglas Fairbanks gets much less interest these days than Justin Bieber — and you’re not exactly Douglas Fairbanks. Why would you expect more interest in your like after you’re dead than when you’re alive — and again, why should you care?
We may already be computer simulations, depending on what the universe is.
I have dealt with that fallacy previously. Once again, if you regard the unverse as a “simulation,” then computers are devices that exist within the simulation and there is no reason to believe that any such thing exists outside the universe. It’s like dreaming of purple people eaters and therefore assuming that purple people eaters exist outside your dream.
So, you believe in a logical contradiction, and you have no trouble with that because computers are “scientific.”
Nonsense. Belief in the Great Computer is no more scientific than belief in the Great Computer.
But what is God good for, Edward? Dealing with the “unease” of death (that is, after all, what “saving” is about in Christianity and most other religions have a similar thing)
The difference is that God, if He exists, really can save you. Neither the Singularity nor any other “scientific” God-substitute can. Jesus, if he exists, is personally interested in you, in a more fundamental way than you imagine future grad students will be interested in you.
It’s interesting that people who are desperately seeking after God-substitutes get so upset when someone says they are suffering from the absence of God.
I probably shouldn’t bother, because it’s obvious that you can’t be objective about your own religious beliefs, but what what actual historical evidence is there that historians will be interested in Karl Hallowell out of billions of people who are alive today?
I already gave it. I have no idea why you think eyewitness accounts of the past are so low value. I guess that just doesn’t fit your narrative.
The point was that you will cease to have any interest in the simulation (or anything else) once you cease to exist. There is no logical reason why you should care whether the Karl Hallowell sim enables some future grad student to get an A+ instead of an A. (Look up “Ayn Rand” and “altruism.”)
If you really meant that, then you should have said that. And once my simulation exists, then it’s going to have some interest in continuing to exist as well. That’s a pretty obvious thing to miss.
I have dealt with that fallacy previously. Once again, if you regard the unverse as a “simulation,” then computers are devices that exist within the simulation and there is no reason to believe that any such thing exists outside the universe. It’s like dreaming of purple people eaters and therefore assuming that purple people eaters exist outside your dream.
Then I guess you’ve been doing it wrong all this time. The point for me here is that you casually disregard the desires and intent of the simulation. But given we may already be simulated beings, we should grant this simulation at the least the rights of a free willed intelligence. I do this to point out the moral inconsistency here.
Moving on, a contradiction is a chain of reasoning that results in a statement being both true and false. Hasn’t happened here.
As to your conditional observations at the end, that’s more of the purple people eater moments you criticized above. I don’t know that I will be “saved” in any way that I would appreciate. So I’m not going to be as accepting as you’d like about death and the other tribulations of having an organic body. As to “suffering” from the absence of God, I once did that, till I realized it didn’t matter to me or to any god. Either God exists or not. It’s pointless to care about something I can’t know or do anything about.
I already gave it. I have no idea why you think eyewitness accounts of the past are so low value. I guess that just doesn’t fit your narrative.
No, it doesn’t fit my narrative, which contained many words that you simply fail to read.
There is a great difference between “an eyewitness account” and “an eyewitness account by Karl Hallowell.” You are not the only human being living in the 21st Century. You are one of billions, and you have offered nothing to explain why you think historians would have some special interest in you out of all those billions.
I find it highly unlikely that historians would be more interested in you or me than in George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Steve Jobs, Norman Schwarzkopf, or Sandra Day O’Connor, to name just a few.
If your only motive is “to benefit future historians,” that explains your desire to create a simulation of a 21st Century human but does not explain why you would choose yourself as the subject. Unless you genuinely believe that you are the most historically interesting person alive today.
However, I don’t believe your desire for the Singularity is motivated primarily by concern for future historians — although I recognize it is possible that you believe that yourself. “Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.”
Edward, you are just haggling over price. My point was merely to find an example which fit your criteria. I did so.
My point was merely to find an example which fit your criteria. I did so.
No, to do that, you would have to understand my criteria.
To understand my criteria, you would have to read my words. All of my words, not just some selected subset that happen to fit the point you’re making.
The fact that you keep going from “future historians will be interested in the 21st Century” to “future historians will be interested in me” is a flaw in your argument that would be obvious to anyone reading clearly.
Oops, I meant to add “and I imagine that Rand would want other people to enjoy whatever his simulation can contribute.”
If Rand merely wanted his blog to continue after his death, he would not need to wait for the singularity. Just hire a younger writer and train him to take over. No uploading required.
Just as we don’t need to wait for nanotechnology to enjoy those perfect steaks Eric Drexlet talks about. There may be many reasons for wanting nanotechnology, but a shortage of beef is not one of them.
Then, of course, there are the thousands of people who never blog (or write or paint or…) but are still waiting for the God-substitute known as the Singularity. How to explain them?
I thought I posted this before, but it’s not showing up.
If Rand merely wanted his blog to continue for future generations, he wouldn’t need to wait for the Singularity. Simply hire a younger writer and train him to take over. No uploading required.
If Rand merely wanted his blog to continue for future generations, he wouldn’t need to wait for the Singularity. Simply hire a younger writer and train him to take over. No uploading required.
Why don’t you ask Rand what he wants, rather than assuming you know? Your assertions in this thread have been oddly stilted and irrational.
For example, you claim “unease” about death and personal vanity are the only reasons one would want to live longer. Those are in themselves quite adequate motives, but it ignores that there are a variety of other motives. For example, I want to do things that take more than a few decades to do.
When I point out the poverty of your argument, you veer to demanding some sort of justification to future generations. Why I should care what future generations would care about my ambitions is just bizarre. Needless to say, future generations’ hypothetical opinions on the matter will not play a role in any decisions I make concerning life extension or moving on to a virtual existence.
Now, you’re claiming Rand’s desire to survive beyond his human shell could be satisfied by hiring a replacement writer for the Transterrestrial blog. That’s crude and insulting in its dismissal of Rand’s actual words on the matter.
It’s clear you haven’t and continue not to give this issue any real thought.
Why don’t you ask Rand what he wants, rather than assuming you know?
I don’t “assume” I know what Rand wants. I was responding to your explanation of what Rand wants.
Why didn’t you ask what Rand wants?
My apologies for discussing your statements seriously.
Since you are becoming increasingly emotional and irrational, there is little point in carrying this further.
Now, you’re claiming Rand’s desire to survive beyond his human shell could be satisfied by hiring a replacement writer for the Transterrestrial blog.
I claimed nothing of the sort. Rand cannot survive his death by hiring a replacement writer any more than he can by uploading a copy of his software into a Kurzweill machine.
I don’t “assume” I know what Rand wants. I was responding to your explanation of what Rand wants.
Who are you talking to? The only person who mentioned the blog was Bob-1. You initial post, the one I responded to, was posted before all but one of my posts. And in my defense, it only barely seems related to anything else posted in this thread.
And Bob-1 wasn’t in the least talking about what Rand wanted, but rather what Bob-1 and the general audience wanted. Seriously, I read through the thread above and you are way off base here.
What’s the point of claiming you are taking this seriously when you don’t even bother to keep track of who said what? I’m not looking for some massive effort here, just glance over things before you write, a little due diligence.
And I tire of your phony carping about emotion and irrationality. For example, my very first reply was to your claim that you couldn’t imagine anything other than two reasons for a being to want a simulation of itself to survive. One cannot rationally base an argument on the paltriness of one’s imagination, especially, as I noted when the imagination is pretty skimpy.
I claimed nothing of the sort. Rand cannot survive his death by hiring a replacement writer any more than he can by uploading a copy of his software into a Kurzweill machine.
Ok, fine. In my defense, you don’t quote anyone. It took me some time to figure out that this was a reply to Bob-1 and not just a post out of the blue.
But it does remain that if Rand wants for some reason his blog to continue past the death of his physical, then the simulation would be more faithful to whatever goals and vision he has for the blog than another person. Especially, if he then wants that blog to continue longer than a replacement human could last.
Blogs obviously aren’t particularly interesting. But one could see this being a valid scheme for longer term projects of considerable value.
As Larry Niven said about cryonicists, why would they assume that future generations would be interested enough in them, personally, to bear the expenses of bringing them back, reeducating them with current job skills, and reintegrating them into society?
Larry Niven was always confused on that issue. Cryonicists do not assume that. That’s why they make arrangements with a provider that is designed to persist throughout perpetuity for that purpose.
Though I would think that there would be some interest for historical reasons. It would be interesting to resurrect someone from a past era so you could directly question them about life in those times.
“A provider that is designed to exist throughout perpetuity”?
So, God is now in the cryonicists business? 🙂
What providers can guarantee to retrain you as a warp-field engineer, or whatever other skill might be in demand 800 years from now?
Though I would think that there would be some interest for historical reasons. It would be interesting to resurrect someone from a past era so you could directly question them about life in those times.
On Star Trek, the historian who does that generally ends up falling in love with the man from the past and helping him take over the ship.
Assuming that doesn’t happen, what does she do with the man from the past once she’s finished questioning him? Does he become a ward of the state, or propery of the history department?
If this became a common research tool, there would soon be a lot of corpuscles walking around.
I suspect that departmental budgets would limit them to thawing more historically significant people, like George W. Bush or Barack Obama, rather than Rand Simberg or Karl Hallowell. U
Sorry, autocorrect changed “corpsickles” to “corpuscles.” 🙂
What providers can guarantee to retrain you as a warp-field engineer, or whatever other skill might be in demand 800 years from now?
So we’re incapable of learning or improving ourselves? Good to know, I guess.
Yes, Karl, I’m sure you would have no trouble at all waking up 800 years in the future and retraining yourself for job skills that you can’t even imagine today, in a society you’re unfamiliar with, perhaps speaking a language you don’t understand — with no financial resources, family, friends, etc. to help you.
Perhaps you think humans will have abolished money by then, and the Federation will simply provide everything you need — but even Star Trek recognized that it would not be that simple for sleepers who awaken after hundreds of years.
It’s also ironic that a current-day immigration warrior like yourself would simply assume future generations will welcome immigrants from the past.
Yes, Karl, I’m sure you would have no trouble at all waking up 800 years in the future and retraining yourself for job skills that you can’t even imagine today, in a society you’re unfamiliar with, perhaps speaking a language you don’t understand — with no financial resources, family, friends, etc. to help you.
To be honest, I was thinking it’d be harder. But you make it sound so easy, seriously. I was thinking that a normal human would simply be technologically incompatible with this society.
It’s also ironic that a current-day immigration warrior like yourself would simply assume future generations will welcome immigrants from the past.
I guess that depends on the level of dislike. If it’s like today’s societies, that’s not too bad. If they’re systematically killing off my fellow travelers, then I probably won’t have much of a future.
Gregory Benford’s take on that theme:
http://www.univeros.com/usenet/cache/alt.binaries.ebooks/10.000.SciFi.and.Fantasy.Ebooks/Gregory%20Benford/Gregory%20Benford%20-%20Doing%20Lennon.pdf
What providers can guarantee to retrain you as a warp-field engineer, or whatever other skill might be in demand 800 years from now?
No cryonicist expects guarantees, or “assumes” anything other than that their chances with being preserved, rather than rotting, are better than their chances without. And you have dragged this post far off topic.