@alien_ecologies "under conditions of intense human catalysis"
-
-
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 @alien_ecologies
@alien_ecologies There's a science of complex adaptive systems, enveloping machines. Anthropogenetic back-patting isn't part of it.1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
@Outsideness Been there, done that. Your actually just reverting to scientificity and jargon rather than truth. To prove what, exactly?4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alien_ecologies
@Outsideness Not everyone is a trained scientist, nor a specialist in the jargon, so why expand your superego to prove a point?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@alien_ecologies Chill out, Christ. If you're finding this irritating, just drop it.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.