I appreciate all the humor in this list...high intellect humor is kind of
wierd, but I like it (smile)...anyway...
There are many definitions and aspects of singularity in just these last 20
or so posts. I would suggest, that there is more knowledge than error here,
and that each person is seeing a different aspect of the larger whole as it
relates to singularity. With many being partially correct, the key is not
for one to try to be fully correct, but for the many to work their knowledge
'cooperatively.' This is the foundation for any super intelligence.
By seeing one another as 'right or wrong' we work against the cooperative
creation of the whole. The issue is not right or wrong, but whether or not
the concepts can be (3-D) logically structured into the whole. All
intelligence or super intelligence is conceived in this knowledge creation
process or it is not definition/logic/knowledge at all.
By individually, or optimally cooperatively, structuring existing
definitions/logic/knowledge and then asking questions in this existing
context, and structuring these questions creates new knowledge.
This question structuring around existing knowledge context is how
intelligence emerges, and more of this is also how super intelligence will
emerge (more volume of the same, *not* a new process).
Again, technology is a *product,* a natural extension, of this knowledge
creation, but technology is *not* advance itself...it is the product of
advance that occurred before the technology existed.
Advance is simply newly created knowledge. One can radically advance
knowledge and choose to never create anything technological. The
exponential rise in technology and the exponential NBIC convergence are both
the result of an exponential rise in newly created knowledge. It's simply
easier to 'see' the technological manifestation than it is to see it's true
origins -- knowledge creation.
Intelligence is knowledge stored. You can only store or have intelligence
for knowledge if it has been created, so the 'seed' of all social
intelligence, and ultimately super intelligence or singularity, is knowledge
creation, which is logically structuring questions at the 'cutting edge' of
existing knowledge context (by human or machine).
To understand knowledge creation fully, is to see the microcosm that
generates the whole. Everything natural *and* mental grows from a seed.
Knowledge creation is the seed of everything intellectual. As quantum
particles demonstrate the physical universe, knowledge creation demonstrates
the mental universe.
We only need one thing for artificial intelligence, super intelligence,
singularity, NBIC convergence, or whatever else one wants to call it, and
that is a full understanding of knowledge creation. Everything else will
eminate from here or it will happen by accident. It's been o.k. in ages
past for knowledge creation to be an 'accident,' but I think those days are
quickly ending as complexity rises.
Understand KC and leverage it in a cooperative way, and everything else will
follow as a manifestation of this seed. Just my own somewhat pointed
opinion here, but if society tries to do any of these things without fully
understanding KC, we'll drown in our own chaos and confusion or die by the
hand of our own products. It's a bit like the historical images of men
standing too close to an early nuclear bomb detonation with their goggles on
and wondering what is going to happen next. They simply didn't understand
the power that was being unleashed at an atomic level. The power wasn't in
the bomb, it was in the atom.
Kind Regards,
Bruce LaDuke
Managing Director
Instant Innovation, LLC
Indianapolis, IN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hyperadvance.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [singularity] Defining the Singularity
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:24:17 -0400
Indeed...
What we are running into here is simply the poverty of compact formal
definitions.
AI researchers long ago figured out that it's difficult to create a
compact formal definition of "chair" or "arch" or table...
Ditto for "Singularity", not surprisingly...
This doesn't mean compact definitions aren't useful in some contexts,
just that they should not be interpreted to fully capture the concepts
to which they are attached...
-- Ben G
On 10/10/06, BillK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/10/06, Ben Goertzel wrote:
<snip>
>
> But from the perspective of deeper understanding, I don't see why it's
> critical to agree on a single definition, or that there be a compact
> and crisp definition. It's a complex world and these are complex
> phenomena we're talking about, as yet dimly understood.
>
I would add that 'The Singularity' has to be a world-affecting event.
If next year a quad-core pc becomes a self-improving AI in a basement
in Atlanta, then disappears a hour later into another dimension, then
so far as the rest of the world is concerned, the Singularity never
happened.
BillK
-----
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]
-----
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]
