[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Richard,
If it's not too lengthy and unwieldy to answer, or give a general sense
as to why yourself and various researchers think so...
Why is it that in the same e-mail you can make the statement so
confidently that ego or sense of selfhood is not something
Dear Sir,
Pardon me for intruding. As you said, the divergent viewpoints on AI, AGI,
SYNBIO, NANO are all over the map and that the future is looking more like an
uncontrolled experiment.
I would like to posit a supplementary viewpoint for you to contemplate, one
that may support
albert medina wrote:
Dear Sir,
Pardon me for intruding. As you said, the divergent viewpoints on AI,
AGI, SYNBIO, NANO are all over the map and that the future is looking
more like an uncontrolled experiment.
I believe it is not an uncontrolled experiment, because most of the
divergent
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is nonsense: the result of giving way to science fiction fantasies
instead of thinking through the ACTUAL course of events. If the first
one is benign, the scenario below will be impossible, and if the first
one is not
Richard,
Thank you for your response. I have read your other posts and understand what
'the story' is so to speak. I understand where you are coming from and when I
talk about evolution therioes this is not to throw a 'stick in the wheel' so to
speak, it is to think with a universal mind.
Candice and others,
Here's a wild idea:
Simply because we are here and processing information in ways that make
us believe we are contemplating why we are here contemplating the
purpose of life and the universe logically implies that the energy/mass
system from which we have been assembled
candice schuster wrote:
Richard,
Thank you for your response. I have read your other posts and
understand what 'the story' is so to speak. I understand where you are
coming from and when I talk about evolution therioes this is not to
throw a 'stick in the wheel' so to speak, it is to
