Regarding AI – yeah, I’m not worried about technology coming close to consciousness anytime in my lifetime, or in the next dozen lifetimes of the people that inhabit this planet beyond me. If consciousness was that easy, which it *might* be, I’m not saying it’s not, then the centers of stars must have consciousness… or the massive molecular gas clouds… and I’m not saying they don’t; they just might. But either consciousness is _really quite simple_ or it’s quite complex… but I don’t think the ladder to get there is quite as simple as a bunch of criss-crossing wires, unless the “crosstalk” between the insulating sheaths *is* the consciousness, but that’s sort of an easy way out I think
If it were discovered that my laptop is _aware_ and conscious, or the Internet has a consciousness, would I be surprised? Not really. I doubt it does, but I also don’t hold back the possibility that it could.
What’s an anthropomorphism and what‘s not? I dunno. It’s all anthropomophizing to me. Analogizing. If I get less lazy, I’ll try tying all of human knowledge and fold it up into neat little packages that relate every concept to heads, shoulders, knees and toes… knees and toes… shouldn’t be too hard.
Example: Paradox=Chirality. Why doesn’t the left hand and the right hand ever match up perfectly? Stuff like that.
Dualism: True=Right = right side of body. False=Left=left side of body. Law of excluded middle? Sex organs. Can’t have that can we? Messy, confusing, then you have to deal with relationships, sex, pregnancy and higher dimensions that go beyond the self such as pregnancy, a new generation, etc. Too messy. Just exclude the middle.
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is the mathematical version of “Why we physicists and mathematicians can’t get wimmin”, and the mystery of sex = mystery of quantum physics. Always some darn ? in the middle of things. Yeah, I guess I lean towards feminist deconstructivism. *sigh*. I really have to work on that more. Decontextualizing is really a bad habit of min(e)/(d).