Lee wrote:
>> So enthusiasts for this perspective (including me) are taking
>> the idea much farther than Vinge. Humanity, it is argued, will
>> become first `transhuman' and then `posthuman'.
>
>Is Damien agreeing with what Vinge said
>
>> Prediction beyond that point [of superhuman intelligences
>> existing] is qualitatively different from futurisms of the
>> past. I don't necessarily see any vertical asymptotes.' -VV
>
>or isn't he? After all, Damien did say "are taking the idea
>much farther than Vinge". Anyway, despite how clear the passage
>from "The Spike" is that Damien quotes below, I still wish that
>he'd weigh in on how we ought to use the term "singularity",
>and whether that should be the same or different from "Singularity",
>or "the singularity", or "the Singularity".
I am agreeing but taking it further or perhaps farther (I do like those
pretty asymptotes).
After all, Damien did say "are taking the idea
>much farther than Vinge". Anyway, despite how clear the passage
>from "The Spike" is that Damien quotes below, I still wish that
>he'd weigh in on how we ought to use the term "singularity",
>and whether that should be the same or different from "Singularity",
>or "the singularity", or "the Singularity".
I prefer the form `the Spike' (cap S). As for bigger S versus little s
singularity, it's all one to me. Once the term becomes common usage it'll
go to small-s anyway.
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:59 MDT