Yep, that's what martin Luther King preached, and he was not very original either.
Adrian chreodman wrote: > If I were to ask those of you who just happen to read this, "How much > time in a week do you take to meditate or reflect upon the mechanics > or workings of your OWN mind, much more, the relative reliabilities of > the collective's acquired acumen???" What would be your answer? There > is much that can now be garnered via some "due-diligence" forays into > the cognitive sciences. The era of applied machine intellect is well > nigh upon us, but many seem to either choose an apathetic or > fatalistic posture, OR they are simply not well informed. How long do > any of you think it will be until the advent of first sentient, cyber- > system mind/entity/prototype is realized. ---The "rigorous" models are > already complete and only await a bit more maturation from the sensory > technologies... and within the span of a decade, we will come to KNOW > what the FOURTH (and final?) TECHNOLOGICAL WAVE will play out on > humanity... and our SENSE of humanity... our sense of fair play... our > abilities to determine our destinies. > The relative 'mix' of the "mixed bag" that ADVANCED CYBERNETICS will > most certainly bring, will be up to the anticipatory behaviors we > choose to embrace today: Will we enjoy a kind of renaissance via a > Prometheus UN-bounded, or the all-too-likely, "no-holds-barred" > Pandorian "shipping crate?" >> If we wait until "it" has arrived, > without having formed a "fair-minded" consensus it will be too late > and a remake of the genetics technologies that defy respectful > reconnoitering because frankly any would-be legislation or > constitutionally valid actions imposed from "the courts" cannot hope > to keep pace with the speed of the technology. > > Ray Kurzweil's "singularity" is an accurate projection of the thus-far- > unimpeded "technological acquisition curve" - a veritable exponential > one, to be sure. If you are not familiar with "Ray," and his futurist > understandings, you may want to "Google" him... suffice to say that he > is a positive "possibility" thinker - a technological enthusiast, who > is excited at the prospect of what the not-to-distant future may bring > - he believes it may spell out "physical immortality" for those who > want it... more power to him! > That's seemingly innocuous enough. > However, while the "Terminator" scenario is an unlikely one, it IS, > nevertheless, a PLAUSIBLE one. Many of Hollywood's scenarios are > possible... including "Lawnmower Man," and "Blade Runner," and "I, > Robot." You may ask HOW I can make these assertions under such an > umbrella of certainty. My group is one of those with a completed > model. We are willing to share an "intuitive" model for public > perusal, but we need the interest shown as our "outreach" has taken on > many fronts, and we are few. We also value our relative anonymity & > wish to preserve it for the greater part. > > When it comes to inherently understanding the implications of sentient > "A.I.," this group has has a "leg-up" in comparison to the rest of the > population, but we are not about to proselytize our "sense of urgency > egregiously upon others. If it would not bother the other members too > much, however, I would like to invite interested people to my groups > at "Linked-In," and I'll hopefully be recreating them here at Google > Groups. If you ARE interested, earmark this discussion, and I'll enter > my group's hyperlinks at a later date. That's all for now. > > Oh, except that you might be intrigued by the term given to our > methodology by A.I. circles: it involves the search for archetypal > ubiquitously operative system concepts within the range of competent > "HRDs" or Human Reconnoitering Dialogues so it is aptly named - "AUTO- > EPISTEMOLOGICAL." Despite it being a bit overly simplified of what our > model entails, it is essentially accurate; so my group has always > "owned it" and made no attempts to embellish or expand upon the > term. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
