> Samantha Atkins writes:
>
> > I do remember back that far. Not remembering that is not a universal
> > trait.
>
> I would not put any faith in fidelity of such supposed reminiscences,
> as (told in a recent paper which name I can't recall) adults tend to
> confabulate childhood memories. I've always suspected that much, but
> it's nice to see it proven -- hopefully, I haven't confabulated that
> paper, too ;)
I remember hearing that in Psych A01.
>
> Lucky modern kids, they can record every single minute of their lives,
> in principle. The technology is there, albeit still a bit expensive
> and cumbersome.
>
> > Nope. The gap between human adult and SI is many orders of magnitude
> > greater. But I don't see a sound argument here for assuming that the
SI
> > could not understand in principle.
It wasn't really supposed to be a strong argument, just a bit of random
conjecture to ponder as we stagger onwards into the great misty future.
>
> Probably, for the same reason we can understand a virus, at least in
> principle, if knowing its and it's context's full molecular structure.
I'm not sure of your point here Eugene; if you mean that knowing someone's
molecular structure does not mean that you understand them, then I would
concur.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:29 MDT