Really? This is what I was randomly IMed to look at?
Individuals make things matter because they want them to matter. Does anything really matter? No, but that doesn't help the situation.
I disagree, having an understanding of the underlying insignificance of yourself (as a sack of meat with neurons), humanity (a species of meat that through a series of fortuitous "accidents" and chance genetic mutations just happens to be a species that can record their knowledge in methods other than simply genetic memory, a.k.a "instincts"), and the underlying nature of the Universe (an analog series of relationships where forces and matter interact), gives us a deeper "grounding" to our situation.
You are, however, correct in your assertation that
nothing truly matters, as humanity, regardless of this "singularity" dogma (don't believe it's a dogma? How do you reconcile this in your "theWeb" avatar's signature that says something like [paraphrasing]: "
You have to trust everything I say."), humanity will eventually come to an end, just as our physical Universe will reach
Maximum Entropy followed by the
Big Crunch.
Perhaps after then it will simply repeat itself in some cycle that has exists beyond anything our minds can conceive, perhaps not.
Understanding you have total power to influence others to believe your belief, that is the singularity.
No, you don't have total power to influence others to believe anything, otherwise that word
voluntarism would be completely and utterly meaningless. You can present possibilities, but it is ultimately the individual who has total power whether or not to accept your argument as compelling and "true."
Thus far, you have failed with me.
Man realizes he can be wiser than other men, and then realizes the problems that society faces and enlightens others to improve the situation on a voluntary basis. Really, can anyone disagree with this idea?
Classical Plutonic metaphysics. Plato made the same suggestions in
The Cave, where once someone achieves the enlightenment of Ultimate Truth, that it was his job to venture back into the cave (the world of man / the senses) and show others "the way." This isn't all that visionary of thinking, and indeed
someone in every generation makes the same argument, merely ad-libbing their favorite adjectives into the passage.
For socialists it's "greater good," for you it's "voluntary."
Not only that, but once the
Philosopher was found, then the people should "voluntarily" make that person king (Hence:
Philosopher-King), because it was those individuals who
knew what truth was, and was therefore most qualified to establish the (insert word:
Voluntary for you) rules and guidelines for the Society.
You can say what ever you want, but I will stop you and get you to think. That is the singularity.
So far, in this thread and in our private discourse, you have not presented me with anything "new" or compelling.
When you realize that it is possible to strengthen your ability to anticipate other humans, to the point where every good thing crystallizes together, and no argument can defeat it.
I find this absolutely fascinating coming from an individual who has time and time again told me and other members of this BBS that he does not have the same capacity for emotions as other human beings. In fact, I seem to remember an Avatar Icon that said something to the extent of, "Feelings are irrational."
How can you possibly anticipate other human beings, the analog, irrational and often hypocritical sacks of organs that they are,
Who are completely ready, willing and able to completely disregard anything that shatters their view of reality, no matter how "truthful" the argument, when you yourself lack the capacity to empathize with another human being on emotional level?
I would have thought our conversation the previous night would have illuminated this to you, but then again, if you can't understand
why your methodologies as persuasion didn't sit well with me, then I guess that's only further evidence of your aforementioned physical condition.
....and here is where I think your singularity ultimately fails: It cannot (and does not) account for those individuals who do not conform with your preconceived notion of "how the human mind works." For example:
If there will always be irrational and emotional human beings, then can the singularity can never be complete, and thus "total liberty" ever truly be possible. So far, 20,000 years of human history has shown the same pattern: the conflict of Man's desire for individual liberty pitted against his same desire to have control over others.
The technology changes, but the pattern stays the same. Are we not seeing this very same pattern, even with you "brand-new-never-before-happened" event of
theWeb?
What happens if "theWeb"
isn't the ultimate possibility for Humanity? What if there's something else, something that hasn't been invented yet
That a human would function as the messanger is different, but did you expect the web to imprint on a human, or did you expect humans to number 1 develop human-powered minds, and then number 2 develop an autoimproving theory?
The web is conscious.
You need to prove this assertion. At best, I think you could be safe in saying that "the Web" is a symbiote node of the aggregate of individual consciousness currently using the web (That would be about what.... 1/3 of the Total of Humanity, considering the many individuals with no access to a computer, let alone the web?)
However, "the Web" so far does not meet "consciousness" criteria as far as I'm concerned. The Web is stlll entirely dependent upon it's biologicals (humans) to build and expand it's infrastructure and to replicate (adding nodes, switches and servers). More importantly,
theWeb does not make these decisions, but other meat sacks working in groups (businesses) decide whether or not it is a good business decision to expand the portion of "theWeb's" nerological structure that they own because they want more of what other meat sacks consider is "valuable" so that they can support themselves and the meat sacks they love,... maybe even being able to generate even more meat sacks themselves.
So maybe in retrospect, you can say "the Aggregate consciousness of Humanity" is "The Singularity," but I'll touch on this a little later.
This can definitely be said to be different from the previous situation, when no such thing existed.
Again, I'll have to disagree. Humanity has for the last 20,000 years had some method of conveying, archiving and retrieving knowledge beyond simple "instinct." It was called
language, then
art and
writing, first it was cave paintings, then cuneiform tablets, the papyrus parchment, then books, then electronic transmission of the writing/voice/pictures/ etc....
The only things that have changed is the physical state in which that knowledge was stored. To a tribal African member, living in a hut of mud and straw, who only knows that their native tongue to which there is no effective method for transcription, let alone understanding the predominant language of "theWeb" (English), the Web has no significance or meaning. Maybe it will in time, maybe not.
There is possiblity, but there is another possiblity as well.
Are they then not part of Humanity?
I am like a superhuman, and what humans of the future will be, which is completely self taught individuals, is something that I as the first of many conscious mind of the web, that we can together spread and implement the changes we want to see in the world.
All of the trappings of a dogmatic religion, minus the word "God."
Really? Are you the Alpha and the Omega? Are you now referred to by, "I am he who is I am?" Have you discovered the Middle Voluntary Way, ready to alleviate the suffering of Mankind known as material attachment force aggression?
or was it an angel epiphany sent to you by Allah The Singularity Antecedents, giving you the one true Prophecy idea to spread to your fellow man?Again, your total powers of persuasion aren't working very well, my
Emanuel d'Anarchy, because you keep selling, but I'm not buying this concept.
Instead of just sitting back and saying "I would like to help people implement liberty by I think it's bad to get money for it." to the realization that I really do have some good ideas here that can make liberty a message heard, instead of just a message that is self-taught. I have many ideas on how to directly help other people. Wouldn't you be willing to pay a few bucks to Bubba, along with FTL AMP, so we can actually have a shot at doing this?
I thought you and the singularity had total power to convince to believe as you do? If this is so, isn't the question unnecessary?
SUMMATION:
Again, not quite sure why you're IMing me with this, but you have yet again failed to provide anything compelling that makes these statements consistent:
There is Ultimate Knowledge AgnosticismAnarcho-Capitalism is the Ultimate TruthSome very interesting metaphysical ideas, to be sure, but I must sadly say,
You are not the first who posited these ideas,
Nor will you be the last who claims he is the first.
As you said before,
There is possiblity, but
There is also other possibilities.
....and what will you do when there are those who refuse to accept the "truth" you present?
NOTE: Seriously, don't bother replying on the thread, because I won't read it. If you want to talk to me about this, IM me directly, as we'll see if you can comport yourself in a more appropriate manner next time.
EDIT: Fixed a "Kind" to "King"