[ExI] Natasha Uploading and the New York Times
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Thu Oct 15 10:42:37 UTC 2015
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
> It seems to me that Miller's argument is just a vast argument from
> incredulity because there's so much unknown about brain functioning and the
> whole thing looks really really really complicated.
### Indeed, this seems to be the case. Miller may be a senior scientist but
the article sounds like a first-year student vaguely summarizing the
obvious, followed by predictions intended to cover the next few centuries.
There is no technical reasoning connecting, in a detailed way, the basics
and the conclusions - and a scientist who is not using technical and
preferably quantitative reasoning is just a dilettante. That the article is
not intended for a specialist audience is no excuse. You should cite prior
art and give at least a general idea of mechanisms and quantities even when
And then he finishes it off with sophomoric philosophising about accepting
death and your place in life. Poor form.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat