### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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.

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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,

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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,

### RE: everything-list and the Singularity

[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

### Re: everything-list and the Singularity

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