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
out does not in the least mean I don't consider anything else important.
I joined mainly to learn - about future possibilities generally.
It's not an area I've thought about much, other than in relation to
the future of human society.
I can't recall, though, a single superAGI discussion that struck me
as other than pure fantasy, or gave me anything to conjure with -
whereas your brief discussion of pathogens immediately gives me
something to think about.
Then you are in a more specialized area that doesn't make a lot of
sense to you. So why act as if it should change its speciality rather
than move on to something that better fits your needs?
(I guess the immediate response to your spectre is that if they can
produce more deadly pathogens, they will be able to engineer some
form of bio-resistance - which evokes the prospect of articial life
arms races - although you might get a nuclear-comparable situation,
where every state would be too scared to use them, for fear of being
counter-attacked).
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 reasonable possibilities here. But perhaps
Samantha & others would regard such matters as offlimits?
Here? On this list that exists for rather something else for the most
part? These topics have been talked about by many transhumanists and
extropians. Just because you don't find that discussion here on this
list or much discussed in your relative brief time in these places
doesn't mean that they aren't thought about or that they are "off
limits" in any meaningful way. But organizations and lists do have at
least general charters and it is pointless pushing them toward
something that may be interesting enough but isn't particularly their
charter.
It's a pity though because I do think that Venter has changed
everything today - including the paradigms that govern both science
and AI.
Posh. Make your case. Personally I don't think it can be made
convincingly.
- samantha
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=90315113-0bcbeb
