List:  ---   Off list and off topic  -----

After all this Buddhist talk I made a koan for phisicists:

What is the electricity provided by a battery with one pole?

signed: John Mikes (who holds te copyright and the patent rights)
*
PS (to the BS): Indeed this is plagiarizing myself, in my sci-fi I wrote
about an energy with 3 poles: a +. a -, and a third one. Russlell wrote a
solution to that, I found it exaggerating to get back into reason. JM
*

On 10/19/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Le 17-oct.-07, à 08:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 16, 11:37 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>>  If it is ''a'-rtificial' I question the 'natural one' (following
> >>> Bruno's fear of the (natural?) 'super stupidity'.) Yet I don't think
> >>> Marc wants to let himself denature into an artifact.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily, but look at Saibal's recent answer!
> >> This raises a question for Mark. What if the "future "SAI"", "SI"
> >> should we say, are computationalist? Marc, is it ok if those SI
> >> reincarnate you digitally? Could they decide without your consent
> >> (without being super-stupid?).
> >
> > Your points are well taken Bruno.  We should be highly suspicious of
> > any 'authority' that thinks to act without our consent.
> >
> > As for cryonics, Saibal , I think it's a good option.  If necessary,
> > I'm quite prepared to put myself in the freezer - I have no intention
> > of getting any older than a biological age of 65 - if I live that long
> > I might be the first guy in the world to volunteer for a 'live
> > freeze' (I would probably have to move to a country where there are
> > laws allowing for assisted suicide though!)
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Again, not necessarily. Buddhism, unlike Christianity, has always been
> >> very aware that "religious truth", once "institutionalized" get wrong
> >> ...
> >> To kill the buddha, or sompetimes just the master, is a way to remind
> >> the monk that they have to find the truth in themsleves and never to
> >> take any master talk for granted.
> >>
> >>> In our (definition-wise) lower mentality it is not likely that we can
> >>> 'kill' the smarter. So the condition involves the un-possibility,
> >>> even
> >>> if we are capable to recognise them
> >>>  - what we are not likely to be.
> >>
> >> Agreed. It was just a parabola for driving attention against any use
> >> of
> >> authoritative argument in the field of fundamentals.
> >> Ah! But the lobian machine too can be shown allergic to such argument.
> >> It's a universal dissident. Unforunately, humans, like dog are still
> >> attracted to the practical philosophy according to which the "boss is
> >> right" (especially when wrong!)
> >>
> >> Bruno
> >>
> >> PS Perhaps this week I will got the time to send the next post in the
> >> "observer-moment = Sigma_1 sentence".
> >>
> >
> > Well, I'm pleased to hear the lobian machine is a 'universal
> > dissident'.  I wouldn't want to imply that 'the boss is right'.  All I
> > was implying was that (in the case of super-intelligence) the boss
> > would be *stronger*.  Whether the boss is right or not, we little guys
> > wouldn't have much power so our negotiating power would be seriously
> > limited initally.  The best that could be hoped for from such a
> > hypothetical 'social contract' in the beginning is that the SI doesn't
> > hurt us.
>
>
>
> OK.
>
>
> You know I am confident that "real" SI would not hurt you, except by
> accident. The problem is that we cannot distinguished "real" SI from
> "real" SI, er.... I mean real super-intelligent (Sintel) from real
> super-idiot (Sidiot).
>
> I guess that is why democracy, when it is normally functioning,  is the
> best of the system, allowing to change your mind about the people we
> are delegating power to.        (by democracy I mean mainly here:
> education + "repeated"  well organized election).
>
> Note that normally "real SIntell" will never present themselves as
> "SIntell", only real Sidiot would do that. So, although,  there does
> not exist a way to test Super intelligence , there are some cases where
> we can  be almost sure to be in front of Super-stupidity ...
>
> Good week-end Marc, and All,    (please revise the notion of bijection.
> Are everybody convinced that N is in bijection with N X N, and with N X
> N X N X N X... ?
>
> David, do you mind if I send next week your solution (which were
> correct) of the exercises I gave online once to the list?   I am sure
> it could help some other. All that  is needed to get Church's thesis
> eventually right. Recall that Church thesis is one half of COMP.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to