Some postsingular (!?) terminology

Posted: 25th July 2010 by Khannea Suntzu in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Some postsingular (!?) terminology
Infect Teh Interwebs

In response to this post:


Yes indeed 🙂

I can give you another bunch of dualities and considerations….

* the spectrum of minds that are an extension of another meme, (i.e. minds that like gaga so much they prefer to be her and forget about being their birth-identity (which I will here label *Idceptity* or ‘the id that emerged upon inception or natural procreation, referring to antiseptic, Id, Identity, inception, entity) as opposed to the other end of the same spectrum where the Id overexerts to become as unique and meaningful to self and others as maximally possible. Another annoyance is th emergence Religoids – humans that doubted about their religion once, and decided to self-modify (a common practice in the 2060s) to become doubtless in a chosen religious system, thereby saddling the future up with a powerful voter lobby that was incapable to accepting certain types of ideation.

* how about minds that have ‘civil rights’ (acknowledged citizens) but aren’t singular? Imagine not one person X, but a whole diffuse cloud of mind-children of X (all meticulously edited and programmed to make branching away or ‘defection’ impossible

* how about societal cost? Maybe a zillion voters don’t want me to endlessly have my mind children become citizens. At some point democratic systems would exert constraints in creating minderivates and mindicles. They might not disallow it – but what if they taxed it? Every inception of something AI on your behalf would tap into global resources, and as a consequences is taxed. You print out a domestic droid programmed with some of your paradicta, tax would be low. But immaterializing into a major AI net would cost you a fortune. Assuming you’d want to because you’d be so prominarchal, you’d gather spamitude at a rate of terabites per second.

* Another consideration is – civil rights. Not having any makes a hell of a difference. Can a game sprite over time gain civil rights if it wanted to? Can humans descent to a condition where the ‘state’ (or civil authority) decides the degenerate loses civil recognition rights? Can humans unbecome themselves to such a degree society starts considering them things? I know a few humans who’d want to!

Imagine the following scenario:
It is 2092, and dying has become illegal. Death causes so much distress that every person is required by law to run mental subroutines and recorders so that the state at any time as access to a reproducible mind-clone. You can decide to relinquish actual consciousness, at which time you are declared legally demised – but the state maintains an indistinguishable simulation of anyone who so decided to cross over. Referred to as NeuroLuddites as ‘state necromancy’. These AmTeSo (Amalgamated Terran Sovereignties) laws after 2092 severely restrict offworld travel, after it is clear humans engage in suicide tourism to the asteroids, where suicide is a basic civil right.

Terms to watch for are:
* AmTeSo:
* Ceres Death Act:
* Defection:
* Idceptity:
* Immaterializing:
* Mind Child:
* Minderivates:
* Mindiclies:
* Mind Clone:
* Neuro-Luddism:
* Paradicta:
* Proceptids:
* Prominarchal:
* Quavatar:
* Religoids:
* Spamitude:
* Suicide Tourism:
* Unbecome:
* Xmashup:

Comments are closed.