RE: SL4?

From: Olie L (
Date: Wed Jan 18 2006 - 05:35:13 MST

A bit of both, methinks.

I thought right from the start that there was something elitist in the
"Shock Level 4" concept as described, say, in

I frankly don't believe that a /person/ can be accurately described as being
"Shock Level X" and that the concepts change. Now that more and more people
are aware of Nanotech, it doesn't make its implications any less bizaare or

It is a shocking idea to think that all life could be wiped out. But it's
no more shocking to think about this happening by Grey Goo than by Plague.

Nonetheless, with so many more people becoming aware of the Sincularity
concept, open forae will tend towards dumbing down.

One thing about the philosophy: If done well, it can be important. Nick
Bostrom's work is important. It is relevant. It is SL4.

Dennett and Chalmers work can also be seen as relevant. Unfortunately, they
are talking about themes so universal that it's easy to spout utter shit in

-- Olie

>From: Tony Garnock-Jones <>
>Subject: SL4?
>Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:59:18 +0000
>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?

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