Analyzing and debating the "exceptions" to the "law" is what I'm calling "validating". I just don't really understand what makes the premise valuable enough to deliberate over when there's a simple, straightforward, boring explanation for the same phenomena.
It think it is because these are transhumanists. They want these things to be true. They would like to live in a science-fiction world, not in a straightforward, boring, stuff-is-hard world.
I was trying not to be too personal, but I do basically agree with you. I dearly adore transhumanist fiction, but their real-world philosophy seems to boil down to pretending that the fiction is real. One hesitates to compare them in that respect to Trekkies, but there the comparison stands.
