Just as a thought, is it not within the realm of possiblity that super-rational humans might all agree that progress involves challenges, debate and problem solving? All those things require that everyone not always agree...would they then all agree that in order to progress they must disagree? It's all very circular.
Since there are always uncertainties that cannot simply be rationalized out of existence, I have no idea how this idea is supposed to work but its certainly one that a bored economist could come up with. Has Mr. Hanson once considered how "perfect" everyone must be for this to work and the redefinitions everyone would have to "agree to" prior to its implementation? Either I've misunderstood something, or this theory is just plain ludicrous.
In the scenario where humans are supplanted by thinking machines, all of which are connected to each other (wirelessly networked - therefore 'psychic'), there would evolve a common 'worldview', based on meshing the knowledge available within the system; or their little 'virtual heads' would all blow off!
[the wheel of knowledge]
Do you think that having a digital communications port built in to your body/brain would be a good, or bad thing.
[I have use such a device in my writing; i call it a 'SET' - Standardized Electroneural Terminal. It handles (enhances)all the communication/computing/memory functions of the individual, and links to the internet, and whatever communication protocals are subscribed to.]
I'm not so sure I would want to be that 'connected' Bo. Mind you, I don't even own a cell phone.
Is resistance truly futile?
Quote:Is resistance truly futile?
Relax! Becoming a common denominator clone isn't so painful. Many wouldn't even notice the difference. It'll be like pulling a dead tooth. But we will have to look for genius elsewhere so we can "add THEIR distinctiveness to our own!" Not having any of our own left, we may have to experience the future and the universe as parasites! Long Live Leachers!
