singularity  

Messages by Date

• 2006/10/24 [singularity] Kurzweil vs. de Garis - You Vote! Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/24 Re: Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/24 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Starglider
• 2006/10/24 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk J. Andrew Rogers
• 2006/10/24 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk J. Andrew Rogers
• 2006/10/24 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Richard Loosemore
• 2006/10/24 Re: [singularity] RE: the musical singularity Mark Nuzzolilo II
• 2006/10/23 RE: [singularity] RE: the musical singularity -- OOPS! pjmanney
• 2006/10/23 [singularity] RE: the musical singularity pjmanney
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Anna Taylor
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Mark Davis
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Joel Pitt
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Anna Taylor
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Anna Taylor
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Gregory Johnson
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk J. Andrew Rogers
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Starglider
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Starglider
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] AGI funding: US versus China Starglider
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Samantha Atkins
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] AGI funding: US versus China Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] AGI funding: US versus China Josh Treadwell
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Starglider
• 2006/10/23 [singularity] AGI funding: US versus China Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/23 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Starglider
• 2006/10/22 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Mark Nuzzolilo II
• 2006/10/22 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/22 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/22 RE: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Peter Voss
• 2006/10/22 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Chuck Esterbrook
• 2006/10/22 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Chuck Esterbrook
• 2006/10/22 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Samantha Atkins
• 2006/10/22 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Anna Taylor
• 2006/10/22 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/22 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Samantha Atkins
• 2006/10/22 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity deering
• 2006/10/22 [singularity] Singularity Definition Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/10/22 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk BillK
• 2006/10/22 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Starglider
• 2006/10/21 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Anna Taylor
• 2006/10/21 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Gregory Johnson
• 2006/10/21 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Anna Taylor
• 2006/10/21 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Samantha Atkins
• 2006/10/21 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Russell Wallace
• 2006/10/21 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Samantha Atkins
• 2006/10/21 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity deering
• 2006/10/21 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk deering
• 2006/10/20 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Michael Anissimov
• 2006/10/18 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Samantha Atkins
• 2006/10/17 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Michael Anissimov
• 2006/10/15 Re: [singularity] Historical Simulations deering
• 2006/10/14 [singularity] Historical Simulations PETER JENKINS
• 2006/10/13 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Mark Nuzzolilo II
• 2006/10/13 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Samantha Atkins
• 2006/10/13 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Samantha Atkins
• 2006/10/12 Re: [singularity] Minds beyond the Singularity: literally self-less ? Nathan Barna
• 2006/10/11 RE: [singularity] Minds beyond the Singularity: literally self-less ? Jef Allbright
• 2006/10/11 RE: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/10/11 Re: [singularity] Minds beyond the Singularity: literally self-less ? Joel Pitt
• 2006/10/11 Re: [singularity] Minds beyond the Singularity: literally self-less ? Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/11 Re: [singularity] Minds beyond the Singularity: literally self-less ? Charles D Hixson
• 2006/10/11 RE: [singularity] Minds beyond the Singularity: literally self-less ? (resend) Jef Allbright
• 2006/10/11 RE: [singularity] Minds beyond the Singularity: literally self-less ? Jef Allbright
• 2006/10/11 Re: [singularity] Minds beyond the Singularity: literally self-less ? Lúcio de Souza Coelho
• 2006/10/11 Re: [singularity] Minds beyond the Singularity: literally self-less ? Chris Norwood
• 2006/10/11 Re: [singularity] Minds beyond the Singularity: literally self-less ? Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Minds beyond the Singularity: literally self-less ? Chris Norwood
• 2006/10/10 [singularity] Minds beyond the Singularity: literally self-less ? Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity deering
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Samantha  Atkins
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Richard Leis
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Nathan Barna
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Lúcio de Souza Coelho
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Hank Conn
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Lúcio de Souza Coelho
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity BillK
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Hank Conn
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/10 [singularity] Defining the Singularity Michael Anissimov
• 2006/10/10 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Joshua Fox
• 2006/10/09 Re: [singularity] i'm new Matt Mahoney
• 2006/10/09 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Gregory Johnson
• 2006/10/09 Re: [singularity] i'm new Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/09 Re: [singularity] i'm new Nick Hay
• 2006/10/09 Re: [singularity] i'm new Hank Conn
• 2006/10/09 Re: [singularity] i'm new Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/10/09 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Lúcio de Souza Coelho
• 2006/10/09 Re: [singularity] i'm new aLe mu(RaRo)
• 2006/10/09 Re: [singularity] i'm new Mitchell Porter
• 2006/10/08 Re: [singularity] i'm new Hank Conn
• 2006/10/08 Re: [singularity] i'm new Ben Goertzel
• 2006/10/08 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Gregory Johnson
• 2006/10/08 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Charles D Hixson
• 2006/10/07 [singularity] i'm new aLe mu(RaRo)
• 2006/10/06 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Lúcio de Souza Coelho
• 2006/10/06 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Matt Mahoney
• 2006/10/06 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Charles D Hixson
• 2006/10/06 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Lúcio de Souza Coelho
• 2006/10/06 RE: [singularity] Counter-argument Bergeson, Loren
• 2006/10/05 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Lúcio de Souza Coelho
• 2006/10/05 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Michael Anissimov
• 2006/10/04 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Mark Davis
• 2006/10/04 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Anna Taylor
• 2006/10/04 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/10/04 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Lúcio de Souza Coelho
• 2006/10/04 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Lúcio de Souza Coelho
• 2006/10/04 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Olie Lamb
• 2006/10/04 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Russell Wallace
• 2006/10/04 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Matt Mahoney
• 2006/10/04 [singularity] Newton not shaped properly Anna Taylor
• 2006/10/04 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Anna Taylor
• 2006/10/04 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Russell Wallace
• 2006/10/04 Re: [singularity] Counter-argument Lúcio de Souza Coelho
• 2006/10/04 [singularity] Counter-argument Joshua Fox
• 2006/10/01 [singularity] AGI Workshop - Palo Alto (video uploaded) Bruce J. Klein
• 2006/09/30 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/09/28 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/09/28 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Josh Treadwell
• 2006/09/28 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Nathan Barna
• 2006/09/27 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/09/27 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Anna Taylor
• 2006/09/27 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Russell Wallace
• 2006/09/27 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Anna Taylor
• 2006/09/27 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Joel Pitt
• 2006/09/27 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Anna Taylor
• 2006/09/27 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Russell Wallace
• 2006/09/27 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Matt Mahoney
• 2006/09/27 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Anna Taylor
• 2006/09/26 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Nathan Barna
• 2006/09/26 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/09/26 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/09/26 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/09/26 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Nathan Barna
• 2006/09/26 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Hank Conn
• 2006/09/26 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Hank Conn
• 2006/09/26 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Randall Randall
• 2006/09/26 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/09/25 Re: [singularity] International Conference on Intelligent Computing Stefan Pernar
• 2006/09/25 [singularity] International Conference on Intelligent Computing Joel Pitt
• 2006/09/25 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Joel Pitt
• 2006/09/25 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/09/25 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/09/25 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk David Hart
• 2006/09/25 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Shane Legg
• 2006/09/25 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Russell Wallace
• 2006/09/25 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Josh Treadwell
• 2006/09/25 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Matt Mahoney
• 2006/09/25 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Ben Goertzel
• 2006/09/25 RE: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Peter Voss
• 2006/09/25 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Hank Conn
• 2006/09/24 RE: Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk pjmanney
• 2006/09/24 Re: [singularity] Singularitarian Social Skills Joel Pitt
• 2006/09/24 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Nathan Barna
• 2006/09/24 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Ben Goertzel
• 2006/09/24 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Olie Lamb
• 2006/09/23 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Ben Goertzel
• 2006/09/23 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Ben Goertzel
• 2006/09/23 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Mark Nuzzolilo II
• 2006/09/23 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Russell Wallace
• 2006/09/23 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk deering
• 2006/09/23 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Stefan Pernar
• 2006/09/23 Re: [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Michael Anissimov
• 2006/09/23 [singularity] Convincing non-techie skeptics that the Singularity isn't total bunk Ben Goertzel
• 2006/09/23 [singularity] Singularitarian Social Skills Nader Chehab
• 2006/09/23 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Bruce LaDuke
• 2006/09/22 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Nathan Barna
• 2006/09/22 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Samantha Atkins
• 2006/09/22 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Michael Anissimov
• 2006/09/22 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Michael Anissimov
• 2006/09/22 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Samantha Atkins
• 2006/09/20 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Nathan Barna
• 2006/09/20 Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Matt Mahoney
• 2006/09/19 [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Nathan Barna
• 2006/09/19 [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Nathan Barna
• 2006/09/19 [singularity] Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy Nathan Barna
• 2006/09/19 Re: [singularity] Proof of the impossibility of proving that friendliness is not provable Ben Goertzel
• 2006/09/19 Re: [singularity] Proof of the impossibility of proving that friendliness is not provable Stefan Pernar
• 2006/09/19 [singularity] Proof of the impossibility of proving that friendliness is not provable Matt Mahoney
• 2006/09/18 Re: [singularity] Fundamental questions Stefan Pernar
• 2006/09/18 Re: [singularity] Fundamental questions Samantha Atkins
• 2006/09/18 Re: [singularity] Fundamental questions Stefan Pernar
• 2006/09/18 Re: [singularity] Fundamental questions Nathan Cook
• 2006/09/18 [singularity] Fundamental questions Matt Mahoney
• 2006/09/17 [singularity] Ultimate vs. Optimal friendliness Stefan Pernar
• 2006/09/17 Re: [singularity] An interesting but currently failed attempt to prove provable Friendly AI impossible... Nathan Barna
• 2006/09/17 Re: [singularity] An interesting but currently failed attempt to prove provable Friendly AI impossible... Charles D Hixson
• 2006/09/17 Re: [singularity] An interesting but currently failed attempt to prove provable Friendly AI impossible... Brian Atkins
• 2006/09/17 Re: [singularity] An interesting but currently failed attempt to prove provable Friendly AI impossible... Gregory Johnson
• 2006/09/17 Re: [singularity] An interesting but currently failed attempt to prove provable Friendly AI impossible... Shane Legg
• 2006/09/17 Re: [singularity] An interesting but currently failed attempt to prove provable Friendly AI impossible... Lukasz Kaiser
• 2006/09/17 Re: [singularity] An interesting but currently failed attempt to prove provable Friendly AI impossible... Brian Atkins
• 2006/09/17 Re: [singularity] An interesting but currently failed attempt to prove provable Friendly AI impossible... Shane Legg

• Earlier messages
• Later messages