"Now we will build you an endlessly upward world..."
https://youtu.be/F7P2ViCRObs ( written from the POV of an AI (if
that's even possible))
Speaking of robot overlords, after listening to this starting to think
that trade agreements are less about trade than about big data.
C
On 6/10/
s/white guys playing basketball/scientists without engineers around/
http://www.thewrap.com/snoop-dogg-explains-the-hizzistory-of-bizzasketball-to-jimmy-kimmel-viewers-video/
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016
On 06/10/2016 11:22 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Bah. I'll see your "You kids get off my lawn" and raise you a "Save it just keep it
off my wave" .. In particular David Brooks can save it..
That's kinda how I feel when I go to museums. My postmodernist homunculi start
thrashing around demandi
`` I have no idea, which is why I called it "faith" and hand-waved toward the
inadequate closures of our current machines. ''
Bah. I'll see your "You kids get off my lawn" and raise you a "Save it just
keep it off my wave" .. In particular David Brooks can save it..
Marcus
==
Heh, I'd forgotten about Golgafrincham. It's funny because it's true!
The problem lies with the permeable and dynamic boundaries of all these things. And
"symbiont" captures the fuzziness of the boundaries quite well. As we've argued till
we're blue, _general_ intelligence may well be illus
If some subset of humanity build a general artificial intelligence, and that
intelligence takes over, or leaves, I don't see what gut biomes or ISIS matter.
Nor do I see why wonkiness (w.r.t. Glen's last e-mail) must occur within a
(sub)population of cybernetic or genetically engineered super-
I was thinking of symbiont in terms of mitochondria, gut biomes, HERVs,
etc. I'm also rather increasingly fond of 1G, so if I am to give that
up, it doesn't seem to me that some long-term fractional G is going to
be worth it.
You are of course familiar with Golgafrincham?
On 6/10/16 9:23 AM
On 06/10/2016 09:05 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> They wouldn't do a Mars One (one way) trip. They are thriving in this
> environment. Only `weird' people would do that. There are other options
> for people that are willing to take risks. But in Elysium case, yes.
That's a good point. But
`` I'll not only consider them. I'll be in the front of the line ... as long
as they let lower middle class morons like me in the line at all. I suspect
it'll be packed with Trumps, Musks, Thiels, and Bransons. ''
They wouldn't do a Mars One (one way) trip. They are thriving in this
environ
On 06/10/2016 08:41 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> That "we" entered into the discussion is arbitrary (Steve started with that,
> I think), and further the statement is tautological.
Heh, no, it's not tautological. It relies on the ambiguity of the word
(perhaps concept) "we". You're right that i
``But one article of faith I'm having a hard time killing is that if _we_ go
anywhere (including across some abstract singularity as well as to Mars), we'll
_all_ have to go, or at least some kernel of us with a chance of growing into a
robust ecosystem.''
That "we" entered into the discussion
On 06/09/2016 08:26 PM, Carl wrote:
> One might do well to remember that we are symbionts (a Good Thing), so,
> transcendence for who or what?
Excellent question! It's pretty easy to trash faith in various contexts. I do
my best to hunt it down and eradicate it in my own world view. But one a
12 matches
Mail list logo
