"Words break if you push them too far" -PG I think we are at that point now--at least I am, when I try to reason using the terms of our previous discussion. (I

"Words break if you push them too far" -PG I think we are at that point now--at least I am, when I try to reason using the terms of our previous discussion. (I just realized that this is an excellent copout when you lose an argument about abstract things! Still, I don't think that's the case here). Let's approach this from a different direction. Is it within the scope of the theory of probability, and its accepted models in physics, to deal with cases where the observer is determining the probability of existence of a property that only he possesses? I think the answer is "no", though I'd really like to know the view of someone more knowledgeable than me. But this means I was wrong in my original post, when I claimed that the probability was possibly very small. It made no sense to talk of probability at all. I wish I had the mathematical chops to formalize all of this. Oh well, I'm still young. P.S.: re: singularity. I think what I'm doing is exposing the muddle that is already there. To me, being a cyborg physically doesn't seem very remarkable. (By the way, doesn't the word "cyborg" already mean "part-robot"? "Part" in "part-cyborg" is redundant). It wouldn't even be the biggest change to ever occur in humanity. Perhaps forfeiture of individuality would fit the bill, but I don't think even the most ardent singularity nuts are very excited about that.