Michael makes a good point that it's intellectually permissible to argue ad nauseam over side claims but that it's still important to have a general consensus on an explicit description of the very idea that would allow almost every literate person to elicit the concept of the Singularity in the first place and have some basis for investigating extrapolated side issues. "Smarter-than-human intelligence" isn't precise, but I believe it's sufficiently accurate, since our intuitions – the relevant ones to the subject matter – are probably strongest around the propositional contents of 'smartness', 'human', and 'intelligence'. This makes them good candidates as primitives and hence adequate components for the full description of what it is that sparks us to care.
----- 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]
