From: Ben Goertzel (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 26 2002 - 19:27:06 MST
Deacon, I understand your urge to spread the good word, but I don't feel we
yet have the "spin" that would cause the Singularity to be taken seriously
by more than a teeny % of the educated population...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf
> Of Deacon Kuhns
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 6:53 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Telling the World (was Introducing Your's Truly)
> << personal, microcosmic singularity (is that a new term?) >>
> < Yes it is, but I've thought about it before. But you obviously
> haven't experienced a true personal singularity, or you'd be a god ;) >
> What about a god who decided to return to sanity?
> <No, but the pinnacle of this movement won't need or want sex or
> television, because better things will be uncovered. I LOVE FUN,
> nobody get me wrong. >
> Well, until they are uncovered, I don't see the sense in wasting
> all of our time searching for better things which may or may not
> come. Wasting some of our time in the HOPE of it seems perfectly
> reasonable... but hell, there's the chance that death would be
> better than being posthuman... lots of people already think that.
> And if it weren't for some pretty strong religious views against
> self-destruction, I personally know at least a few Christians who
> would have already done themselves in for something better.
> < It might just be easier to contain this meme rather than
> spreading it...but I think we should make a decision on this
> quick. I truely am not sure on the issue. But if we are going
> to start spreading it, I think we should do it aggressively and
> immediately. Maybe we can find a reconciliation between
> ultraconservative memetics and pragmatic memetics..."practical
> memetics"? >
> So let's get this one out of the way, because it's important.
> I'm for spreading it aggressively and immediately. I have a plan
> to do it. Here are the reasons why it should be spread:
> (1) Any great truth should be self-evident... that is, if
> something is a good idea, it should be able to stand reasonable
> attack and be defended on the grounds of logic. If we can't
> defend the Singularity idea from the world, which is supposed to
> be generally less intelligent than we are, than we're probably
> not sitting on a good idea.
> (2) As acceptance of the idea expands, it will bring with it
> greater resources to pump into the idea. Right now, I don't see
> too much money being pumped into the Singularity. Mostly just
> ideas by idealists... and some sweat (and blood). Just
> converting one medium-sized celebrity, and convincing them to
> endorse and sponser the work, would give ol' Eliezer plenty of
> resources to do what he wants... and Ben, too. And if ol' Bill
> wants to get involved, well, GAME OVER MAN... no more resource
> problem, you dig?
> (3) General acceptance also brings with it more of an
> inter-disciplinary approach to the problem. This is important,
> because posthumanity is probably not going to be just a bunch of
> computer scientists. My guess is it will look more like an
> N'Sync concert than a Star Trek convention.
> (4) Arguing against the fear of government slow-downs. We
> should be less inclined to worry about the nations developing
> strict guards against the Singularity from happening... there is
> no reason why it needs to be rushed, as long as we're all assured
> that we'll see it through to completion. So a ten year
> moratorium on AI research really shouldn't hamper us too much,
> now, should it? There is always more than one way to skin a
> cat... especially for smart guys and gals like us.
> - Deacon
> Anything worth doing is worth doing with STYLE,
> Super-string = Super-style,
> Now all that's left is the bull's shit:
> Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> 1 cent a minute calls anywhere in the U.S.!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT