Re: Singularity Passivity
Dan Clemmensen (Dan@Clemmensen.ShireNet.com)
Mon, 25 Aug 1997 20:09:47 -0400
Rick Knight wrote:
>
[SNIP]
> I was pondering this as well. In recent posts and in [Eliezar's] essay on
> the subject, I found a well of apathy building inside of me. Why?
> Certainly not because it wasn't going to be such a profound and
> strangely curious and inticing event but because I was *implicitly*
> forbidden to dream about/imagine it. In doing so, one was easily
> dismissed because their dreams were so small, their imaginations so
> limited. Well, you got to paint the sign with pretty colors if you
> want people to come into the store.
>
[SNIP]
>
> At least some of my energy can be devoted towards what I dream a new
> world to be. If I must stay myopically focused on what to do to get
> me to "who knows where", my interest curiously wanes.
>
I dcan't speak for Eliezar, but my reason to limit speculation on the
post-Singularity era is that it's essentially unbounded. The SI will be
able to do anything that's not prohibited by the laws of physics, and it
will know the laws of physics. With no constraints, we would really be
speculating on the motivations of the SI. I can (and do) specualate
about this quite a bit, but an attempt to have a rational discourse on
this subject is essentially equivalent to theology, not science, Do it
for entertainment, but don't expect to discover the "right" answer.
I would be very interested in discussions on the era leading up to the
Singularity. In particular, what can we do to minimize societal upheaval
while accelerating the pace of technological advance?