<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">On 5/14/06, <B>Metavalent Stigmergy</B> <<A href="mailto:metavalent@gmail.com"><FONT class="Apple-style-span" color="#0000EC">metavalent@gmail.com</FONT></A>> wrote:</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">What a great day. The singularity is much nearER the day after the</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">summit than it was the day before. Or maybe, just maybe, IT HAPPENED,</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">yesterday. Who can really tell and how would we really know, after</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">all? Odds are that we won't ever "see" it anyway, but in hindsight. </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">And THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU to both Doug Hofstadter and (live</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">by the most bitchin' gadget of the conference, Teleportec) Bill</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">McKibben for their much needed cross-examination. If not for their</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">ever loyal incisive contributions, the Singularity would rapidly </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">implode under the weight of it's own self-centered gravity. Doug: It</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">might be time for "A Coffeehouse Conversation" update on this 25th</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">anniversary of the May 1981 Scientific American essay. :)</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">me:</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I thought Hofstadter's talk was an utter waste of time. Yeah, he made the good point that Singularity deserved more attention by a broad range of scientists pro and con. But the rest of the time he used silly cartoons and criticized Kurzweil's work in a most unscientific and unprofessional manner. Oh, and he wrung his hands over whether his children or grandchildren would remain human a bit.</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">McKibben spouted mostly gibberish and sound bites. i see no reason to praise the performance of either of them. McKibben is not in the least "loyal" to any form of transhumanism much less Singularity. He believes we all should happily die. Neither of these presentations were remotely "incisive".</DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">- samantha </DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></BODY></HTML>