On 10/10/06, Hank Conn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
My problem with Michael's original definition was the statement about
producing a genetically engineered child that was smarter-than-human, and
allowing that to be defined as the Singularity. I think in order for a point
in this recursive self-improving process to be defined as a Singularity, it
must be a process that involves a particular "self", so to speak.
In other words, if he had said that a researcher genetically modifies
*himself* to be smarter-than-human- as a particular point in this
researcher's continuing recursive self-improvement process- that would
definitely qualify as a Singularity.
(...)
What about a mutant superintelligent child (with a huge vein-covered
hairless head, piercing saucer-sized eyes and psychic powers - sorry,
B movie aesthetics is irresistible ;-) that designs *another* even
more mutant, even more superintelligent child and in a way copies
his/her own mind to this successor (either using conventional forms of
memetic transfer or some improved new mind-to-mind communication -
"telepathy" of sorts)? Would that characterize a recursive (though
slow, in the scale of human generations) mental self improvement?
And what about a group of those "brainiac children" that decide to
abdicate of their own individualities and become a collective being
far more intelligent? Would that also characterize recursive
self-improvement?
In both cases above there is a blur in the definition of "self", and I
am curious about how sharp is the "self line" in your definition.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
