At 12:35 AM 7/02/01 -0500, Eliezer wrote:
>> >They also speak about the "wisdom" of nature. What the heck is that?
>> Run time + computational space.
>I really doubt that *anyone* who says "wisdom of nature" means "run time +
>computational space". At the very least, they mean "nature" as opposed to
>things that humanity builds.
Well, yes, but of course I was trying to explicate what it *is* about
`nature' that distinguishes its processes and products from human `designed
And why it often makes a lot of sense to give priority to the former (or at
least not to screw it up opportunistically and without concern for its
webwork integrity), to the extent that its evolved complexity has tested
Vastly more options than human brain simulations.
In other words, I'm asserting that some such implicit analysis underlies
many people's preference for `nature' over `human constructions', to the
extent that people actually *do* have such a preference. By and large I
don't suppose they do, since most people are only too eager to intervene in
the world without having a clue what they're doing, and most First Worlders
at least would not relish being returned to the wild to enjoy its natural
pleasures: danger, hunger and thirst, illness, ravenous beasts, all the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:36 MDT