Very nice response, Psion . . . I sincerely appreciate the amount of effort and thought you put into it.
I have to admit, for the most part, you’ve won me over. The argument using the reverse angle of a human supported by cybernetics was really most effective; however, I will admit your first line of argument was also quite convincing.
I am glad that you were willing to include that these individuals, whether raise by a nearly human robot or a nearly robotic human would not be considered “normal”, which, at the very base of my argument was my point. Upon further thought and consideration, I should not have been so steadfast in my position since “normal” is quite subjective when the definition is looked at across the spectrum of human societies or within one as plural as the burgeoning “World Culture”. If the point of Fire’s original plan was only the survival of humans as a species than even the most primitive of synthetic caregivers would be successful. If the point is to reboot our “world”, then I would argue that we would want the most “perfect” specimens as the seeds of Earth 2.0. Although a child raised by a Data type android would be pretty near to normal I would argue that the slight kilter provided by this unusual upbringing would, over time, result in society degrees off of what we consider “perfect” or “normal”. Once again, though, these definitions are so nebulous that any sane and functional individual might fit the bill.
Just to clarify, I enjoy reading Fire’s rapid fire ideas. Although many of them seem to be light on logic or rigorous thought, he makes up for those insufficiencies in volume. The thing I appreciate, though, is the fact that he is thinking about these things at all . . . something I wish more people would do than contemplating matters of trivia. The thing that rankles me though is the often overly defensive or defiant nature his responses when called to the carpet to provide more information or meat to his proposals. This communicates to me that he is uninterested in dialogue and would rather have blind accolades, which, due to my lack of emotional discipline, results in a brusque response that may come off as ridicule of the basic concept he is presenting.
In closing, thanks for your civility, Psion . . . this type of exchange, although few and far between, is the thing that keeps me coming back here daily to read and post (although not so often).
Oh, and please accept my apology for the lack of eloquence in this post . . .
I have to admit, for the most part, you’ve won me over. The argument using the reverse angle of a human supported by cybernetics was really most effective; however, I will admit your first line of argument was also quite convincing.
I am glad that you were willing to include that these individuals, whether raise by a nearly human robot or a nearly robotic human would not be considered “normal”, which, at the very base of my argument was my point. Upon further thought and consideration, I should not have been so steadfast in my position since “normal” is quite subjective when the definition is looked at across the spectrum of human societies or within one as plural as the burgeoning “World Culture”. If the point of Fire’s original plan was only the survival of humans as a species than even the most primitive of synthetic caregivers would be successful. If the point is to reboot our “world”, then I would argue that we would want the most “perfect” specimens as the seeds of Earth 2.0. Although a child raised by a Data type android would be pretty near to normal I would argue that the slight kilter provided by this unusual upbringing would, over time, result in society degrees off of what we consider “perfect” or “normal”. Once again, though, these definitions are so nebulous that any sane and functional individual might fit the bill.
Just to clarify, I enjoy reading Fire’s rapid fire ideas. Although many of them seem to be light on logic or rigorous thought, he makes up for those insufficiencies in volume. The thing I appreciate, though, is the fact that he is thinking about these things at all . . . something I wish more people would do than contemplating matters of trivia. The thing that rankles me though is the often overly defensive or defiant nature his responses when called to the carpet to provide more information or meat to his proposals. This communicates to me that he is uninterested in dialogue and would rather have blind accolades, which, due to my lack of emotional discipline, results in a brusque response that may come off as ridicule of the basic concept he is presenting.
In closing, thanks for your civility, Psion . . . this type of exchange, although few and far between, is the thing that keeps me coming back here daily to read and post (although not so often).
Oh, and please accept my apology for the lack of eloquence in this post . . .
