Hi Venky :
I think there has been some confusion/miscommunication. The List
(capital "L") I am referring to is this one :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indo-euro-americo-asian_list/messages
Since it appears that you have not read the messages I have posted there
(just read the posts from 215 onwards on Technological Singularity), I
am going to assume that the last two comments of yours (which aim to
counter my arguments) arise out of this confusion/miscommunication. I
use the List to maintain the ongoing list of counter-arguments in one
place rather than have it scattered all over the place, and to save
myself the time and effort of repeating counter-arguments. It is more
efficient for me.
Anyway, the arguments are posted on that List. Please take a look.Anand
--- In [email protected], Venky TV <venky.tv@...> wrote:
>
> On 7 February 2011 08:55, Anand Manikutty manikuttyanand@... wrote:
> > Have you gone through the points I made on my List?
>
> Your "List" being? If you mean silklist or to a list of points you
> made there, yes.
> (And you should re-check my previous message where I quoted the parts
of your
> message I was responding to.)
>
> If you are referring to some other "List", no.
>
> > My claim is : there is just no reason to believe (based on the
evidence
> > presented by Yudkowsky, Vinge and Kurzweil) that a singularity could
happen.
> > A singularity is still very hypothetical (more or less in the realm
of
> > science fiction).
>
> Again, I don't claim to be able to assert whether a singularity is
> _technologically_
> possible. If your stand is that technology to achieve a singularity
> belongs in the
> realm of science fiction and will never come to fruition, we have no
argument.
>
> But your point (unless it was extremely well disguised) seemed to be
that
> government regulation will ward it off. (Quote: "Technology is not
developed in
> a vacuum - it needs to be deployed somehow - and it is at the point of
> deployment of technology that regulation by government kicks in.")
That makes
> absolutely no sense to me, and in fact makes me think you don't
understand the
> "hypothetical" concept of a singularity.
>
> Venky (the Second).
>
