I disagree with the last RT but love the phrasing.
-
-
Replying to @catvincent
@catvincent Aye. Total bollocks but written in honey.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cultauthor
@cultauthor@catvincent sounds legit to me, given, y'know, Bostrom and whatnot.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
@chaosprime@cultauthor I’m on the side of McLuhan,Korzybski, RAW & this http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25560-sentient-robots-not-possible-if-you-do-the-maths.html …1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @catvincent
@catvincent@chaosprime Aye. That has the sense of my rejection of it as hollow honey words.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cultauthor
@cultauthor@catvincent hrm. sounds like special pleading. the idea that neural nets work that way or human memory is lossless is goofy.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
@cultauthor@catvincent like, the first thing you learn upon any investigation of human memory at all is that it barely exists.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
@chaosprime@cultauthor Yep. And easy to rewrite. Lots of folk trying to model brain circuits, but not the neurochem, which is as important1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @catvincent
@catvincent@cultauthor but for the proposition to not be literally true, you'd have to be able to disprove the brain-in-a-jar hypothesis.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@catvincent @cultauthor it's a restatement of "cogito ergo sum" as much as it's a pastiche of Clarke's Law.
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.