Would teaching that Asimov made those predictions be too religious in your view?
No, that is a fact that can be confirmed.
Ok. So why isn’t the fact that serious philosophers like David Chalmers find uploading plausible not something that can be taught in public schools?
I think that Asimov was in a position to know something about space travel so therefore I am in favor of educating people about whatever he said (unless he said something completely crazy).
The standard of what constitutes a religion for purposes of First Amendment issues is complicated and subject to dispute, but no legal scholar thinks that “I think he was correct” is a reason to include a religious statement in school. The correctness of a religion cannot be correct. (Incidentally, according to the Asimov essay we should have had a colony on Mars about 20 years ago and should be preparing our mission to Pluto.)
Strong AI would get me laughed out of court by itself (probably). Uploading however could be made into a decent case.
Really? I’m curious as to how you would present such a case.
Even stronger then someone that did not believe in the specifics of transhumanism would be someone that did believe in transhumanism attempting to gain the status of a religion. That would in my opinion get through the courts without any difficulties.
we should have had a colony on Mars about 20 years ago and should be preparing our mission to Pluto.
That was the plan, Apollo was supposed to be a sustained and expanding program with nuclear rockets following shortly after. Instead we got the space shuttle and billions spent on programs that go nowhere with any cheap or good technology getting discarded or sold as implementing it would cause unemployment in certain key congressional districts.
serious philosophers like David Chalmers find uploading plausible not something that can be taught in public schools?
Assuming you have a public school that teaches anything on philosophy then I don’t think this is a problem.
Can you expand?
The definition for a religion is fairly broad, pretty much if you claim to be a religion and believe the claims that you make then you are considered a religion. So if say SIAI wished to incorporate as a religion I am pretty sure it could and if challenged could point to the meet-up groups, these boards, and the training that it does and probably not even have to go to an appellate court on the issue.
Ok. So why isn’t the fact that serious philosophers like David Chalmers find uploading plausible not something that can be taught in public schools?
The standard of what constitutes a religion for purposes of First Amendment issues is complicated and subject to dispute, but no legal scholar thinks that “I think he was correct” is a reason to include a religious statement in school. The correctness of a religion cannot be correct. (Incidentally, according to the Asimov essay we should have had a colony on Mars about 20 years ago and should be preparing our mission to Pluto.)
Really? I’m curious as to how you would present such a case.
I’m not sure what you mean. Can you expand?
That was the plan, Apollo was supposed to be a sustained and expanding program with nuclear rockets following shortly after. Instead we got the space shuttle and billions spent on programs that go nowhere with any cheap or good technology getting discarded or sold as implementing it would cause unemployment in certain key congressional districts.
Assuming you have a public school that teaches anything on philosophy then I don’t think this is a problem.
The definition for a religion is fairly broad, pretty much if you claim to be a religion and believe the claims that you make then you are considered a religion. So if say SIAI wished to incorporate as a religion I am pretty sure it could and if challenged could point to the meet-up groups, these boards, and the training that it does and probably not even have to go to an appellate court on the issue.