On 14.05.2013 13:39 Telmo Menezes said the following:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
On 14.05.2013 11:01 Telmo Menezes said the following:

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal
<marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 13 May 2013, at 18:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


The author failed to make definitions for artificial and
natural. Could you define these terms?

The difference between natural and artificial is ...

And thus it is natural ... for creatures which are developing
some ego. "artificial" is a human indexical. Even with comp, we
are part of nature. I think.

Yes, I agree with this.

The distinction is useful to simply qualify something as being
the product of human engineering (as in "Artificial
Intelligence"). The

Well, if we cannot define artificial vs. natural, then the question
actually remains. Are computers for example artificial products or

I guess an answer that would make sense to me would be: "both".

I think artificial is a useful concept, but just that. Natural is a
bit silly because, obviously, everything is a part of nature. So you
can have the artificial / non-artificial distinction, which is
already implicit in "intelligence" vs. "artificial intelligence" or
"sugar" vs. "artificial sweetener".

The opposite of natural would be unnatural (?). For example, a neon
blue cat the size of Europe is unnatural (as far as we know).

No, I am interested in the difference between natural and artificial. So a computer both natural and artificial. Do you know things that are just natural and where the term artificial is not applicable? If yes, what is the difference in your view between things that

1) Natural

2) Natural and artificial

search for ETs, interestingly, forces the distinction into an
uncomfortable territory, because it's now "the product of some
intelligence's engineering". We have no way of knowing the full
spectrum of possibilities for alternative biologies, so we can
never be sure if, for example, a signal we receive from outer
space is "natural" or "artificial".

This means that this kind of research is just a way to throw
taxpayers money out. Hence, to be consistent, the government
funding of search for extraterrestrial intelligence should be

I don't think that follows. SETI is looking for ETs which are
similar enough to us to be detected by looking for stuff we're
familiar with. That seems like a reasonable goal to me.

Well, if scientists cannot say what is the difference between natural and artificial, then it is unclear what they are doing. In this case, in my view, the goal is ill-defined.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to