SL4?

From: Tony Garnock-Jones (tonyg@kcbbs.gen.nz)
Date: Wed Jan 18 2006 - 03:59:18 MST

• Next message: Dani Eder: "Re: SL4?"
• Previous message: Ben Heaton: "Re: 3 "Real" Conscious Machines [WAS Re: Singularity: A rock 'em, shock'em ending soon?]"
• Next in thread: Dani Eder: "Re: SL4?"
• Reply: Dani Eder: "Re: SL4?"
• Reply: Olie L: "RE: SL4?"
• Reply: nuzz604: "Re: SL4?"
• Reply: Phil Goetz: "Dynamic ethics"
• Reply: Phil Goetz: "Living in the unconscious age"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

It seems to me that in recent months (? possibly longer), the content on
the SL4-list is no longer... shocking enough to be properly SL4. Endless
undergraduate-level discussions on basic philosophical issues. Are
others noticing the same topic-drift, or have I just become dangerously
comfortable with real SL4 content, so much so that it seems trivial now?

Tony

• Next message: Dani Eder: "Re: SL4?"
• Previous message: Ben Heaton: "Re: 3 "Real" Conscious Machines [WAS Re: Singularity: A rock 'em, shock'em ending soon?]"
• Next in thread: Dani Eder: "Re: SL4?"
• Reply: Dani Eder: "Re: SL4?"
• Reply: Olie L: "RE: SL4?"
• Reply: nuzz604: "Re: SL4?"
• Reply: Phil Goetz: "Dynamic ethics"
• Reply: Phil Goetz: "Living in the unconscious age"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT