From: Robin Hanson (hanson@econ.berkeley.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 21 1998 - 12:46:14 MDT
Eugene Leitl writes:
> > I interpreted both of your initial statements as rejecting inquiry into
> > things post-singularity. It seems as if you both think we *can't*
> > possibly know anything, so we shouldn't try. ...
>In fact I even think the assumptions we can do useful future synoptics over
>decades of dramatic growth are _dangerous_, ....
> > 1) Humans have a vast amount of knowledge and insight, only the tiniest
> > fraction of which can be expressed as equations ...
>I think this is a dangerous position. ...
Yes, powerful ideas are dangerous. But that doesn't make them wrong.
> > 2) Even if we knew nothing about a subject, that wouldn't mean
> > we couldn't learn something if we put our minds to it. ...
>The bulk of past predictions now seems ludicrous. ...
This claim is independent of any concept of singularity. So are you
saying no one should ever attempt to envision the future decades ahead?
>If there is no banking nor art after the Singularity, extrapolating
>from past human insight is worth shit.
>you emerge a god from the other side ... which is perfectly
>incomprehensible for an nonparticipating mehum observer.
How can you be so sure of these things, that gods have no banking, and
that gods are incomprehensible to us? These true by definition of "god"?
Robin Hanson
hanson@econ.berkeley.edu http://hanson.berkeley.edu/
RWJF Health Policy Scholar, Sch. of Public Health 510-643-1884
140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 FAX: 510-643-2627
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:23 MST