Or let's not suppose. Is it or isn't it? Even then, ultimately everything is probability driven, but that doesn't stop us doing very accurate simulations of physical phenomena. Balls interacting on a pool table touch and collide because they have molecules and atoms, but you don't need to calculate the position of every one of those to achieve realistic simulations.

Then model it with an analogue component - if you really do need such accuracy. It only really needs to be good enough that end result (consciousness in this case) is achievable.

Yes, a quantum model of your brain might choose vanilla where the real one would have chosen chocolate. Doesn't mean it's any less conscious.

All rather moot in any case, since the technological singularity only specifies that an intelligence beyond man's will come into being. Doesn't have to be human. Doesn't even have to be conscious in any sense that we'd recognise it.

So we let douchebags get away with being douchebags because we don't like the douchebags they're being douchebags to?

What could possibly go wrong?

Or maybe they do just want to do what they say, and they don't have a shadowy agenda.

Yeah, they meant composite.

Also, these are not "better graphics." They're the same graphics, upscaled differently.

They're not bad, they're just meant for - wait for it - upscaling TV pictures, not console games.

Because it's only a pain in the ass for a tiny proportion of users.

The conditions may not be so "new" to the species. They might have evolved this developmental plasticity precisely because they've been exposed to this same variety of conditions in their evolutionary past.

Blah!

Oh yeah, I know it's not a paradox, that's just its name. It's just a Weird Thing.

One will have more bugs splattered on it.

What about individual particles, like lone protons or neutrons? Or photons?

The idea is older than that. From the very link, they "bolster[ed] the proposition" - they didn't come up with the idea.

You are absolutely right.

And energise the main deflector while you're at it.

Sort of... but what about the twin paradox? The travelling twin ages less. Couldn't you argue that actually they have moved through time faster? They find themselves in the year 2525 while their twin, who stayed at home, has only got as far as 2015 while experiencing the same amount of local time.

I thought sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2 -t^2) (not +t^2) was the constant... but it all gets very tricky when you try to consider the amount of time travelling through time takes.

And that this may have already happened.

Same reason I'm not allowed in the reptile house at London Zoo any more.