From: Keith Henson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon 05 Jul 2004 - 21:48:07 GMT
At 02:06 PM 05/07/04 +0100, you wrote:
>--- derek gatherer <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Trivially easy, outlaw it, then it probably won't
> > happen. If the worst comes to the worst, delcare
> > 'war-on-singularity' and just carpet bomb it into
> > the
> > Stone Age.
>That does sound horribly flippant. The more serious
>point I am actually driving at is that governments in
>the main can and do control scientific research,
>simply because they are the main funders. If they
>perceive that Moore's Law will destroy them, they'll
>simply cut funding on processor development research.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think government money is much of a
factor in processor research, especially in manufacturing
technologies. Plus there is not a single government. Look at stem cell
work to see how research gets done anyway.
>In any case, I think that there are problems in any
>case with the concept. The infinite computing power =
>infinite knowledge idea assumes that all knowledge is
>a product of computational processes. What about Goedel???
It doesn't take either infinite computing power or infinite knowledge to
outclass the very smartest of us in the ratio we outclass insects.
I don't claim to understand more than a small fraction of the implications,
but I do know some of the smartest people I know are concerned.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 05 Jul 2004 - 21:56:15 GMT