From: Tommy McCabe (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Dec 31 2003 - 18:43:30 MST
--- Randall Randall <email@example.com>
> On Wednesday, December 31, 2003, at 07:39 PM, Robin
> Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 04:14:58PM -0800, Tommy
> McCabe wrote:
> >> --- Randall Randall <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >>> This is not at all true. I think it's quite
> arguable that
> >>> strong superintelligence is impossible. For
> instance, it might
> >>> be that physical law doesn't permit complexity
> above some
> >>> ceiling. If so, it might be that the smartest
> possible humans
> >>> are already very close to that limit.
> >> The difference between 'the smartest possible
> huamns' and 'the
> >> dumbest possible humans' is incredibly tiny in
> the space of all
> >> minds in general. There is quite possibly some
> hard upper limit to
> >> intelligence, but for it to be exactly in the
> incredibly narrow
> >> range of minds represented by Homo sapiens
> sapiens would be almost
> >> an absurdity.
> > I think Randall's point is that if there is an
> upper bound, humans
> > might be as smart as we are because we've already
> hit it.
> Yes, this was exactly my point.
> Mind you, I don't have a lot of reason to think that
> it's the
> case, but I do subscribe to the lesser position that
> humans are
> nearly at the limit of intelligence for the kind of
> we run on. I have little evidence of it, but none
> of the
Why should we be nearly at the limit? What a
conincidence, that the very first species to hit
general intelligence would also be nearly at the limit
of the architecture they run on.
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:43 MDT