On Thursday, October 3, 2013 9:30:13 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Craig Weinberg
> > I think that evil continues to flourish, precisely because science has
> > integrated privacy into an authoritative worldview. As long as
> > remains the primary concern of most ordinary people, any view that
> denies or
> > diminishes it will be held at arms length. I think it secretly erodes
> > support for all forms of progress and inspires fundamentalist politics
> > well.
> I agree. Taking privacy literally, this is in fact one of the most
> creepy consequences of total surveillance: denial of privacy is, in a
> sense, a denial of the right to existence. Can one truly exist as a
> human being as an undistinguishable part of some mass? No secrets, no
> mysteries, what you see is what you get to the extreme. This sounds
> like hell.
Right. I think that it is no coincidence that the major concerns of
ubiquitous computing revolve around privacy, propreity, and security.
Computers don't know what privacy is, they don't know who we are, and they
can't care who owns what. That's all part of private physics and computers
can only exploit the lowest common denominator of privacy - that level
which refers only to itself as a digitally quantified object.
> > Once we have a worldview which makes sense of all phenomena and
> > experience, even the mystical and personal, then we can move forward in
> > more mature and sensible way. Right now, what is being offered is 'you
> > know the truth about the universe, but only if you agree that you aren't
> > really part of it'.
> I believe more than this is being offered in this mailing list. I feel
> your objections apply mostly to mainstream views, and to that degree I
> agree with you.
I agree, I wasn't really talking about specialized groups like this.
> > Why would MWI or evolution place a high value on leadership or success?
> > seems just the opposite. What difference does it make if you succeed
> > and now, if you implicitly fail elsewhere? MWI doesn't seem to describe
> > universe that could ever matter to anyone. It's the Occam's catastrophe
> > factor.
> Highly speculative and non-rigorous:
> You can see it differently if you can assume self-sampling. Let's
> assume everything is conscious, even rocks. A rock is so simple that,
> for it, a millennia probably feels like a second. It does not contain
> a variety of conscious states like humans do. Then, you would expect
> to find yourself as a complex being. Certain branches of the
> multiverse contain such complex beings, and this would make evolution
> appear more effective/purposeful than it really is, from the vantage
> point of these branches.
Even so, why would uniqueness or firstness be of value in a universe based
on such immense and inescapable redundancy as MWI suggests?
> >> >>
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> > Craig
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> >> Telmo.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.