sucks when you could really use a supernal intelligence whose judgment you trust and it turns out you don't trust any of them as far as you can throw them, and how far you can throw them is NaN meters
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
I wouldn’t intuitively trust a supernatural intelligence, thinking from first principles. But as a purely practical matter, I wonder: How often do you find “you” knew better than the still small voice? Me? Actually never. Spooky, makes no sense, but utterly dependable so idgaf.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @delysis
by supernal i mean higher-order or more-distributed or whatever, i would never use the word "supernatural" to talk about anything serious but yeah, totally in re your actual point. and it makes perfect sense to me actually
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
Delysis Retweeted Delysis
>> higher-order or more-distributed OK. What about the Poetic Genius evident in ecology and evolution? Distributed and higher-order af, amirite?https://twitter.com/delysis/status/1180535323157291008?s=21 …
Delysis added,
Delysis @delysisI’m iso a concise way to articulate a stronger version of Chesterton’s Fence, with respect to the biosphere. Unlike the fence, erected by someone likely as smart as we, species, interspecies dynamics, etc. originate with evolutionary forces incomparably smarter than we are. https://twitter.com/delysis/status/1180533042856812549 …1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
yup, good example i trust it to do what it does, but i don't trust it so well to decide, for example, what to do with the internet i'm pretty sure its answer to anything like that is "break it, and break the next five hundred like it, and eventually you'll get a good one"
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.