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.
> 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.
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