Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (10020)	3/29/2001 2:08:41 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Solon has gone over the top on it I think, but it is generally true. It is quite pretty up here ;)! Not to sabotage your discussion, but when you get the chance...some neat stuff on transhumanism, superintelligence, etc. Many links... "...There are several approaches to developing the software. One is to emulate the basic principles of biological brains. It is not implausible to suppose that these principles will be well enough known within 15 years for this approach to succeed, given adequate hardware. The stagnation of AI during the seventies and eighties does not have much bearing on the likelihood of AI to succeed in the future since we know that the cause responsible for the stagnation (namely, that the hardware available to AI researchers was stuck at about 10^6 ops) is no longer present. There will be a strong and increasing pressure to improve AI up to human-level. If there is a way of guaranteeing that superior artificial intellects will never harm human beings then such intellects will be created. If there is no way to have such a guarantee then they will probably be created nevertheless." nickbostrom.com

To: cosmicforce who wrote (10020)	3/29/2001 4:20:17 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Hey Cos I respect your right to hold whatever beliefs you want to, but I think the real question is not whether you find them personally appealing or not, but rather are they true. I think it is better to know the hard truth, than it is to believe in a soft lie. If I had cancer, denying the doctor exists would not change the reality of the cancer. If right and wrong do truly exist then it demands that Justice be done. I hear about "right actions" but truly, I see no basis in eastern religions to make such a distinction. I don't believe your concept of Christianity to be Biblical. You seem to think a morally perfect being, (GOD) should just accept you on the basis of your efforts, while disregarding all of your imperfections. That would then make Him imperfect. The way the God sees it you have to be perfect, in order to enter into a relationship with him. Even if we set the concept of original Sin aside for a moment, you would have to have lived a perfect life from birth in order to qualify for Heaven. Therefore the only option for God to remain perfectly just, and yet extend mercy to imperfect beings was to incarnate as the sinless spotless lamb of God, in the person of Jesus Christ, and then offer that Perfect life as a substitute. that is why the person you talked to used the example of the serial killer. Even the smallest sin is enough to corrupt perfection, and even the greatest sin is not great enough to overcome the value of a perfect sacrifice. This seems like an incredulous idea to us, but if you compare the difference in height between Mnt Everest, and Death valley, it's very great. now compare that difference to the distance to the edge of the universe and you will get a different perspective on the issue. Sorry if this post is lagging the thread but you guys post so fast I can hardly keep up. Have a good day Cos Greg