<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr"><div>spike jones via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:</div></div> <br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>…If the <span>S</span>ingularity happens a few years after Kurzweil<span>'s prediction then we will have a few more years to prepare for the most significant event since the Cambrian Explosion…John K Clark<u></u><u></u></span></span></b></p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"> </span></b></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>I propose some terminology to clarify if a debate has a common basis or preliminary assumptions.<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span></span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">Suppose the Singularity is an event which is unambiguous in that there is little or no debate afterwards if it happened.  Afterwards we can identify a date on which the Singularity event happened,</span></i></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>That would be fine except that we <span class="gmail_default" style="">could</span> only use that definition after it happened<span class="gmail_default" style="">, and by then the Singularity would be of academic interest only, right now it is of practical interest. </span></b></font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div lang="EN-US"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><i style=""><font face="georgia, serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>Side note: I also propose returning the pronouns he and him to genderless,</font></i></span></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4"><font face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>Why that and not "she" and "her" becoming genderless?  <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">And</span><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span></b></font><b style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">what pronoun should we use to refer to somebody who is <span class="gmail_default" style="">NOT</span><span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span>genderless<span class="gmail_default" style=""> but is definitely of the male gender? </span></b></font><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><span class="gmail_default" style=""><br></span></b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><span class="gmail_default" style="">John K Clark</span></b></font></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div lang="EN-US"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"><u></u> </span></b></span></p></div></div></div>
</div></div>