X-Message-Number: 15900
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:21:11 +1100
From: Damien Broderick <>
Subject: Re: where is this singularity?

>From: Thomas Donaldson <>

>Yes, I am skeptical that this "singularity" will even happen. This is
>not because I don't believe in progress at all, but rather because
>a true singularity must involve growth rates infinitely faster than
>exponential. Infinity means INFINITY, and anyone who believes that we
>will take on an infinite growth rate should at least study some math.

Oh dear, of dear.

It's a *metaphor*, Thomas.

It's a graphical shorthand device (based, of course, on a genuinely
informative if only inductive graph - the current Moore's `Law' curve).

This objection is as odd as a pained explanation that we can never have
`Santa Claus machines'--not because self-replicating nano assemblers are
physically impossible, or would be outlawed, but just because only 5 year
olds still believe in Santa.

>Even if we consider the notion of "singularity" in this context merely
>to involve progress at a rate far faster than at present

`Even if'? That *is* the claim underlying the metaphor.

>The ability to make a hyperintelligent
>computer does not imply the ability to make one that will do any
>more than answer our questions when we ask them, and otherwise
>sit silent. 

It doesn't imply *anything* truly determinate, from where we stand now,
which is one of the key points the trope of a Singularity or Spike attempts
to convey. It's dark up there in the future, beyond the wall of
accelerating change. It won't be dark when we're there, going about our
business, but *from here and now* there's a kind of event horizon that
stops us knowing what those smart minds will do. (I hope it's not necessary
to stress that `event horizon' is *also* a metaphor.)

>I hardly believe that this note has demolished any pretensions 
>held by those who believe we'll meet a singularity

`Pretensions'? That's a very odd word to use at this point. Strictly, of
course, it just means `assertion of a justifiable claim', but it does seems
to carry a slightly patrician sneer with it.

>However the subject deserves far more discussion than it's
>yet received ... even by cryonicists, who have a particular interest
>in the future.

I'd certainly agree with that.

Damien Broderick

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15900