Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (7118)	3/2/2001 12:00:14 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) of 82486

Actually some scientists think of IDT as the "nose of the camel" problem. The fear is that if we allow intelligence then we allow God. I've been a proponent of a distributed quantum intelligence. Its relationship to Earth-bound life is like that of the neuron in your brain to the whole of your brain. I doubt that the neuron in your brain is aware of much of anything other than the immediate connection machine of which it is part. But that is speculation. My example of IDT is that of homologous structures that arise in many animals without a common genome (like the eye of the squid and those of vertebrates) or the morphological similarity to the kelp "forests" and the land forests. There is a counter argument that there are only so many ways to accomplish a design. I'm not sure I'm convinced. My screen name is a homage to what I believe is a separate non-physical space (the information space) which I call the Cosmic Force (with capitalization). This fits very nicely with the Gaia hypothesis regarding the global awareness of the planet. This animistic notion scares some pure science types and they argue that no such mechanism is needed. I think that many processes are simplified (such as the apparent spontaneous arrival of intelligence in many species) if we allow that information is a transcendent form of the matter-time-existence producing what we call life. One of the consequences of this pet theory of mine is that intelligence is no longer constrained to things with neural tissue. Even amoebae seem to be trainable (without benefit of neurons). My model allows and even predicts such behavior. One of the other consequences is that matter becomes simply the recording medium of this intelligence. It is an interesting, if speculative, notion. BTW, AJ had criticized me that these were not original ideas in other threads where I posited this. I recognize that many cultures and philosophers seem to have discovered this relationship independently. I remember my first independent discoveries. Anyone that has had these experiences knows that it evokes a powerful sense of connection with the original (credited) discoverer. It is a very cool feeling to make an information contact with someone who is long since departed.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next