|
The word 'Singularity' in the futurism context,
rather than the mathematical or science context, is a label for something in the
real world. Something that someone noticed and said, "Hey, we need a word
for this!" That someone was Verner Vinge and what he noticed was that
technology, due in part to Moore's Law, would likely, soon produce a
smarter-than-human intelligence (STHI), and that this STHI would likely, have a
profound effect on all of our lives, and that this effect and the STHI's
behavior would be unpredictable to us merely human intelligences. This was
the beginning of the Singularity concept, but history did not stop
there.
Next, Kurzweil noticed that Moore's Law, as an
exponential function, had similar functions in other areas of
technological development, such as, miniaturization of electro-mechanical
systems, and the accumulation of basic data in molecular biology.
Likewise, Kurzweil noticed that each of these different fields seemed to be
converging on a significant utilitarian milestone in a similar time frame.
In so much that miniaturization is driving all other areas of technological
progress it is certainly connected to the Singularity. I find the
likelihood of a technological Singularity without technology to be very
low. Exponential technological development isn't an effect of the
Singularity but rather its cause.
Going beyond the definition of Singularity we can
make some educated guesses about the most likely conditions under which the
Singularity will occur. Due to technological synergy, the creation of STHI
will happen coincident with the achievement of molecular manufacturing and the
completion of all basic biological molecular functions including gene _expression_
control functions and proteomics. For all three of these highly
significant events to occur at the same time ensures sudden and massive
sociological disruption. Do we need to create new terms for all of these
significant events, nanotech singularity, biological engineering singularity,
social singularity, that are happening at the same time? Or can we
just roll it all into one bog ball and call the whole thing the
Singularity? As our understanding of these processes evolves so should our
definition of Singularity.
Mike Deering, General Editor, http://nano-catalog.com/ Director, Singularity Action Group http://home.mchsi.com/~deering9/index.html Email: deering9 at mchsi dot com 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] |
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity BillK
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Bruce LaDuke
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Lúcio de Souza Coelho
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Hank Conn
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Lúcio de Souza Coelho
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Nathan Barna
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Singula... Richard Leis
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Sin... Samantha Atkins
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Sin... deering
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Sin... Michael Anissimov
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Sin... Samantha Atkins
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Sin... Michael Anissimov
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Sin... deering
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Sin... Samantha Atkins
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Sin... Russell Wallace
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Sin... Samantha Atkins
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Sin... deering
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Sin... Ben Goertzel
- Re: [singularity] Defining the Sin... Samantha Atkins
