On Jan 26, 2008, at 6:07 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Tom:A computer is not "disembodied" any more than you are. Silicon,
as a
substrate, is fully equivalent to biological neurons in terms of
theoretical problem-solving ability.
You've been fooled by the puppet. It doesn't work without the
pupp
On Jan 26, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Ben,
Thanks for reply. I think though that Samantha may be more
representative - i.e. most here simply aren't interested in non-
computer alternatives. Which is fine.
The Singularity Institute exists for one purpose. That I point that
ou
On Jan 26, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Mike Tintner wrote:
Gudrun: I am an artist who is interested in science, in utopia and
seemingly
impossible
projects. I also came across a lot of artists with OC traits. ...
The OCAP, actually the obsessive compulsive 'arctificial' project ..
These new OCA entitie
Mike,
> I certainly would like to see discussion of how species generally may be
> artificially altered, (including how brains and therefore intelligence may
> be altered) - and I'm disappointed, more particularly, that Natasha and any
> other transhumanists haven't put forward some half-way reaso
On Jan 26, 2008 9:07 PM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom:A computer is not "disembodied" any more than you are. Silicon, as a
> substrate, is fully equivalent to biological neurons in terms of
> theoretical problem-solving ability.
See http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/tom/?p=19 for
Tom:A computer is not "disembodied" any more than you are. Silicon, as a
substrate, is fully equivalent to biological neurons in terms of
theoretical problem-solving ability.
You've been fooled by the puppet. It doesn't work without the puppeteer.
And contrary to Eliezer:
"A transhuman is a tran
On Saturday 26 January 2008, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Perhaps you (or someone) need to make a sufficient case that
> potential treat/promise is as great in that area. There is
> certainly room for more than one highly focused organization so there
> is no need to argue that the Singularity Insti
On Jan 26, 2008 8:50 AM, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Correct me - my impression of discussions here is that this group seems to
> be focussed exclusively on the future development of a superAGI - and that
> is always considered to be a *computer*.
>
> However, there is still no s
Ben,
Thanks for reply. I think though that Samantha may be more representative -
i.e. most here simply aren't interested in non-computer alternatives. Which
is fine.
I joined mainly to learn - about future possibilities generally. It's not
an area I've thought about much, other than in rela
Gudrun: I am an artist who is interested in science, in utopia and seemingly
impossible
projects. I also came across a lot of artists with OC traits. ...
The OCAP, actually the obsessive compulsive 'arctificial' project ..
These new OCA entities ... are afraid, and bound to rituals and unwant
ed t
On Jan 26, 2008, at 11:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Natasha Vita-More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
At 03:04 PM 1/24/2008, Gudrun wrote:
and N. Vita-More
This is confusing. Fine that extropians want to self-improve. That
ALL humanity should improve, is quite questionable. Does all
h
On Jan 26, 2008, at 9:57 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
On Saturday 26 January 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which
case apologies) focus on the more realistic future
"threats"/possibilities - future artificial species as opposed to
future com
Quoting Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Jan 26, 2008 8:57 PM, Bryan Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Saturday 26 January 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
> Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which
> case apologies) focus on the more realistic future
> "threats"/pos
Quoting Natasha Vita-More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
At 03:04 PM 1/24/2008, Gudrun wrote:
and N. Vita-More
This is confusing. Fine that extropians want to self-improve. That
ALL humanity should improve, is quite questionable. Does all
humanity want to improve (immortality, happy pills, ...)?
G
On Saturday 26 January 2008, Vladimir Nesov wrote:
> I guess limitation of biological substrate are too strict, and there
> is not much to hope for from this side. Maybe we'd be able to
> construct a genetically engineered scientist with huge brain that
> will develop AGI, before cracking this prob
Quoting Natasha Vita-More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
At 01:53 PM 1/25/2008, you wrote:
On Jan 25, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote
and Samantha Atkins wrote
The idea of useless technology is developed in wearables more than
in bioart. Steve's perspective is more political than artisti
On Jan 26, 2008 8:57 PM, Bryan Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 26 January 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
> > Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which
> > case apologies) focus on the more realistic future
> > "threats"/possibilities - future artificial species
> The reason biowarfare has failed so far is mostly a lack of good delivery
> mechanisms: there are loads of pathogens that will kill people, but no one
> has yet figured out how to deliver them effectively ... they die in the
> sun,
> disperse in the wind, drown in the water, whatever
>
Biowa
On Saturday 26 January 2008, Mike Tintner wrote:
> Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which
> case apologies) focus on the more realistic future
> "threats"/possibilities - future artificial species as opposed to
> future computer simulations?
This is bias in the commun
At 01:53 PM 1/25/2008, you wrote:
On Jan 25, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
The idea of useless technology is developed in wearables more than
in bioart. Steve's perspective is more political than artistic in
regards to uselessness, don't you think? My paper which includes
a
On Jan 26, 2008 5:55 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing that seems clear to me is that engineering artificial pathogens
> is an easier problem than engineering artificial antibodies.
Yes.
> The reason biowarfare has failed so far is mostly a lack of good delivery
> mechanis
Hello,
The only known creatures that dominate or consciously enforce a way of
living on others are biological in origin. So long as AGI is contained
within non-biological or solid state non-robotic hardware, it will have
unlimited intellectual pursuits without worry from human observers. Once the
Hi,
> Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which case
> apologies) focus on the more realistic future "threats"/possibilities -
> future artificial species as opposed to future computer simulations?
While I don't agree that AGI is less realistic than artificial
biological
Correct me - my impression of discussions here is that this group seems to be
focussed exclusively on the future development of a superAGI - and that is
always considered to be a *computer*.
However, there is still no sign of that ever happening - of a disembodied
computer achieving true intel
24 matches
Mail list logo
