[extropy-chat] Singularitarian verses singularity

[Marc Geddes]

On 12/23/05, Brandon Reinhart <transcend at extropica.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On SL4, you regularly post things like:
>
> "My theory is that fundamentally reality is equivalent to 'Cognition' (in
> a
> suitably generalized sense of the word 'cognition')."
>
> That doesn't mean _anything_. You offer no meaningful explanation.
>
> "The prime field is the 'Possibility' field (Consisting of
> cognition).  The
> other 6 fields are simply different manifestations of the Prime field."
>
> That doesn't mean _anything_. You offer no meaningful explanation.
>
> http://www.sl4.org/archive/0508/11717.html
>
> Earlier this year you even claimed you had no idea what you were talking
> about:
>
> http://www.sl4.org/archive/0502/10720.html
>
> You write about "universal morality" and other big word concepts, but you
> don't over any depth of explanation as to what you mean, or what these
> words
> mean in the context you use them, etc:
>
> http://www.sl4.org/archive/0402/7889.html
>
> And then you dare to act accused when people who have written extremely
> detailed theories on things like FAI, GAI claim you are a nut?
>
> Half of your posts are saying things like "Bend it like Geddes" and other
> statements of egoism. I'm sorry your feelings were wounded, but you
> deserved
> it.
>
> Brandon



Huh?  What is this, 'attack Geddes' day?

The SL4 stuff were just wild ideas, that's all.  Actually I've finally
managed to move my ideas beyond those very crude early intuitions into
something which (whilst still not well defined) is at least *vaguely*
coherent.  At least I've got enough to be able to coherently state why I
think Eliezer's approach won't work.  Did you read the recent summary I
posted on the Extropy BB?  Definitions and assumptions are clearly stated.
Accredited philosophy papers are clearly referenced.  Still not much to go
on, but *enough* to show that Eli's approach ain't gonna work.  See my
summary here:

The Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory
http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-December/023071.html

The argument shows that the correct approach to building FAI is not to have
'Discover and implement CEV' as the invariant, but instead to have 'Discover
the theory of everything' as the invariant.

Further, claims by the Sing Int programming team (Yudkowsky and Wilson) to
the effect that qualia are entirely representations of what are really just
material processes (i.e eliminative materialism), that you can have general
intelligence without any conscious awareness present and that everything is
reducible to Bayes sound wildly improbable to many (including some of
the world's
smartest philosophers and scientists - For instance David Chalmers, who I'm
sure has an IQ rivalling Eli's and has worked at cognitive science even
longer than Eli).  When called on these claims, The Sing Inst teams do not
give reasons, they simply make pronoucements.  As I said:

"There's nothing educational about the things the Sing
Inst 'team' say.  Nothing is published in academic
journals, statements and proclaimations about the
nature of intelligence are issued from 'on high',
supporting technical arguments are kept hidden and
anyone with different ideas is subject to ritualistic
humiliation and lectures on how stupid one is on the
SL4 list.  The tone on the Sl4 list is *extremely*
elitist."










--
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the shadow with teeth bared,
screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder's eye on
the last day"Please visit my website:http://www.riemannai.org/Science,
Sci-Fi, Fantasy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051223/54fb82f6/attachment.html>