From: Giulio Prisco (2nd email) (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Sep 30 2009 - 09:43:11 MDT
Hi Brad. I more or less agree with what you say, but the main points I
am trying to make are:
1 - I walk with a magic device in my pocket, which lets me communicate
within seconds with nearly everyone in the western world. I have a
magic box in my living room which lets me see live events on the other
side of the planet. Today Google is launching a new Internet (another
magic thing) communication system to let people work together at a
speed unconceivable a few years ago. Women wear ties and we cannot
smoke in public places... my grandfather would have called _this_ a
singularity. Yet we cope with all these things, and our kids don't
even notoce them. Unknowable, yes: for us, today. Our grandchildren
will swim in accelerating change like fish in the water.
2 - Of course progress will not be clean and fast, but troobled and
messy. A stone falls an acceleated fall... until its movement is
slowed to linear by the friction of the air.
3 - So I don't make a religion of Singularity... but I like it anyway.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Brad Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> What you write is
> highly interesting to read. However, I cannot help but point out that you are
> entirely failing to perceive the concept of the word singularity. To say ‘technological
> singularity’ is tantamount to saying ‘drug’. It is totally generic and general
> to the vast implications we face. I agree with you that there will not be a
> technological singularity. There will be multiple singularities.
> You spend a great
> deal of effort speaking about the AI and FAI aspects of singularity as if this addresses the entire issue. Computers
> gain in information processing speed, information processing amount and
> information processing complexity at quite predictable rates. The human mind
> does none of these things very well. Placed on a graph beside each other a day
> will come when AI reaches human levels and then the next day we will see it
> exceed them. This is not speculation. An
> AI singularity cannot not occur unless the human species fails to bring it
> about by not surviving long enough to achieve it or by some social means like
> This is how you have
> focused on the singularity but this is not the only way that a technological
> singularity might occur. In a nanotechnological singularity mankind might
> evolve rather rapidly. Microscopic machines might filter through our DNA
> eliminating any disease at first, then improving upon what we have. Homosapien might jump into a pool only to be
> immediately transformed into homoaquaticus to better suit the environment.
> Physical immortality could be achieved within this scenario as well as global devastation
> via our beloved grey goo scenario.
> There are mind-machine
> interface versions of the singularity and biotechnological singularities which
> could be conceived. Any aspect or facet of technology has implied known and
> unknowable potential singularities. Within the definition of ‘singularity’ must
> include the unknowable. Our minds cannot presently fathom what might occur.
> Just like a black hole in outer space. So when you say that you do not believe
> in the singularity: You really are missing the point altogether.
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Giulio Prisco (2nd email) <email@example.com>
> Subject: [sl4] I am a Singularitian who does not believe in the Singularity
> I am a Singularitian who does not believe in the Singularity
> Giulio Prisco
> aka Eschatoon Magic
-- Giulio Prisco http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco aka Eschatoon Magic http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT