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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marek_wojna who wrote (4530)	6/8/2001 11:52:36 AM
From: the_wheel	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

I really think Maurice has some good points here. His basic point is that one thousand years from now things will be substantially different from what they are now, in ways that we can only have fun speculating about, ie its more fun to speculate about the future of the universe than it is to speculate about the demise of csco. Most people on SI like to discuss whether CSCO or JNPR will have a market cap of XXX gazillion units of money in 2525, when the reality what Maurice is saying, is that neither will exist, probably capitalism will not exist, USofA will not be the IT leader, and the computers will be substantially different than whatever we may try to imagine today. However, the question as to whether the internet of connected human beings and hardware can somehow be more than the sum of its parts in the way that an ants nest or beehive seems to be more intelligent than the sum of its members intelligence, as the human seems more intelligent that its cells, is irrelevant to the Coming Financial Collapse of 2001 or not, more relevant to as Kastel says long range fun optimism, like in the 1960s nuclear power mean free energy and moonshots meant flying cabs in 2001!

To: marek_wojna who wrote (4530)	6/8/2001 2:41:28 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

<Would you be so kind and explain to me what sense it make to create next piece of consciousness? > Consciousness beats rocks! Consciousness is fun. Consciousness is nice to see. Consciousness is helpful [if acting in symbiosis with me]. Humans can be helpful, but imagine how helpful a really smart Big Brother internet would be. It would know what you needed before you did. It could tell us what to do each day in exchange for credits. Naughty people would be stopped from being mean to us. Stock market collapses and financial messes would be prevented [we wouldn't have to dumbly try to figure out how to invest - we'd go ride a bike and have some fun in 3D instead leaving our investor bot to do it]. I thought it made lots of sense to produce the next piece of smarter consciousness so I've worked at it. I've already done it though it's not as smart as IT will be! It was difficult, but not as difficult as producing IT. Actually, I've produced four of them. They are autonomous, smarter than me [see the Flynn Effect] and are building cyberspace - writing code autonomously etc..., one of them is...here it is...fully conscious... tarken.com Mq

To: marek_wojna who wrote (4530)	6/8/2001 2:50:51 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

<Do you assume that a humane race is a mistake of nature and humans are working so hard to create a new species which will take their place in the process of self elimination?> Not a mistake; the purpose as proven by what happened. What process of self-elimination? Anyway, we will be dead in a few years irrespective of any new consciousness. Just as we don't set out to eliminate everything which isn't us, IT wouldn't have any purpose to eliminate the 3D helpers or non-helpers [unless they were a threat in some way - like mosquitoes get whacked by us if they try biting]. Mq

To: marek_wojna who wrote (4530)	6/8/2001 2:55:07 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

<Finally - could you share with me the goals of the new superhumans which regular humans cannot even dream of and achieve?> Survival, the basis of all life and consciousness. We can't do it for ourselves without IT. We need to do something about incoming comets, sun supernova, galactic collapse, universe event horizon, the financial collapse of 2001... Anyway, I'm not talking 'superhumans' ... this is something else again, though on the way, humans will become a lot better [as has already happened over 10,000 years let alone 100,000]. I'm talking about the next 10 years. Clip in some high IQ genes - bingo, instant smart babies. Mqurice

To: marek_wojna who wrote (4530)	6/8/2001 3:06:52 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

<As for internet - future will show if this new toy will make us any happier. > Ahhh, toys and happiness. We definitely like survival. When you are watching a child of yours die and a toy can save it, will you reject the toy and still be happy? While things are going okay, we are happy with an old car which breaks down, or a new one. I was as happy with both. But, for some reason, I seem to like to get better toys - they enable me. I think people would be 'happier' living in the jungle, in the ebb and flow of a hunter gatherer life we evolved through, albeit with the mayhem that goes with it. But some of us see a better way and that puts pressure on the others, who, if they can't cope, get unhappy. Because so many of us are pressuring in a million different ways, it's getting really tough for a lot of people who can't cope. I think that's something to do with depression, Prozac and suicide. I don't understand it, but it seems to be something along those lines. But we keep building the pressure and put Ted Kaczynski in jail, kill Tim McVeigh and carry on regardless, [Bill Joy is getting nervous about the whole process]. Women around the world are choosing not to have children - maybe they are boycotting the process, or enjoying it? Mq