From: Robin Hanson (hanson@econ.berkeley.edu)
Date: Sat Sep 19 1998 - 11:21:01 MDT
Another message from Vinge:
-----------------------------------------------------------
I agree that a person who becomes greater than human would
regard the singularity more properly as a horizon.
I prefer the term singularity for several reasons (and I
think all or almost all of these points have been made by
other posters):
o Very likely the degree of change is going to be on the
order of difference between a chimpanzee (or a goldfish :-) and a
human. "Horizon" sounds more like past tech horizons, which could be
accomodated by the innate flexibility of the human mind. Very
likely, the upcoming change will be qualitatively greater -- though
augmented participants might take it in stride.
o The notion of "horizon" has the attendent notion of persistence
of identity. When change is large enough or fast enough, this
is a problem. I see two analogies on this:
+ The change that leads from a zygote (or 4-cell embryo) to a
human child. It might be argued that the early embyro has simply
been enhanced. Certainly the child encompasses the
embryo.... And yet the change is large enough that the horizon
metaphor does not seem appropriate (to me) to describe the
change. (I do see at least one advantage to the horizon
metaphor, however; it implies that change is ongoing.)
+ When I think about labile nature of processes in the
distributed systems that are being designed these days, and then
imagine what it would be like if the such systems could be
scaled up so that some of the processes were of human power or
greater -- then I see weird things being done to the notion of
persistent identity and the underlying notion of self. Again,
this makes it hard for me to see the process as one of "us" just
moving along to better things.
-- Vernor Vinge
-----------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:35 MST