Some of my grandson's mates (and the lad) are as thick as mud in the 
academic sense.  I like the idea that my chip could sort them out in that 
sense.  I would have withdrawn the boy from secondary school if the 
academic stuff was all (he knows almost none of it) - but we are very 
reluctant to test what '20 years of child-minding' has produced in a 
graduate student.  I suspect my chip would be pretty small if it only had 
to contain the knowledge of, say, as 25 year old with a PhD.  As Molly 
says, this is hardly all intelligence is about.  Some of us working with 
computers do think biological intelligence is about to change.  I think we 
may have misjudged what education is really about.  Of course, we'd need 
some way of interface with the chip.  A few academics are having implants, 
but I know little of this research.  We are also approaching natural 
language processing-programming that would improve and ease extra-somatic 
communication.

Intuition is still a vague term.  I can see something of it in the 'eye' 
Facil has offered.

On Sunday, 28 September 2014 17:18:52 UTC+1, Molly wrote:
>
> Good questions.  What makes us individuals?  Would we be much different if 
> we all had the same "knowledge" base?  Would an extensive and common 
> knowledge base lead to "knowing" what we are looking at? Perception and 
> knowledge are intertwined but I do not think that perception is totally 
> dependent on knowledge, rather, also affected by intuition and innate 
> intelligence.
>
> On Sunday, September 28, 2014 11:50:58 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote:
>>
>> Amazing constructions Facil.  I sometimes think 'our' foreign policy 
>> might deconstruct to 'plastic'.  We might have a great metaphor for Star 
>> Trek in the construction of a credible space sculpture from 40 items of 
>> household plastic!  I'm probably not far off myself in thinking of 
>> genetically engineered cyborgs taking advantage of such as polar bear 
>> hibernation mechanisms in the hostile space environment - adapting material 
>> from our current environment.  The question of what we are 'looking at' 
>> arises again.  We tend to think of hibernation as 'long term sleeping', yet 
>> the underlying mechanisms concern nitrogen recycling done to keep such as 
>> muscles in shape and polar bears can enter hibernation mode whilst active 
>> and moving about to help cope with the Arctic.
>>
>> In science soap fiction, we tend to put ourselves, perhaps as characters 
>> from Attic tragedy into a future this 'we' could not survive into. 
>>  Questions that arise for me include whether I would have swapped school 
>> and various years in university courses, research and teaching for a cyber 
>> chip with the knowledge I assimilated in it.  I'd go for the chip, but also 
>> wonder on what such would mean for those we standardly fail in these 
>> processes and so-called meritocracy connections in education.  I can 
>> probably plot out a 28 year 'flight' in a relativity bubble to the edge of 
>> the universe (an Australian estimate) with a lot of effort, but would I 
>> bother with a reliable cyber-node?  What would argument become with us all 
>> much more knowing creatures?
>>
>> On Saturday, 27 September 2014 21:42:15 UTC+1, Allan Heretic wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes. Man is not designed for space.  ;o) but there will evolve small 
>>> groups capable of the transition. They will have small communities 
>>> throughout the earth and its oceans,  they will quietly develop a small 
>>> space station developing one for deep space independent life of this world 
>>> and the reality that has been created.
>>> You are right man is not fit for space.
>>>
>>> Allan
>>> Living Soul
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: archytas <[email protected]>
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Sent: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 2:51 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: alien scrutiny and Facilitator's 'artist'
>>>
>>> We tend to create conditions in space-time flight that at least resemble 
>>> those close to the Earth and the parochial conditions of gravity. 
>>>  Biologically, we are remarkably unsuited to space-time flight other than 
>>> on our planet.  Facil's stuff is great, though we could argue we might need 
>>> to start in non-human perception and something less visual.  Some creatures 
>>> seem to be navigating here on the basis of distant stars or the Milky Way 
>>> (dung beetles are an example).  Much 'perceiving' these days has 
>>> extra-somatic components. and art might shift to what we are not 
>>> perceiving.   
>>>
>>> On Saturday, 27 September 2014 08:53:51 UTC+1, Allan Heretic wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I like the drawings but i think they are kind of old school. They are 
>>>> missing some basic needs. Other than centrifugal force. 
>>>> A deep space  platforms of say a design similar a bike tire would 
>>>> create the much needed gravity. (I see all the yadda about artificial 
>>>> gravity but no how to accomplish its' creation.)
>>>> A rotating tire concept is also the easiest way maintain balance .. 
>>>> Food can easily provided by hydroponics. Power provided by nuclear power 
>>>> potentially housing millions of people. This would create their own 
>>>> civilization..
>>>> Hmm
>>>> Several platforms and larger ones will perfectly allow for on going 
>>>> wars.. Peace and harmony do not go well with  greed and domination so 
>>>> present today.
>>>>
>>>> Allan
>>>> Living Soul
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: "'facilitator' via \"Minds Eye\"" <[email protected]>
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Sent: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 8:49 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: alien scrutiny and Facilitator's 'artist'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-zg1xxsHxY7k/VCZd227kx9I/AAAAAAAAADE/5Ktjilh92Y0/s1600/Murray_Ganymede_EntryA.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-KkXYBDqrspY/VCZduNqDTdI/AAAAAAAAAC8/Bq6M5BOMYg4/s1600/Murray_Voyage%2BHome_EntryB.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-BMk-Up7S2C0/VCZdoBI81PI/AAAAAAAAAC0/k05WAjUkuZ8/s1600/Murray_Caution%2BAdvised_EntryC.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:15:37 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That's today Andrew.  Can we question beyond the singularity in which 
>>>>> even this cycle breaks down?
>>>>>
>>>>>  -- 
>>>>
>>>> --- 
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>>> an email to [email protected].
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>>
>>>  -- 
>>>
>>> --- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to [email protected].
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to