On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Emlyn O'regan wrote:
> I don't think this impacts on Nick's arguments at all. Nowhere does he
Somewhat sheepishly, I have to admit that I don't know what Nick is
talking about. I presume it's this paper here?
I just replied to a comment which gave the impression that it was
criticizing the anthropic argument not being accounted for.
> rely on any probability of intelligence arising based on observations
> of humanity and our relation to the natural universe. He merely
> depends on the fact that we do exist, irrespective of how, and that we
> can, or we think we can, do certain things (like do strong AI).
> In fact, one of the most interesting things about his paper is the
> complete avoidance of territory covered by the anthropic principle.
Very interesting, if true.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:25 MDT