How Often Do Humans Legitimately Win?

[Drashner1]

There seems to be some confusion here regarding what advantages transapients have by virtue of thinking at a higher toposophic level, and the separate advantages they have as virtual entities. A Superturing AI could also control multiple bodies at once, collate data from a vast array of senses and evaluate thousands of different courses of action simultaneously, while still being blind to possibilities that only a transapient could see. It would just as hard to "kill", at least from a modosophont perspective. If they know they're in danger, they could have backups all over the place, vots acting on their behalf to look out for potential threats in the spaces they inhabit, and so on.

Not all transapients are virtuals. It's not clear what the percentages are,but that's likely contributing to confusion on this point.

It's also not clear just how much more capable than a human a superturing is. It could be hundreds of times more capable - or only the cybernetic equivalent of a Superior. Agreed that such a being would still be far belong a transapient.

This is where the human vs animal analogy breaks down, in my opinion, because both humans and animals are embodied beings with limited ability to surpass what our bodies let us do. In a virtual universe, there could be any number of methods to determine if you'd eradicated a particular mind or its descendents and copies from your sphere of influence, and game theory for evaluating such conditions might well be unsolvable for modosophonts. Perhaps only a transapient could ever know if it had truly won or not. A setting like this does not go well with Hollywood-like stories where the criteria for victory and defeat are easily for modern humans to make sense of.

Interesting ideas ! Generally agreed. Will need to think about this and what it might look like.

Todd