Re: Singularity (was +ve or -ve curvature)

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri Feb 01 2002 - 03:49:08 GMT

  • Next message: Grant Callaghan: "Re: ality"

    Received: by id DAA06206 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 03:54:55 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: Singularity (was +ve or -ve curvature)
    Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:49:08 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2002 03:49:08.0903 (UTC) FILETIME=[672EDB70:01C1AAD3]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: John Croft <>
    >Subject: Singularity (was +ve or -ve curvature)
    >Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:55:11 +0000 (GMT)
    > > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:47:59 -0800
    > > From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    > > Subject: Re: +ve or -ve curvature (was: necessity of
    > > mental memes)
    > >
    > > >
    > > >Jo wrote to my post
    > > A beautiful picture, John. I have seen emergence
    > > encompassing AI rather
    > > than AI producing its own emergence separate from
    > > the noosphere. If
    > > computers do become self replicating, as they have
    > > the potential of doing if
    > > we start using DNA in their construction, then your
    > > prediction seems highly
    > > plausible. I read today that there's going to be a
    > > conference on
    > > non-silicon chip building in the near future. The
    > > basic elements of a
    > > computer (the switches) have already been made out
    > > of DNA, nanotubes, single
    > > molecules of metal, and who knows what else we still
    > > haven't heard about.
    > > Self constructing arrays of nanotubes have also been
    > > developed in a test
    > > tube. We may yet be able to cram libraries of
    > > information into a space
    > > smaller than a chromasome and make it self
    > > replicating in a way that DNA is
    > > not. Who knows what might emerge from that
    > > scenerio? Do you believe in
    > > Kurzweil's "singularity?"
    >In terms of Kurzweil's extrapolation of Moore's Law
    >and the acceleration of Technological progress, I
    >think we have passed the point of inflection and the
    >speed of technological developments will be slowing
    >down. Less money is being spent on pure science as
    >the economic system demands immediate application of
    >existing technologies. And yet it is out of the pure
    >science that the technological adaptions for new
    >systems has always come. The best and brightest
    >students are being attracted to law, business and
    >accounting degrees and away from science and
    >And yet I still feel that there is an Omega point
    >around the corner. But we need to take into account
    >the social, political and the economic trends, not
    >just the technological. And this makes it more
    >"messy" and human. In any case I see us as
    >participating in a race with catastrophe resting on an
    >indeterminate knife edge.
    >Perhaps more can come out if others explore this issue
    For Teilhard, upon what point was noogenesis converging and would this have
    anything to do with the parousia? What did he mean by Christogenesis?

    MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

    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 2b29 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 04:33:32 GMT