http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Fascinating-article-on-how-AI-is-driving-change-in-SEO-categories-of-AI-and-the-Law-of-Accelerating-s-tp7587533p7587566.html
Hmm, ok, there's the "gene drive" issue. You could, say, get rid of
more effective vector. One could also imagine other nasty things one
of our Context) of people with whom one presumed to disagree. So yes,
> Glen -
>
> I do believe we *will* and *have been* outdriving our headlights, and
> it is part of the "manifest destiny" of being human, maybe
> mammal/warm-blooded/vertibrate/fauna/life? It *might be* a necessary
> property of evolved life to innovate "grandly"... where "grandly" is a
> relative term. The question I suppose, that I feel is in the air, is
> whether we are accelerating toward an extinction event of our own
> making and whether backing off on the accelerator will help reduce the
> chances of it being total or if, as with the source domain of the
> metaphor, will backing off too fast actually *cause* a spinout? Or
> perhaps the best strategy is to punch on through? Kurzweil is voting
> for "pedal to the metal" (achieve transhuman transcendence in time for
> him to erh... transcend personally?) and I suppose I'm suggesting
> "back off on the pedal gently but with strong intent" with some vague
> loyalty and identity with "humans as we are"...
>
> I also agree that Science is a sub-discipline of Engineering in the
> sense you mean it... I think it is mostly a moot distinction. I
> happen to have been trained in Science but practiced primarily in
> Engineering, so am familiar with the common view (at least of
> Scientists) of the reverse. I think this point is a nice
> conundrum... as a mutual friend of many of us uses for his tagline:
> "The Universe is Flux, All else is Opinion". It is the nature of
> "life" to evolve which (so far?) requires a finite lifetime for the
> individual... so who am I to argue with the end of an individual
> life, culture or species?
>
>
> Flux on!
>
> - Steve
>
> On 6/9/16 12:20 PM, Pamela McCorduck wrote:
>> I like this idea, Glen. Don't necessarily agree, but it's worth
>> examining.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Jun 9, 2016, at 9:53 AM, glen ☣ <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/08/2016 11:27 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>>> `` I'm pretty much a luddite myself, or at least "conservative" in
>>>> the sense of believing that we are outdriving our headlights on
>>>> many fronts.''
>>>>
>>>> Experiments can be risky but sometimes they pay off..
>>> The deeper point, I think, is that we not only _must_ outdrive our
>>> headlights, we've been doing it for billions of years. I've been
>>> trying to find some spare time to explore the idea that science is a
>>> sub-discipline of engineering. It's counter to our normal paradigm
>>> where we think engineering is applied science. But I find it an
>>> attractive idea that you can't learn or understand anything without
>>> violently destroying/reorganizing some small part of the universe
>>> first. Hence, all knowledge comes through engineering first. We
>>> have to force the ambience through our intentional filter before we
>>> can do anything with it ... like playdough through a stencil ...
>>> cast some liquid reality into the mold that is your mind, as it were.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ☣ glen
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comMeets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College