On 30 Apr 2010, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Maybe... Technological Singularity ?
Something like that, it seems. Turing simulable?
People should recall, from time to time what their acronym are for.
On 4/30/10, Sami Perttu sami.per...@gmail.com wrote:
-TS is the biggest strategic
Yeah, I should untangle these acronyms more often. Apologies to John.
TS = Technological Singularity.
Some recent discoveries makes me think that our digital substitution
level, if it exists, may be far lower than standard neuro-philosophers
may think.
- The discovery of wave-like
Hi, Quentin, .
Long time no exchange... and thanx.
That is a good suggestion, I just cannot figure out how can a Singularity be
Technological?
I may have too 'big' assumptions about the 'S'-concept, including it's *
closedness* so even no information can slip out (= we don't even know about
its
Mathematically, a singularity is where something is divided by
zero. A matrix with zero determinant is singular - if you attempt to
solve the simultaneous linear equations described by the matrix, you
will end up dividing by zero - a singularity.
In General Relativity, a singularity is where the
Thanks, Russell, it was very educative. I learned about singularity probably
before you were born, and that was not a 'mathematical' one. By 1956 I
probably even forgot about it. The term - in its classical form - was almost
interchangeable with nirvana. Probably the first model of a black hole
Hi, I've been thinking about the political implications of TS. The
conclusions I've so far reached are quite pessimistic, but perhaps
they're realistic. I'm trying to come up with a detailed scenario, and
here are some starting points. All help is appreciated!
I believe control is one of the
Dear List,
for some weeks many write about TS (no explanation, seemingly all you
physicists on the list know exactly what they are talking about. I don't.)
So after 'enough is enough' I looked up Wiki. I found some 50 different
items 'TS' may stand for, in physical sciences only some 20.
It did
Maybe... Technological Singularity ?
2010/4/30 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
Dear List,
for some weeks many write about TS (no explanation, seemingly all you
physicists on the list know exactly what they are talking about. I don't.)
So after 'enough is enough' I looked up Wiki. I found some
Restoring original subject :). Please don't reply to the intelligence
stuff in this thread; instead, push reply, copy all the text, then
reply in the intelligence thread and paste it there.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
Argh, I screwed up again. Trying to restore the original subject...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Hey, correspondants:
Is this Skeletori answering to an unmarked () remarker, or is this an
unnamed post-fragment () reflected upon by an unsigned Skeletori'?
(just to apply some 'etiquette' to facilitate our reading)
John M
On 4/9/10, Skeletori sami.per...@gmail.com wrote:
I think for the
I think for the hardware design to be so great it took a 10 billion years to
find the next speedup, the design would have to be close to the best
possible hardware that could be built given the physical laws. After-all,
evolution went from Lemurs to humans in millions of years, which was only
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Skeletori sami.per...@gmail.com wrote:
I think for the hardware design to be so great it took a 10 billion years
to
find the next speedup, the design would have to be close to the best
possible hardware that could be built given the physical laws.
Jason and others in this discussion:
fantastic perspectives opened and ideas mentioned beyond present reason -
which is OK and fascinating to read about.
One side-line is still haunting me: all that is firmly imbedded into our
millenia-long coinventional science base, the possibilities drafted on
I would define intelligence by an amount of self-introspection
ability. In that case the singularity belongs to the past, with the
discovery of Löbian machine, that is universal machine knowing that
their are universal.
This makes all humans intelligent, as far as they have the courage
I don't think anyone would argue that the amount knowledge possessed by our
civilization is not increasing. If the physical laws of this universe are
deterministic then there is some algorithm describing the process for an
ever increasing growth in knowledge. Some of this knowledge may be
On 07 Apr 2010, at 10:32, Skeletori wrote:
I would define intelligence by an amount of self-introspection
ability. In that case the singularity belongs to the past, with the
discovery of Löbian machine, that is universal machine knowing that
their are universal.
This makes all humans
Hi! I was thinking about some nightmare scenarios relating to TS and
came up with this, whaddaya think? It's a tale of digital slavery and
exploitation so please excuse the cheery tone :).
The year is 2050. Digital minds (digitized brains) are economically
feasible thanks to nanotechnology but
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Skeletori sami.per...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think anyone would argue that the amount knowledge possessed by
our
civilization is not increasing. If the physical laws of this universe
are
deterministic then there is some algorithm describing the process
Hi Jason, Hi Skeletori,
A short comment, on Jason's comment on Skeletori.
A deeper question is what is the upper limit to intelligence? I
haven't yet mentioned the role of memory in this process. I think
intelligence is bound by the complexity of the environment. From
within the
To active participants in the process, it would never seem that intelligence
ran away, however to outsiders who shun technology, or refuse to augment
themselves, I think it would appear to run away. Consider at some point,
the technology becomes available to upload one's mind into a computer,
Hello!
I have some tentative arguments on TS and wanted to put them somewhere
where knowledgeable people could comment. This seemed like a good
place. I also believe in an ultimate ensemble but that's a different
story.
Let's start with intelligence explosion. This part is essentially the
same
Hello Skeletori,
Welcome to the list. I enjoy your comments and rationalization regarding
personal identity and of why we should consider I to be the universe /
multiverse / or the everything. I have some comments regarding the
technological singularity below.
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM,
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Resch
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 10:46
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: everything-list and the Singularity
Hello Skeletori,
Welcome to the list. I enjoy your comments and rationalization regarding
personal identity
Thanks for directing our minds into wider regions, Wei Dai.
I will look into the recent ways singularity is thought of - I may be
obsolete.
I found tour intro to LessWrong interesting, I clicked away (not all of
them)
I read through Eliezer's (sample) URL-text and the 'sample' discussions
Recently I heard the news that Max Tegmark has joined the Advisory Board of
SIAI (The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, see
http://www.singinst.org/blog/2010/03/03/mit-professor-and-cosmologist-max-tegmark-joins-siai-advisory-board/).
This news was surprising to me, but in
26 matches
Mail list logo
