Is the Singularity a Cult? A Nonviolent Debate(stevens-tech.edu)
stevens-tech.edu
Is the Singularity a Cult? A Nonviolent Debate
http://www.stevens-tech.edu/csw/cgi-bin/blogs/csw/?p=388
15 comments
I think you could even narrow it down to the belief (in the religious sense of the word) that technology collectively isn't subject to the law of diminishing returns.
Which may or may not be irrational based on historical observation.
Which may or may not be irrational based on historical observation.
"I think you could even narrow it down to the belief (in the religious sense of the word) that technology collectively isn't subject to the law of diminishing returns."
I don't know any serious "singularitarian" who believes that. Maybe this belief is common amongst poorly informed fanboys, but I haven't seen any evidence of that either. (BTW, I know quite a few singularitarians.)
I don't know any serious "singularitarian" who believes that. Maybe this belief is common amongst poorly informed fanboys, but I haven't seen any evidence of that either. (BTW, I know quite a few singularitarians.)
Or that intelligence has untapped economies of scale. The Singularity doesn't usually call for indefinite growth, just growth so rapid that it makes predictions meaningless.
A metric for "cult-like":
Does the group make constructive use of new data and new ideas? Are new scientific discoveries ignored or denied because they conflict with important teachings of the group? Is one free to bring in ideas from the outside world? Is there a claim of infallibility?
A second metric for "cult-like":
Is group membership coercive? Is one free to leave? Can one freely talk or write about their experience in the group? Are such communications censored or censured by the group?
A third metric for "cult-like":
Are all individuals and other groups opposed to the group defined as "evil" or otherwise fundamentally harmful or harmfully misguided? Does the group have the task of somehow saving the world?
Does the group make constructive use of new data and new ideas? Are new scientific discoveries ignored or denied because they conflict with important teachings of the group? Is one free to bring in ideas from the outside world? Is there a claim of infallibility?
A second metric for "cult-like":
Is group membership coercive? Is one free to leave? Can one freely talk or write about their experience in the group? Are such communications censored or censured by the group?
A third metric for "cult-like":
Are all individuals and other groups opposed to the group defined as "evil" or otherwise fundamentally harmful or harmfully misguided? Does the group have the task of somehow saving the world?
Does the group have the task of somehow saving the world?
Sort of?
Sort of?
If they're only going to "sort-of" save the world, and their plans don't involve the use of WMDs and the instigation of financial catastrophe, then they may not qualify as a full-on "cult."
How about "motley crew of goofballs?" Or MCoG status, for short.
How about "motley crew of goofballs?" Or MCoG status, for short.
Are we supposed to take interest in this particular pointless flamewar? Or is this just meant as a spark to start our own here?
I had no idea there was any controversy about it, but there are a LOT of other beliefs that are logical consequences of a belief in the singularity. I describe the most notable of these below:
* when I say "belief" in the singularity, I of course mean the provisional (falsifiable but currently un-falsified) idea that the concept of the singularity is plausible, even inevitable
The key logical consequence is the idea that it is possible that your own life is simply an experiment being run on a computer at some point in the future, as an attempt to understand the past or even to test some hardware or software.
If you believe that it will be possible for a human to exist in silico, then there will inevitably be millions of experiments in which entire lives (or even civilizations, etc.) are carried out for no purpose other than the whims of the experimentor.
The scale of the inevitable (to the singulatarian) experimentation is so mind boggling that it's hard to even consider what it means, much less its impact on the probability that your own life -- your very existence -- is taking place inside such a simulation.
Consider, for example, that upon reaching the singularity it wil be possible to simulate the entire history of humanity on earth (and every moment of consciousness of every conscious being). Now suppose it's possible to do this once per year or once per second. This means that the probability that your own conscious state is actually taking place in one of those simulations (rather than in reality) approaches 1.
* when I say "belief" in the singularity, I of course mean the provisional (falsifiable but currently un-falsified) idea that the concept of the singularity is plausible, even inevitable
The key logical consequence is the idea that it is possible that your own life is simply an experiment being run on a computer at some point in the future, as an attempt to understand the past or even to test some hardware or software.
If you believe that it will be possible for a human to exist in silico, then there will inevitably be millions of experiments in which entire lives (or even civilizations, etc.) are carried out for no purpose other than the whims of the experimentor.
The scale of the inevitable (to the singulatarian) experimentation is so mind boggling that it's hard to even consider what it means, much less its impact on the probability that your own life -- your very existence -- is taking place inside such a simulation.
Consider, for example, that upon reaching the singularity it wil be possible to simulate the entire history of humanity on earth (and every moment of consciousness of every conscious being). Now suppose it's possible to do this once per year or once per second. This means that the probability that your own conscious state is actually taking place in one of those simulations (rather than in reality) approaches 1.
You're missing my point. The linked article is just a mild flamewar between its two participants ("You're a cult" vs. "You're an asshole for calling us a cult"). There's nothing new or interesting in there.
true... but I do think the stuff I mentioned in my comment is interesting -- and in a sense the same sort of stuff that cults/religions do actually discuss. I guess there is some irony in that.
Michael has far more tolerance than I, I don't think I would have continued the conversation after:
Sure, I make fun of you guys, because I’m trying to entertain people.
Sure, I make fun of you guys, because I’m trying to entertain people.
So apparently any group anticipating and preparing for an interesting and momentous event is a cult, regardless of how they go about it?
Where "nonviolent debate" means one side baselessly reduces arguments he doesn't like to frivolities and does his best to ridicule.
Better discussions: http://lesswrong.com/lw/4d/youre_calling_who_a_cult_leader/ also seen here at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=527064
Better discussions: http://lesswrong.com/lw/4d/youre_calling_who_a_cult_leader/ also seen here at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=527064
"You may not BE cultists, but everyone–not just me–PERCEIVES you as cultists, which is all that matters."
Talk about intellectually dishonest.
Talk about intellectually dishonest.
1. People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations; 2. Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized; 3. They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader; 4. They get a new identity based on the group; 5. They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives, and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled.
Cults are serious business involving the isolation and mind control of individuals. Using it as a cheap loaded word to start a flame war is border line obscene.
The strongest thing that an be said of "the singularity" is that it has some religion-like elements. Lets be reasonable here.