@Outsideness Oh my, your one of those? Are we going to fret that AI's arose without us? That without human intervention they would arise?
-
-
Replying to @alien_ecologies
@alien_ecologies "under conditions of intense human catalysis"1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
@Outsideness As I said - that is obfuscation, not explanation. Scientificity, not truth.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alien_ecologies
@alien_ecologies Anthropogenesis doesn't explain anything, it's self-congratulation. Complex systems don't 'come from' their catalysts.2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
@Outsideness Under analytic and scientific method your absolutely correct, under common sense language I'm fine. You're arguing semantics.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alien_ecologies
@Outsideness Which has nothing to do with the fact that if humans had not begun the process that AI would exist as it does now.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alien_ecologies
@alien_ecologies If humans had not begun the process, plutonium would not exist as it does now. ...2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
@alien_ecologies ... But if you want to understand plutonium, you don't concentrate on the conditions of its terrestrial anthropogenesis.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
@Outsideness Our original conversation had nothing to do with understanding AI, only with what conditions began the process. Separate issues2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alien_ecologies
@Outsideness Which means we're going in circles with this which seems pointless.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@alien_ecologies Going around in circles is the only way to get anywhere.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.