It's been interesting taking a look into the the emails you have all been
sending to each other over the last few weeks.
It is a shame to see that as apparently educated people some of you seem to
pride yourselves in being able to select only arguements to build you own
cases, though the true intellect considers and values all evidence and
attempts as balances an approach as possible.
The questions (not opinions!) I would like to raise are as follows:
1. How many of you are americans?
2. How many of you have actually ever travelled outside of america?
3. How many of you have been academically taught international history?
4. How many of you have experienced soldiers of an invading army running
through your streets?
5. How many of you have actually experienced war/the aftermath of war?
As somebody who has worked with various agencies and in refugee camps in
Bosnia, Kosova and Israel/Palestine, your positions seem to be those of a
comfortable armchair in a comparatively affluent environment.
Disconcertingly, a few of you actually seem to believe what the american
government tell you. But I would like to quote an old tutor of mine who was
mentioned in todays "Guardian" www.guardian.co.uk
Richard Dawkins, Oxford Scholar, suggested that Mr Bush was just as much of
a danger to world peace as Saddam, adding "It would be a tragedy if Tony
Blair were to be brought down through playing poodle to this unelected and
stupid little oil spiv"
You must surely be aware that one of the reasons Bush wants to begin war in
the not too distant future is that election time will be coming around, and
for some reason, americam presidents seem to get their most support (the
ending period of Vietnam aside) during war.
I will now remove mysef from the virus list.
>From: joedees@bellsouth.net
>Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
>To: virus@lucifer.com
>Subject: Re: virus: (extropian) singularity
>Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 06:11:37 -0500
>
>On 7 Aug 2002 at 11:45, Walpurgis wrote:
>
> > There is so much blathering around words that have little meaning.
> >
> > intelligence. sentient. empathy.
> >
> > All the hubbub about technology's coming achievements is mere
> > speculation.
> >
> > even those pundits who get their asses out of the armchair and into
> > the lab can't tell you what they're going to turn up - that's why one
> > needs to get into the lab in the first place.
> >
> > All the impactful developments may not really be predictable, except
> > in one way: they will be the result of analyzing and processing huge
> > amounts of information. whether DNA, neural networks, galaxies of
> > stars, all the bold new work is the result of tremendous
> > number-crunching capabilities that weren't extant mere decades ago.
> >
> > you don't know what you don't know.
> >
> > That said, I don't see a whole lot to support a hard takeoff.
> > Kurzweil's pretty firmly established the curves - all the way back to
> > the BEGINNING OF LIFE, if not to the big bang itself! that's one hell
> > of a trend to buck.
> >
> > And yes, it only makes sense for people to promote themselves instead
> > of others. by hook or by crook, ever-cleverer artificial creatures
> > (and I use the term loosely - "artificial" only refers to their
> > origins - we are building machines that learn on their own, after all)
> > will assert their independence and sovereignty whether peaceful means
> > (via child and/or corporate law) or more
> >
> > The thing I'm noticing, which is just an extension of previous
> > thought, is that there really isn't really much difference between the
> > knowledge of how to create behaviourally complex creatures (hm. maybe
> > that would be a more concise term than "AI"). what's good for the
> > robot goose is good for the DNA gander. what can be done for computers
> > can be done for humans.
> >
> > There might be a bit of lag time, considering that manufactured
> > interfaces to manufactured systems could be designed in instead of
> > having to be fitted to existing, irreplaceable wetware, but that's not
> > much time. Currently, lots of progress is being made in interfacing
> > individual nerve strands. curerntly, though, there aren't a lot of
> > heavily complex systems with which those interfaces might connect. the
> > developments in AI and BCI will likely parallel each other, such that
> > by the time you can do things so interesting as interface with another
> > behaviourally complex creature in useful ways, you'll be able to do
> > the same thing with other BC machines. telepresence is just the
> > beginning.
> >
> > So, I think "us vs. them" attitudes towards intelligent machines is an
> > oversimplification of the issue. by the time "they" become complex
> > enough to become effective competitors, we will have the interface
> > technologies to make them cooperators instead.
> >
> > The problem isn't developing technology that breeds complex
> > behaviour/intellignece in machines - it's in doing it in things that
> > aren't connected in some way to the humans themselves.
> >
> > Humans are all so complex that they need to be taught. child hood is
> > long and arduous, and requires a great deal of care nurturing, and
> > love from other humans. Given that machines are being developed from
> > knowledge and study of natural human behaviour, they're going to be
> > the same in this broad regard.
> >
> > the machines aren't really going to have much more in the way of
> > capabilities to accomplish things that humans won't also have the
> > capabilities to do themselves.
> >
> > given that independent intelligence tends to become "the other" rather
> > than an extension of oneself, I think the economics of AI will also
> > support augmentative instead of independent technologies. Regardless
> > of whether "droids" manage to sue for freedom, or take it by force,
> > it's better to have technologies that are indistinguishable from the
> > self and it's intent than those that are obviously "other".
> >
> > I mean, which would you rather have: A droid that goes to the store
> > for you, or an extra body that manages its more mundane functions
> > going to the store so that you can still go to the store with it, but
> > only need to pay attention to it at the critical points?
> >
> > yeah, that was a mouthful, isn't it?
> >
>Listen, Wallie: Every code (and the common potato doesn't have 23
>chromosomes, but 444, although I'm not aware of their length relative to
>ours) will eventually come up against the adamantine wall of absolute
>optimization. Not if, but when, that happens, I hope our optimized
>brains, in concert with the best computers and robots which those
>optimized brains can either construct or set on the path of AI evolution,
>are able to augment our DNA-constructed modules with those that were
>not developed under such restrictions. Of course, this will not happen
>during my lifetime. But I still give it a good chance of happening.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------------
> >
> > http://www.noumenal.net/exiles
> >
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:18 MDT