From: Christian Szegedy (szegedy@or.uni-bonn.de)
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 06:57:37 MST
imon McClenahan wrote:
>Take a step back and listen to how you formed these sentences:
>
>
>>Hmmm, "Change" is not a physical quantity that can
>>be measured.
>>
>>
>
>Huh? If you can't measure or recognize the (physical) state of something at
>two different points in time, how can you detect change?
>
OK, what is the measurement unit of the "Change"? :)
I refereed to the "change" in Danis posting (therefore the
quoting). He used "change" in some "Things are not that
they used to be" sense. I don't think it makes much sense
to put numbers before such an unspecified subjective
concept.
>>Of course, you could say that even today nobody can
>>become an expert without paper, pen, books and internet
>>which is also a form of augmentation. (I don't think it's
>>true (you can even be a great computer scientist without
>>using computers at all), but we can assume it.)
>>
>>
>
>I most definately will not assume it.
>
I share your view on it (as I already explicitely stated). I just
assumed it as a kind of worst case assumption.
>The point of my response here is that I was concerned about the assumptions
>you made. It's almost as if you're trying to claim that you have some sort
>of cleverness so as to make absolute statements like "change cannot be
>measured" and "augmentation is arbitrarily defined".
>
No, my point was: some kind of unpecified "Change" is not measurable
while "augmented human" is a much better (although not completely well)
defined concept.
I jut made clear what I really mean under "neuronally or genetically
augmented" in order to justify my definition of Singularity.
I wrote that I did not want to consider traditional augmentation
and therefore pinned down that Singularity did not happend according
to my definition even (perhaps, I don't think so) it could have
happened (according to my definition) if I had allowed
traditional augmentations. (Therefore, I simply explicitely excluded it.)
Intellectual honesty lead me to admit that even this (I think
failry objective) definition is a bit blurred, but I think it is still
usable.
It seems that you completely missed my points because of
a completely superficial reading of my posting.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:41 MDT