Eugene L. writes:
> > >The bulk of past predictions now seems ludicrous. ...
> > This claim is independent of any concept of singularity. So are you
> > saying no one should ever attempt to envision the future decades ahead?
>Independent? Not quite. It's just that predicting things grows the
>harder the nearer we are near the Singularity. _Of course_ one should
>attempt to envision the future decades ahead, just don't expect it's
>graven in stone you'll turn out right.
Predicting things at time A about time B > A gets harder the larger B - A is, regardless of what B and A are. It seems as if you've been claiming something much stronger, that there is a special time S such for A < S < B, there is an extra/special difficulty in predicting. I've been trying to get you to articulate arguments for this stronger claim, not to repeat that predicting is hard and we shouldn't be certain.
> > How can you be so sure of these things, that gods have no banking, and
> > that gods are incomprehensible to us? These true by definition of "god"?
>I can't be sure, that's the reason I mentioned this. The bandwidth of
>possible developments suddenly explodes, and you're a sorely put at
>assigning probabilities to each individual branch of the multitude.
>As to 'gods are incomprehensible to us', why, yes, I'd say that's a
>part of their definition. If I can predict the actions of a posthuman,
>then it is no different from a wind-up toy.
There is a vast region of predictability between "wind-up toy" and "incomprehensible." Given your definition, why should we believe there will ever be gods? And why does "the bandwidth of possible developments suddenly explode"?
firstname.lastname@example.org http://hanson.berkeley.edu/ RWJF Health Policy Scholar, Sch. of Public Health 510-643-1884 140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 FAX: 510-643-2627