Singularity is a word that someone made up with a definition/meaning that
someone advanced from an existing knowledge context and somewhere along the
way society accepted some definition and that term itself. You could just
as well call it zoombalabala if society would have accepted it (there are
currently no rules or standards for creation of new terms) the term itself
makes meaning transportable and makes logical association possible.
The term withand probably its meaning began in an individual's mind and was
later transferred to society by that same individual, or a by some different
individual. I'm not going to guess who originated it, because I can't see
into anyone's mind...but it's probably pretty easy to figure out who
delivered it to society (who accepted it).
But when you dig around whatever you think that definition is today, you
find questions like "What is intelligence?" or "Does it also include this or
that aspect?" that shake up the original definition. That's a good thing,
not a bad thing, because answering or structuring questions around existing
knowledge context IS knowledge advance.
If you take out questioning, you also remove advance itself and the whole
thing dies a painfully boring death by competitive chatter and confusion.
I've been in several group lists and this, in my opinion, is the evolution
of the typical intellectual group list. It doesn't matter if you're talking
about singularity, or knowledge management, or creativity, or whatever. At
some point participants have to look into the face of the tough questions
and the way they believe they should behave as intellectuals today does not
allow them to do this. Questions demand acceptance and cooperation. If
they are percieved as a threat, people reject them, and you start to die by
boring competitive chatter and confusion.
All of these definitions named here contain meaning/definition/logical
structure and some level of validity. They might not have the focus on the
meaning you personally think they should have, but that doesn't mean they
don't have meaning/definition/logical structure. Seen together and worked
cooperatively (e.g., in a singularity defniitions/meaning wiki...with clear
question acceptance), they solve the problem of singularity and advance
knowledge in a beautiful way. Seen individually, they are competitive
chatter that will eventually kill this list like many others before it, and
the many lists and forums you've all watched die.
The way to singularity, regardless of what you think it means, is
cooperative knowledge working and acceptance of the question. I'd venture
to say that some, if not many, folks on this list would totally disagree
with this statement. But I'd challenge those of you who do to honestly look
at your progress after a year of participation on this list and ask yourself
if you've moved forward or if you're dying the painful and confusing death
I've described above.
Definitions ARE knowledge. Working them is working knowledge. Advancing
them is advancing knowledge. But they are not stagnant...they constantly
evolve. They are not exclusive, but they beg to be worked into 'one'
knowledge. Knowledge is not many, it is one. Questions reveal when they
are not in one knowledge.
Working definitions cooperatively and accepting the question is the next
phase of human and machine evolution. Going it alone or competitively or in
silos or exclusively is just going to cause more of the same chaos,
confusion, undo complexity, and error. We have passed the point as a
society wherewith we can achieve intellectual goals individually. And we
are going to experience more and more pain until we embrace this new order
of knowledge working.
Kind Regards,
Bruce LaDuke
Managing Director
Instant Innovation, LLC
Indianapolis, IN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hyperadvance.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]
