3 ms·

Life isn't magic, it's nanotech. If the statement was 100% true. Why isn’t nanotech magic ? If nanotech is the only thing that gives rise to the beautiful thin

Life isn't magic, it's nanotech. If the statement was 100% true. Why isn’t nanotech magic ? If nanotech is the only thing that gives rise to the beautiful thing that’s life and experience. Why is that not magic ? How did such a thing come to be ? Do you think we’ll get to the bottom. of it a one day and say, “oh not magic”? Why is a butterfly not magic? Can you not see that ? Not sure you’ve looked at these processes under a microscope but if you can’t see some magic in there, then I’m sorry for you. For me the tragedy is we can’t see the magic in it, we go on all macho and pretend it’s not magic and continue to destroy the magic through our attitudes towards the natural world being some type of “silly machine”. Where’s the respect ?

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Different meaning of the word "magic". I didn't mean that life isn't wonderful and beautiful. I meant it's not a phenomenon separate from rest of physics. I meant that it's still a physical process, following the same rules as inanimate matter does -- and than in fact, there is no fundamental distinction between "living" and "dead" matter - living things are literally machines made of tiny machines made of nanomachines made of atoms. This means it's something we can study, and eventually master. The context of the discussion is AI, and specifically a poster upthread saying, "Some science fiction posits a level of genetic engineering that is so advanced it's more like regular engineering." To which I say, d'uh, it's not science fiction, we're actually almost there; it's an obvious direction of future advancement, and the one an AI is just as likely to take as we are. Whether or not you see magic, as in wonder, in a butterfly - whether you can find joy in the mundane - is another topic entirely (though not less important).

TeMPOraL 3y ago

Different meaning of the word "magic". I didn't mean that life isn't wonderful and beautiful. I meant it's not a phenomenon separate from rest of physics. I meant that it's still a physical process, following the same rules as inanimate matter does -- and than in fact, there is no fundamental distinction between "living" and "dead" matter - living things are literally machines made of tiny machines made of nanomachines made of atoms. This means it's something we can study, and eventually master. The context of the discussion is AI, and specifically a poster upthread saying, "Some science fiction posits a level of genetic engineering that is so advanced it's more like regular engineering." To which I say, d'uh, it's not science fiction, we're actually almost there; it's an obvious direction of future advancement, and the one an AI is just as likely to take as we are. Whether or not you see magic, as in wonder, in a butterfly - whether you can find joy in the mundane - is another topic entirely (though not less important).