Comments on: Artificial Life and Death http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2006/09/18/artificial-life-and-death/ a blog and podcast dedicated to discussing text arts forms Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:28:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 en Writer Response Theory 2004-2005 wrt@writerresponsetheory.org (Writer Response Theory) wrt@writerresponsetheory.org Talk Radio Comment-cast: Artificial Life and Death Comment-cast: Artificial Life and Death Writer Response Theory Writer Response Theory wrt@writerresponsetheory.org http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/iTWRT.JPG WRT: Writer Response Theory http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress 144 144 by: ELDRAS http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2006/09/18/artificial-life-and-death/#comment-273333 Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:32:58 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2006/09/18/artificial-life-and-death/#comment-273333 Thanks for your interesting article which my robot has just handed to me. I recommend Quantum Archeology to you all. I dont think death is irreversible loss, though its certainly romantic loss. For something to be irreversible in science it has to be impossible to retrodict; that means there is consensus that information could NOT be reconstructed eg into the memories of a deceased person, by using techniques like probability. Events including death in the cosmos are ONLY sets of small/bigger events happening together, and there is no known reason why sufficiently complex future computers could not calculate any points of space time. It has never been successfully argued that people could not be resurrected thus, because there are many more variables in the future than a past and taking any few of them would clearly define the past to the Nth degree. To argue resurrection is impossible is to refute the basis of science, which is cause & effect -even in the quantum world . I'll be back! Thanks for your interesting article which my robot has just handed to me.

I recommend Quantum Archeology to you all.

I dont think death is irreversible loss, though its certainly romantic loss.

For something to be irreversible in science it has to be impossible to retrodict; that means there is consensus that information could NOT be reconstructed eg into the memories of a deceased person, by using techniques like probability.

Events including death in the cosmos are ONLY sets of small/bigger events happening together, and there is no known reason why sufficiently complex future computers could not calculate any points of space time.

It has never been successfully argued that people could not be resurrected thus, because there are many more variables in the future than a past and taking any few of them would clearly define the past to the Nth degree.

To argue resurrection is impossible is to refute the basis of science, which is cause & effect -even in the quantum world .

I’ll be back!

]]> ELDRAS Thanks for your interesting article which my robot has just handed to me. I recommend Quantum Archeology to you all. I dont ... Thanks for your interesting article which my robot has just handed to me. I recommend Quantum Archeology to you all. I dont ... by: Jeremy Douglass http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2006/09/18/artificial-life-and-death/#comment-137847 Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:43:26 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2006/09/18/artificial-life-and-death/#comment-137847 I understand what you are saying. We do *not* in fact know that Singh's death was a suicide, although the details may eventually out if Singh's work is significant enough (as I suspect it will be) for him to be taken up by a biographer. Regardless, I doubt there are specific applicable lessons to be drawn from his life, or that Singh's death should be used for that purpose. It is probably best in this case to eschew speculation and focus our prevention attentions on the living. Sure, one could try to draw a lesson from Turing's death such as "chemically regulating consensual sexuality is unhealthy." Still, that is a lesson for the nation, not the individual, and national laws are seldom changed so easily - particularly those which claim to be grounded in moral logic. Individual lives are complex, and seldom reduce so easily to lessons learned. I understand what you are saying. We do *not* in fact know that Singh’s death was a suicide, although the details may eventually out if Singh’s work is significant enough (as I suspect it will be) for him to be taken up by a biographer. Regardless, I doubt there are specific applicable lessons to be drawn from his life, or that Singh’s death should be used for that purpose. It is probably best in this case to eschew speculation and focus our prevention attentions on the living. Sure, one could try to draw a lesson from Turing’s death such as “chemically regulating consensual sexuality is unhealthy.” Still, that is a lesson for the nation, not the individual, and national laws are seldom changed so easily - particularly those which claim to be grounded in moral logic. Individual lives are complex, and seldom reduce so easily to lessons learned.

]]> Jeremy Douglass I understand what you are saying. We do *not* in fact know that Singh's death was a suicide, although ... I understand what you are saying. We do *not* in fact know that Singh's death was a suicide, although ... by: healthynerd http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2006/09/18/artificial-life-and-death/#comment-110519 Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:17:59 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2006/09/18/artificial-life-and-death/#comment-110519 On Push Singh's death, now the MIT wiki has long been deleted, even the history edits have been seemingly purged from the database. So it was suicide, but what made him do it? Was it because of the back pain he was experiencing? Turing committed suicide for being prosecuted as an immoral man because of his sexual orientation. Correct me if I'm wrong. So in Singh's case, was it bipolar disorder? Social prejudice? Debilitating illness? It interests me since we may be able to prevent the same tragedy from happening again. On Push Singh’s death, now the MIT wiki has long been deleted, even the history edits have been seemingly purged from the database. So it was suicide, but what made him do it? Was it because of the back pain he was experiencing? Turing committed suicide for being prosecuted as an immoral man because of his sexual orientation. Correct me if I’m wrong. So in Singh’s case, was it bipolar disorder? Social prejudice? Debilitating illness? It interests me since we may be able to prevent the same tragedy from happening again.

]]> healthynerd On Push Singh's death, now the MIT wiki has long been deleted, even the history edits have been seemingly purged ... On Push Singh's death, now the MIT wiki has long been deleted, even the history edits have been seemingly purged ...