I think that not all information is infinatly accessible. Look at
history, look at our lack of it.
Gina "nanogirl" Miller
http://www.nanoindustries.com
echoz@hotmail.com
>From: "J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>To: "Extropy" <extropians@extropy.com>
>Subject: Re: Who Should Live?
>Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:50:09 -0800
>
>Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote,
>>THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS AN INDEPENDENT STATEMENT. YOU CAN TELL
BECAUSE
>>IT MIRRORS THE FORM OF A PREVIOUS STATEMENT YOU MADE. THIS IS A CLUE
TO
>>WHAT WE CALL **SARCASM**.
>
>Calm down, sarcasm works better when you don't shout.
>
>
>>SINCE NOBODY WOULD ACTUALLY CARRY OUT THIS COMMAND, IT'S INTENDED TO
>>POINT OUT A LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE RATHER THAN AN IMPERATIVE. THE USE OF
>>REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM IS ANOTHER CLUE TO WHAT WE CALL **SARCASM**.
>
>No identifiable "logical consequence" has occured. Accordingly, genuine
>sarcasm fails to emerge.
>
>>> You can't destroy information, you can only change it into other
forms of
>>> information or disinformation. A "precaution" against destroying
>information
>>> seems simple indeed.
>>
>>Oh, good. Can I have the Library of Alexandria back?
>
>No, because it got changed into other forms of information, some of
which
>confirms that the Library may have existed. The species that created
the
>Library contains more powerful information than the Library contains,
and
>that species can create other libraries.
>
>>SINCE YOU CAN'T GIVE IT TO ME, THIS IS MEANT AS A COMMENTARY ON THE
>>PREVIOUS STATEMENT, NOT AS A REQUEST. MAKING AN IMPOSSIBLE REQUEST
MAY
>>INDICATE THE PRESENCE OF WHAT WE CALL **SARCASM**.
>
>It may seem like "**SARCASM**" to you, but to me it looks like a
pathetic
>tantrum.
>
>--J. R.
>
>
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com