Richard Leis
On 10/10/06, Nathan Barna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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]
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]
