From: John Marlow (johnmarlow@gmx.net)
Date: Wed May 16 2001 - 14:46:19 MDT
Goo is merely one of the downsides, perhaps not the most likely.
Turing--it's important when people begin to make the assumption that
something which apes something else IS that something else. A
golddigger convinces you he/she's in love with you--does that make
him/her "loving?" Still, a golddigger is superior to a Turing Test
graduate, which has no intent, no will, no mind--just code. (No DNA
refs, please!)
jm
On 16 May 2001, at 9:34, Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/16/2001 2:35:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> johnmarlow@gmx.net writes:
>
> << Clearly stated: I'm a promoter of nanotechnology as the solution to
> most of our problems and the means to the realization of most or all
> of our aspirations.
>
> Clearly stated: I think more likely the damned thing will kill us all-
> -so I'm a bit ambivalent about speeding things up. >>
>
> Ah, the many flavored goo's dilemma. I could see human mishandling of this
> situation certain death. It hardly seems worth it, if all it produces is
> uncontrolled, automated muck, that absorbs the planet. Unless we can achieve
> something fabulous through "uploading" or protect the biota that we and
> "nature" are with nanotech, also, it seems not such a bargain.
>
> <<A computer which passes
> the Turing Test is a parlor trick; the test itself is meaningless
> because its definition of intelligence is meaningless.>>
>
> Depending on who is asking what question, it may not be a parlor trick. Are
> we just a parlor trick of nature, are we something more, and is it important?
>
> Mitch
>
John Marlow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:40 MST