Dear Mike!
1. Thank you for your explanation about my English. Yes, that is not my native language, but I never use translators. Sometimes I make errors, (mainly using singular and plural, mixing tenses) when I'm just thinking in English not in Hungarian, due to the two languages has many grammar differences and interpretation of meanings. (I mentioned that lengthy on Joe Fisher's page, because it was relevant giving him an explanation about my understanding of the meaning of his Reality Once - how much differences could be because of the two languages.)
My essay moreover is written on same English what I'm using in dialogue. But, that is true and I accept your criticism:
- The title is truly a bit periphrastic, but that is advisedly construed so. (See below)
- The abstract truly doesn't regard to what the body content mentions. The latter is because there was only 9 pages given, but my matter in my mind about the theme was much more. So, I thought to shrunk the most important messages to the abstract and the thought-leading parts to the body.
- My essay body content also was not quite unfolding to properly connect with the matter of abstract. I truly think missing the crown of the physics of thought or at least its reconciliation with a re-considered philosophy being the utmost underlying ideological framework describing nature, society, and generally the most principal all-pervasive laws of the thinking process, what our contemporary theoretical physics almost quite well is trying to figure out. However, in connection with the message of your essay I can also agree, surely there is a need for a grounded consensus as being been ordinary humans (light speed limited ones :) to concur all of our knowledge describable with much simpler terms being been understandable, comprehensible for anyone. (For example as the notion philosophy exerts a [Latin-Greek: 'Philo' = (in composition) partake in, savant 'Sophia' = wisdom of life]
2. Regarding to your questions:
At first, I do not think we have been already 'artificial creatures' in the strong sense, but we would become in the near future by our own made creational technologies overcoming our natural boundaries. However, I think we may be in a situation at present what we cannot yet fully understand and figure out - more concretely phrased: WHAT IS CREATED WHAT IS NOT! WHO DOES TRULY CREATE WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHY! So we are yet in a constant doubt about our God-like capabilities: Who we really are, from where we come. My essay title was quite advisedly written so complicated. But, the title tries to mean in brief what the essay body unfolds: Whether someone(s) (probably quite natural humans, but with an advanced knowledge about the Nature and its interrelation with thoughts about it) had already created 'a special kind of original simulation' which is factually a thought (or thinking/learning trial how to steer what is desirable) experiment, a consciousness (i.e. subtle energy bodies) engineering (what our present theoretical physics can already almost well describe), and that presently not yet understood ' original simulation' is able transform one(s)' (as his/their self likeness) and our genes (also involved due to an unfortunate mixing) from/into an until naturally gained body forms through a process of reincarnation (the latter has been until an unscientific term). That is the question of my essay whether need they - who need to understand being been their own fragmented or gathered likeness by this process - overcome themselves and us creating artificial bodies?
(Read more about above my given answer to Ajay Bhatla)
And see my answer here given to your question put for me on your essay page:
"2.4 You warn we might in future develop artificial beings more intelligent than we, but less moral. They'd undermine the steering practice by rejecting the moral theory and instead enslaving us, or destroying us. Do I understand you?
Why would they reject the moral theory? What possible reason could they give?"
There may be much. However, it seems almost sure that the artificial beings come into existence by human creation at first. There may be humans rejecting the moral theory using artificial means for supremacy purposes. As a consequence their creatures as their artificial likeness may also reject the moral laws not only for enslaving or destroying us, but eventually themselves. (See: Terminator film series, and I also suggest to watch Eureka TV series mainly season 5. The latter is more closed to our present human understanding.)
I hope you could better understand messages written in my essay.
Kind regards,
Valeria