Abstract

The creation of meaning to interpret and
communicate perceived phenomena is a fundamental trait of human intelligence.
This article explains some major ways in which this is achieved, focusing on
language and the perception of embodiment. It examines the representational
aspects of natural language, which account for the ambiguity of linguistic
signs, and describes how these manifest in metaphor, connotation and emotive
expression. The article argues that the human propensity to create meaning lies
largely in this representational ambiguity, which underlies all forms of
symbolism. However, the ambiguity of natural language has a paradoxical side,
since it is also at fault in many shortcomings of human communication, such as
misunderstanding and prejudicial stereotyping. This article argues that any
attempt to emulate human ways of thinking, for example in Artificial
Intelligence research, should take this paradoxical factor into account.

The story of self-cleaning materials begins in nature with the sacred lotus (Nelumbo nucifera), a radiantly graceful aquatic perennial that has played an enormous role in the religions and cultures of India, Myanmar, China and Japan. The lotus is venerated because of its exceptional purity. It grows in muddy water, but its leaves, when they emerge, stand meters above the water and are seemingly never dirty. Drops of water on a lotus leaf have an unearthly sparkle, and rainwater washes dirt from that leaf more readily than from any other plant.

It is this last property that drew Barthlott’s attention. In the 1970s he became excited by the possibilities of the scanning electron microscope, which had become commercially available in 1965 and offered vivid images down to the nanometer realm. At that scale of magnification, specks of dirt can ruin the picture, and so the samples have to be cleaned. But Barthlott noticed that some plants never seemed to need washing, and the prince of these was the lotus.

We must consider Hauser’s argument that animals are
only moral patients, since this provides the basis for his thesis that they are
not self-aware. His reasons that animals are not moral agents are that they:
(a) do not have empathy, being not self-aware; (b) cannot inhibit themselves,
being incapable of conceptual change; (c) do not consider the beliefs and
desires of others; (d) do not understand how their actions impact others, which
requires being able to attribute mental states to others; (e) do not understand
duty and responsibility; and (f) do not understand norms of emotions and
actions in their societies – further, they
have no concept of right or wrong. He offers only a limited acknowledgement of
animal consciousness.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

What is ironic is that Hauser began by attempting to
understand animals in terms of their own environments. The remarkable thing
about Hauser’s list, however, is that it measures animals against human
standards. Not only is his account anthropocentric; it is also highly
implausible for evolutionary reasons. If there has been one big message from
Darwin it is that we are part of nature.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

As is well known, Darwin and others showed us that humans
are animals, differentiated only by species membership and not ontologically
different from others. We all sit on a consciousness continuum, though some
differences are qualitative. Since all organisms evolved to confront problems
in their environments, it would be at least reasonable to think that we all did
so in similar ways, and to different levels of sophistication.

Size matters

Size matters because many people use the Internet to find information that is of interest to them, even if it’s not popular

Popularity is useful, but not always important

Popularity is useful, but has dominated search results so heavily that it gets harder and harder to find the page you want, especially if your search is a complex one.

Organization is fundamental

The Internet is information; usually too much. Ten blue links is a simple concept which fails to reflect the huge diversity and variety of information available to you on the Web

Cuil analyzes the Web, not its users

Privacy is a hot topic these days, and we want you to feel totally comfortable using our service. Because Cuil analyzes Web pages and not click-throughs, we don’t need to know your search history and habits. So our privacy policy is very simple: when you search with Cuil, we do not collect any personally identifiable information, period.

Ultimately for me it’s a very straightforward thing: aging causes suffering and death. What part of this can anyone not understand?

It is very straightforward that aging is not enjoyable. The thing is, why do people not complain about it at all? I call it the “pro-aging trance,” a sort of collective hypnosis. People say things like, “You know, wouldn’t it be so boring… not getting Alzheimer’s?” “Wouldn’t dictators live forever?”

“Dictator” comes really low on the lead table of risky jobs, doesn’t it? It seems to me these are problems which, while I’m not ridiculing them utterly, what I am ridiculing is the idea that they add up to an argument to engage in any sort of hesitation on the crusade to defeat aging.

Some people say, “I don’t want to live to a thousand.” I don’t want to live to a thousand, necessarily. I don’t even know if I want to live to a hundred. But I do know I want to make that choice when I am 99, rather than having it gradually removed from me by declining health. This is what it comes down to. The extension of lifespan by the defeat of aging is not the point–at least it is not the main point for me, and I do not think it is the main point for most people who are engaged in this crusade. The purpose is to alleviate the suffering that goes with getting decrepit, frail and dependent. Of course, this includes not just those who are suffering that, but the suffering of their loved ones.

The extension of average lifespan is essentially a side benefit. It is something that will happen because the way that we are going to do this, using regenerative medicine, will also mean that you have only the same probability you did when you were a young adult of dying peacefully in your sleep without any of these diseases. In other words, a very low probability indeed. You will indeed on average live a great deal longer, and I don’t think you’ll complain if you do. However, that is not the purpose. The purpose is to alleviate suffering.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2019

Humans have 23 years to go

Global Extinction Awareness System starts the countdown for Homo sapiens.

PALO ALTO, CA — Based on the results of a year-long supercomputer simulation, the Global Extinction Awareness System (GEAS) has reset the "survival horizon" for Homo sapiens - the human race - from "indefinite" to 23 years.

“The survival horizon identifies the point in time after which a threatened population is expected to experience a catastrophic collapse,” GEAS president Audrey Chen said. “It is the point from which it a species is unlikely to recover. By identifying a survival horizon of 2042, GEAS has given human civilization a definite deadline for making substantive changes to planet and practices.”

You can help. Tell us your story. Strategize out loud. Superstruct now.

It's your legacy to the human race.

Want to learn more about the game? Read the Superstruct FAQ.