<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Feb 15, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Peter K. Bertine, Jr wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"> <DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">Samantha,<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">I promise not to be a toady anymore.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="3" face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="font-size: 12.0pt">You have a funny concept of Singularity. Please offer your proof of why a > human AI is impossible. If there is no such proof then there is no basis for calling such a "myth<U>". <FONT color="#33cccc"><SPAN style="color:#33CCCC">I didn’t use the word impossible.</SPAN></FONT> <FONT color="#33cccc"><SPAN style="color:#33CCCC">I said I didn’t believe in a common AI meme</SPAN></FONT>. <FONT color="#33cccc"><SPAN style="color:#33CCCC">My understanding of an AI singularity is that when enough computers are hooked up, with enough power, something magic happens and “life” is created in a process that we will not understand. By “life” I mean a conscious entity based on silicon powered by electricity. I place the burden of proof upon the people trying to create AI. AI is an extraordinary concept, a very sexy meme, humans love it. Merry Shelly created the first AI meme when she wrote Frankenstein. The success of her work, a 19 year old girl’s short novel eclipsing her husband and Lord Byron, is extraordinary and is proof that there is something in the human psyche that longs for spontaneous life, the regeneration of Jesus, the rising of the dead. AI is a fantastic scientific possibility, but I am dubious that it is inevitable. It will require enormous human effort to make a conscious machine. It is fun to think that some network of Cray’s or some distant generation of Play Station will suddenly wake up, think therefore it is, and demand a seat at the UN; but that is all it is, fun, it’s fiction, it’s The Terminator or War Games, it’s a myth. </SPAN></FONT></U></SPAN></FONT><U><FONT size="2" color="#33cccc" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: Arial;color:#33CCCC"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></U></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy"><O:P><BR></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>That isn't a very good model of Singularity. Read the following and see if you still have the same opinion.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><A href="http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html">http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html</A></DIV><DIV><A href="http://www.singinst.org/what-singularity.html">http://www.singinst.org/what-singularity.html</A></DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"><DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><FONT size="3" face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="font-size:12.0pt">Peter, until someone comes up with a *really* good explanation for the "missing mass" you have to admit that our current picture of reality is quite incomplete. <FONT color="#3366ff"><SPAN style="color:#3366FF">Robert, I do not have to admit reality is incomplete due to the “missing mass” in the universe. A is A. Until I can probe it, measure it and repeat it and get others to probe it, measure it and repeat it, with the same results, then it is far worse than *theory*, it is wishful thinking and nothing more than the very human urge to find meaning out of randomness </SPAN></FONT><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="3" face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="font-size: 12.0pt"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="3" face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="font-size: 12.0pt">Read again. "Our *picture* of reality is incomplete."<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="3" face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="font-size: 12.0pt"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><U><FONT size="3" color="#33cccc" face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#33CCCC">I have read it again and again and my point is weak here but what I wanted to do was challenge Robert from the start. Our picture of a universal model is incomplete. We don’t know if the universe will expand forever or implode. But “reality” is a big word. Robert was setting up an argument with me in which I had to admit in the likelihood of alien civilizations playing god with solar systems, galaxies, and even us. Taken out of context the sentence is correct if reality refers to cosmology. But the sentence is the first step to get me to agree to a long string of sentences that lead up to a “concept” that I do not believe. In reality we have no evidence of advanced civilizations playing god with solar systems. I wish we did ! And if Robert was just chatting with me about how such civilizations might function I would be honored and we’d have a hell of a conversation. However, I got into this whole mess with Robert because his memes had become myths to a poster to this site. Someone who showed evidence of mental instability was taking what Robert said and using it to support his fantasy. This person is now going back to his cult and saying that he has been in continuous contact with Robert and that Robert supports the basis of their religion/cult. I don’t want Transhumanism to be associated with a religion/cult and I needed to confront Robert.</SPAN></FONT></U></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT class="Apple-style-span" color="#33CCCC" face="Times New Roman" size="4"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; text-decoration: underline;"></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT class="Apple-style-span" color="#33CCCC" face="Times New Roman" size="4"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; text-decoration: underline;"></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT class="Apple-style-span" face="Times New Roman" size="4"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px;"></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT class="Apple-style-span" color="#000080" face="Arial" size="4"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13.3333px;"></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><DIV>Wow. You sure make it complicated. There is a chain of observation and reasoning that leads inexorably to the possibility of >human intelligence which leads to a Singularity. What is on the other side of that is anyone's guess. However, there is nothing in reality that precludes an intelligence sufficiently powerful to simulate an entire world or universe from coming into being. Some of Robert's comments come from recognition of this possibility. Just because someone you consider unbalanced bounces off of the implications is no reason to attempt to deny the entire chain of reasoning that led to such an implication. If you want to challenge the conclusion then you will have to wade into the argument and show flaws along the way. It is no good simply denying because you don't like the implications or how some people take them.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>- samantha</DIV></BODY></HTML>