Should Scientists Take Money from the Templeton Foundation?
See John Horgan's, "The Templeton Foundation: a Skeptic's Take".
Excerpt:
My ambivalence about the foundation came to a head during my fellowship in Cambridge last summer. The British biologist Richard Dawkins, whose participation in the meeting helped convince me and other fellows of its legitimacy, was the only speaker who denounced religious beliefs as incompatible with science, irrational, and harmful. The other speakers~— three agnostics, one Jew, a deist, and 12 Christians (a Muslim philosopher canceled at the last minute)~— offered a perspective clearly skewed in favor of religion and Christianity.
Some of the Christian speakers' views struck me as inconsistent, to say the least. None of them supported intelligent design, the notion that life is in certain respects irreducibly complex and hence must have a divine origin, and several of them denounced it. Simon Conway Morris, a biologist at Cambridge and an adviser to the Templeton Foundation, ridiculed intelligent design as nonsense that no respectable biologist could accept. That stance echoes the view of the foundation, which over the last year has taken pains to distance itself from the American intelligent-design movement. And yet Morris, a Catholic, revealed in response to questions that he believes Christ was a supernatural figure who performed miracles and was resurrected after his death. Other Templeton speakers also rejected intelligent design while espousing beliefs at least as lacking in scientific substance.
The Templeton prize-winners John Polkinghorne and John Barrow argued that the laws of physics seem fine-tuned to allow for the existence of human beings, which is the physics version of intelligent design. The physicist F. Russell Stannard, a member of the Templeton Foundation Board of Trustees, contended that prayers can heal the sick~— not through the placebo effect, which is an established fact, but through the intercession of God. In fact the foundation has supported studies of the effectiveness of so-called intercessory prayer, which have been inconclusive.
One Templeton official made what I felt were inappropriate remarks about the foundation's expectations of us fellows. She told us that the meeting cost more than $1-million, and in return the foundation wanted us to publish articles touching on science and religion. But when I told her one evening at dinner that~— given all the problems caused by religion throughout human history~— I didn't want science and religion to be reconciled, and that I hoped humanity would eventually outgrow religion, she replied that she didn't think someone with those opinions should have accepted a fellowship. So much for an open exchange of views.
Hey Templeton Foundation. Here is what the Bible says:
1. We possess an immaterial soul.
2. All humans are sinful and deserve to go to Hell.
3. Jesus of Nazareth paid for our sins on the cross.
4. Jesus of Nazareth was an immortal child of God.
5. Jesus, Mary, and Mary M. all rose directly into Heaven, leaving no corpses.
6. The teachings of JC are the only way to be "saved" and go to Heaven after death.
7. There is life after death.
8. There is a realm we go after death that is very happy, called Heaven. There may or may not be angels, choirs, lyres, clouds, etc., in this place. Whatever it is, it's good.
9. We ritualistically consume the blood and body of Christ every Sunday to be closer to him.
10. A supernatural God actually exists and watches us, and we know this because the text of the Bible is sufficient evidence for doing so.
11. We should not suffer a witch to live.
12. A man should not lie with another man, the penalty being death.
13. Man shall not lie with beast, the penalty being death.
14. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
15. If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
16. For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.
17. Etc... (pick up a Bible and take it at face value.)
People actually believe this stuff. (What percentage I don't know, but according to one poll, 60% of American adults believe that Bible stories, such as Noah's Ark and Moses parting the Red Sea, are literally true. This is appalling.)
Liberal Christians that dismiss these ideas are forced to directly reject what the Bible says, and probably would be excommunciated by priests who actually take the text seriously, rather than as a metaphor. Yes, I know that Presbyterians (whose church I was a part of for several years as a pre-teen, mainly because I had friends in it) like the 95-year-old Sir John Templeton are especially liberal, (wealthy), and forward-thinking Christians. But mainstream Christians, the majority, condemn you in private for your liberal interpretation of the Bible, sometimes in direct contradiction of biblical statements. Notably, in the Orthodox church, where I grew up. You don't even want to know what they think about Mormons. (I am just speaking from personal experience, maybe those who obey the Bible think nothing negative of those who reject select statements from it, but I highly doubt it.)
I know for a fact that some of my friends and acquaintances are depositing checks from the Templeton Foundation. Hey, friends. For every strings-attached dollar you take from the Templeton Foundation you are helping them in their mission of blurring the distinction between Bronze Age theological literature and modern day scientific inquiry. Why not stop?
Unfortunately for the Templeton Foundation, scientific respectability cannot be bought.
As John McCain said to Mitt Romney about his huge expenditure on attack ads (no McCain endorsement here, just quoting him),
"A lot of it is your own money. You're free to do with what you want to. You can spend it all."
Spend it all, please. It will do nothing to stop the meteoric rise of secularism in our society. Especially among young people, who commonly laugh at religion the second their parents turn their backs.
Your children are becoming atheists, and there's not much you can do about it.
Not So Much a Prediction as a Notice
There are two types of "Singularitarians". One type of Singularitarian, mostly imaginary because no one I've ever met actually self-identifies this way, is the type defined in Ray Kurzweil's 2005 book The Singularity is Near. Since this book has a permanent place on my desk, I need to reach only about 10 inches to retrieve it and open to the page that defines it. Here it is:
"A Singularitarian is someone who understands the Singularity and has reflected on its meaning for his or her own life."
Alright. Unfortunately, I'm motivated to entirely ignore this definition, as it was introduced five years after another, different, better definition. The better definition was introduced by Eliezer Yudkowsky on January 1st, 2000, in the Singularitarian Principles, which is admittedly slightly out of date:
Definitional Principle #1: Singularity
A Singularitarian believes that the Singularity is possible, that the Singularity is a good thing, and that we should help make it happen.
Definitional Principle #2: Activism
Singularitarians are the partisans of the Singularity.
A Singularitarian is someone who believes that technologically creating a greater-than-human intelligence is desirable, and who works to that end.
A Singularitarian is advocate, agent, defender, and friend of the future known as the Singularity.
Definitional Principle #3: Ultratechnology
The "Singularity" is a natural, non-mystical, technologically triggered event. We, the Singularitarians, are allied in the purpose of bringing about a natural event through natural means, not sitting in a circle chanting over a computer. There are thousands, perhaps millions, of stories and prophecies and rituals that allegedly involve something that could theoretically be described as "greater-than-human intelligence". What distinguishes the Singularitarians is that we want to bring about a natural event, working through ultratechnologies such as AI or nanotech, without relying on mystical means or morally valent effects.
Definitional Principle #4: Globalism
Similarly, although the Singularity is simply the creation of greater-than-human intelligence, the "Singularity" in "Singularitarian" is the Singularity as seen from the perspective of the vast majority of humanity. It's the event seen from a global perspective, just like the "liberty" in "libertarian" is global. If you don't advocate global liberty, you aren't a libertarian. If you don't advocate global Singularity, if you just advocate a personal, private Singularity, then you're not a Singularitarian.
My main qualm with the above is the notion that the Singularity is necessarily a good thing, when it isn't. Superintelligences could easily wipe us out to make way for structures that provide them greater subjective utility. I would suggest that Mr. Yudkowsky take the few minutes necessary to update the page to reflect this.
Anyway, the biggest difference between Kurzweil's Singularitarianism and Yudkowsky's Singularitarianism is that practically anyone can qualify for the former, while the latter is reserved specifically for rationalist activists who want a Singularity to benefit all humanity. Anyone who has watched any of the Terminator movies and thought that such a scenario might be possible in several decades has thought about the "Singularity" and its meaning in his or her own life, so that may be millions of people, but this isn't a significant delineation. It's conspicuously inclusive, in a boring way.
Yudkowsky's Singularitarianism is an activist singularitarianism -- we're going to work towards smarter-than-human intelligence, join us if you wish.
In this sense, this Singularitarianism is more of a notice than a prediction.
This group, however small it may be, is focused on constructing a self-improving artificial general intelligence (AGI) that acts beneficently towards all humanity, however long that takes.
Join us if you wish.
Response to Glenn Zorpette, Editor of IEEE Spectrum
(Michael Anissimov, Glenn Zorpette.)
First, may I welcome Mr. Zorpette to the wild and wacky world of debating the techological singularity! May these discussions be exciting and illuminating to you as they are boring and repetitive to me. (They're not boring because of your comments, Mr. Zorpette, but merely from my stubborn insistence and decade-plus quest for understanding all the common objections and enthusiasms surrounding the so-called Singularity, despite their ever-repeated frequency.)
The IEEE Spectrum special issue on the Singularity is opened with a critical introduction by acclaimed technology journalist Glenn Zorpette, "Waiting for the Rapture" with the tagline, "Technological convergence will change our lives but won't make them indefinitely long", which represents his number one qualm with Singularity discussions, but a relatively minor component thereof: radical life extension. My initial comment would be, "I came for Singularity criticism, but got radical life extension criticism. Can you please write a new article that criticizes the feasibility of smarter-than-human intelligence, and makes criticism of life extension a side note, or submit this article to another magazine that addresses the life extension issue?"
The opening paragraph begins as follows:
"Across cultures, classes, and aeons, people have yearned to transcend death."
Yeah, we totally have. And not in an exclusively irrational way either. Since the average lifespan back in the day was about 30, and now it's about 80, I'd say we've come a long way.
He continues, "Bear that history in mind as you consider the creed of the singularitarians. Many of them fervently believe that in the next several decades we’ll have computers into which you’ll be able to upload your consciousness—the mysterious thing that makes you you. Then, with your consciousness able to go from mechanical body to mechanical body, or virtual paradise to virtual paradise, you’ll never need to face death, illness, bad food, or poor cellphone reception."
1. No unified creed. Many singularitarians have different positions on the 22 concepts I listed. However, I do identify as a "singularitarian", even though the word has lost most meaning, partially because it gives me an opportunity to respond to many of the arguments lobbed in my general direction.
2. Conscious is no more mysterious than life, the planets, etc. Mysteriousness is in the mind, not reality. All of these things seem mysterious until we actually begin to understand them through scientific inquiry. You know that, so why not drop the word "mysterious"?
3. Yes, if the mind is really just what the brain does, and the brain's functionality can be duplicated in other media (carbon nanocomputers, etc.), then indeed, we will eventually have a future where we "go from mechanical body to mechanical body, or virtual paradise to virtual paradise, you’ll never need to face death, illness, bad food, or poor cellphone reception". It's just as foolish to dismiss the plausibility of this possible future scenario for its shock value as it is to embrace it for its superficial "geek rapture value".
On to the second paragraph. The phrase "rapture of the geeks" is immediately invoked. As my colleague Steven writes, "that image of a shared psychological flaw is itself so seductive that it has distorted people’s view of what the singularity is about into a kind of geek-bible-wielding strawman — singularitarian ideas are assumed to parallel fundamentalist Christian ideas even where they don’t, just because the comparison is apparently so much fun."
Singularitarian ideas are portrayed as full of shit because Rapture-believers are full of shit. But this guilt by association is unfair. Were the Wright brothers idiotic because they aspired toward controlled flight, and controlled flight had (allegedly) previously been the province of angels? Were the early nuclear engineers idiotic because they aspired to harness the power of the Sun, which had henceforth (allegedly) only been harnessed by God? Were the first genetic engineers idiotic, because they aspired to modify the very code of life, which up to that point had only (allegedly) been done by God? Are AGI designers idiotic because they aspire towards creating general intelligence in a medium other than biology, whereas previously, general intelligence has only been found within biological structures? Are life extensionists idiotic because they seek to ameliorate the causes of aging enough to heal metabolic damage before it causes pathology, and begin this project immediately rather than in a century?
The definition of the Singularity Zorpette uses in his first pargraphs is the "intelligence explosion" introduced by I.J. Good and popularized by Yudkowsky, but this is one of the only mentions it gets in his article. Otherwise, he ignores this scenario and focuses on mind uploading and radical life extension, both of which he severely doubts. This preoccupation with criticizing life extension sets Zorpette alone from other authors in this issue. I wonder if he is aware that of the tens of thousands of people advocating an engineering approach to life extension, only a minority buy into the Singularity visions extolled by Kurzweil?
Zorpette fairly rags on Ray Kurzweil's upcoming movie, The Singularity is Near, saying, "Without any apparent irony, the picture’s producers call it "a true story about the future". While understanding the need to make compromises when it comes to marketing soundbites, I agree with Zorpette that this is a poor tagline for Kurzweil's movie. Please change it, Mr. Raymond Kurzweil! Here are my alternate suggestions for taglines, which, if adopted now (it's not too late!), might avoid a national media backlash:
"The next step in humanity's journey."
"The harmony of technology and biology."
"When technology improves biology."
"Where is humanity headed?"
"Is the power of technology exponentially increasing?"
"Can the human body be enhanced?"
These taglines are provocative without invoking futuristic determinism, which Mr. Kurzweil has been heavily criticized for in the past and will continue to be criticized for in the future. This is a weak point, an Achilles heel, that Kurzweil could do without. The thing is, many of Kurzweil's arguments are strong enough without the deterministic component. Viewed as probabilistic arguments, they still carry plenty of weight. It's just that as a matter of presentation and marketing, Kurzweil seems linked to the deterministic approach (although he softened it in his recent book), which can be discarded without too much harm (and substantial gain, in fact).
Zorpette writes, "There’s also a drumbeat of respectful and essentially credulous articles in the science press." Yes, there are! This reality causes me to snicker when Singularity critics try to portray the ideas as fringe, when they have been considered by journalists in the top magazines of the country, some of which I have had the pleasure to talk to personally.
He then writes, "Why should a mere journalist question Kurzweil’s conclusion that some of us alive today will live indefinitely? Because we all know it’s wrong." Buh. This is where Zorpette shows that his big problem is with radical life extensionists in general, not just "singularitarians". How does he know that all cryonically suspended persons will never be revived, even in 1000 years? Or that we will not reach longevity escape velocity by 2070, when I will will happen to be "only" 86? In his tone, Zorpette appeals to bioconservative biases like those of Leon Kass. But even Kass takes the "danger" of indefinite life extension seriously, while thinkers like Zorpette do not.
The body is a biological machine, and like antique cars, it should be possible to arrange its indefinite upkeep. Not by eliminating the sources of aging, but merely cleaning up damage before it accumulates to the point of causing pathology. This is the mantra of the Methuselah Foundation, and it makes sense.
Zorpette then says, "The singularity debate is too rarely a real argument. There’s too much fixation on death avoidance." The unfortunate thing about this statement is that it shows that Zorpette's focus is most on point #21 than on the other (more complex and difficult) 22 points. It must be somewhat new and startling to him, because many of his objections focus on it. The "Singularity", a messy meta-concept containing over a dozen constituent concepts, can serve as a lens to examine those that support or criticize it, because they immediate seize upon those sub-concepts that they most detest or support. For Zorpette, his major hangup is the near-term feasibility of anti-aging therapies that clean up metabolic damage faster than it accumulates. It's a little unfortunate, because it seems easier to argue against, say, mind uploading, or hard takeoff superintelligence. Why make your task more difficult than it needs to be?
Zorpette then quickly shows his respect for the power of technology by writing, "in the coming years, as Âcomputers become stupendously powerful—really and truly ridiculously powerful—and as electronics and other technologies begin to enhance and fuse with biology, life really is going to get more interesting." Here, he seems to embrace transhumanist ideas in the abstract, while rejected the alleged extremism of "singularitarianism". I welcome Zorpette to read the Transhumanist FAQ and see if his own views can be described as transhumanist in nature.
He then says, about their selection of article writers, "with a few exceptions, we found people who are not on record as either embracing singularity dogma or rejecting it." It's funny how this statement oddly tries to sound neutral, while at the same time calling singularity "dogma". To simplify matters, I'm assuming that Zorpette is mainly mirroring the opinion of his friend John Horgan, who may have thought about the issue more than Zorpette has.
Regarding the role of technology journalism, Zorpette is influenced by Horgan's idea that a "cranky", rather than deferential approach, to the career is appropriate. This is fine by me! I'd prefer a mix of deferential, neutral, and enthusiastic journalism, covering all bases. Fortunately (?) for singularitarians, most journalists we talk to are enthusiastic and positive about our ideas. Which is why I welcome explicitly negative coverage (and that's what this is) as a change of pace and an opportunity to respond to many of the common arguments.
Next, Zorpette summarizes the authors and their contributions. He writes, "Vinge’s 1993 essay “The Coming Technological Singularity†that launched the modern singularity movement." I would argue that this is wrong. Eliezer Yudkowsky's 1996 essay "Staring into the Singularity" started the modern singularity movement. As a card-carrying Singularity "cultist", I think I know what I am talking about.
Zorpette then writes, "That movement has evolved since then into an array of competing hypotheses and scenarios [for a rundown, see “Who’s Who in the Singularity,†in this issue]. But central to them all is the paradoxical yet weirdly compelling idea of a conscious machine. Arguably, no other technology-related concept resonates with such intellectual and philosophical force." It's rather odd, because I don't think that the idea is central to all the competing hypotheses and scenarios. For instance, Kurzweil admits that machines may not actually be conscious the same way as us, and still have a huge impact on the world. Rather, the idea of smarter-than-human intelligence (not consciousness) is central to the Singularity. That's why you can talk about the Singularity while talking about biological upgrades alone. Conscious robots need not apply. Zorpette misses this, I think, because his high-octane career (which I respect!) doesn't give him enough time to really dig very deep when it comes to Singularity discussions online.
If you asked me whether I'd take the opinion of a bright layman who has read about the Singularity online as a hobby for three years, or a high-octane journalist who spent a few weeks researching it for his special issue, I think I'd take the former. No offense to Zorpette, but I know how most high-achievers lives work -- work, work, work, relax, sleep, then repeat. Not really enough time to sit around and absorb all the subtle stuff. After all, no one really pays you for it. (I'm very impressed by high achievers, like Dr. Jones and others, who invest the time to read blogs like this one, which occasionally rant and segue into random topics, despite their very busy schedules.)
In his next paragraph, Zorpette embraces functionalism, and pretends that everyone does: "Consciousness seems mystical and inextricably linked to organisms. What happens in the cerebral cortex that turns objective information into subjective experience—that turns chemical and neuronal activity in the mouth and nose into the taste of watermelon? pressure waves into the sound of an oboe? We don’t know, but we will someday. No one argues that consciousness arises from anything but biological processes in the brain." Well, unfortunately, they do, including some of the people who commented in your issue, like Stephen Pinker apparently. In fact, I think the strongest phalanx of opposition to Singularity ideas consists of those, including many so-called scientists, who believe that consciousness cannot be traced to brain signals, but rather some immaterial pixie dust/soul/aura. After all, if you believe in Christianity, Judaism, or personal watered-down versions thereof (like 80% of Americans), views like this are common currency.
He says, "The brain is nothing more, and nothing less, than a very powerful and very odd computer." I agree, but try proclaiming this at your next IEEE staff meeting, or your personal blog, and witness the numerous objections. Most Singularity skepticism is motivated by exactly these objections.
To wrap up, Zorpette writes, "What we do know is that the brain’s complexity dwarfs anything we’ve managed to fully understand, let alone build. Koch, Tononi, and Brooks are all confident that consciousness will arise in a machine, but they are less sanguine about death-defying uploading, and especially about it happening in time to allow people alive now to preserve their minds in some sort of digitally created Eden."
This is amusing. If consciousness can arise in a machine, then why could a machine not be made in the human image, and harbor human consciousness? What seems to be occurring here is a reversal of the appropriate order of analysis.
First, you look at the requirements, not the consequences. Requirements of mind uploading:
1) finite state nature of the human brain and mind
2) computers fast enough to run that finite state program
3) substrate-independence of conscious experience
4) interface devices between the program and the external world
Consequences of mind uploading if it is possible:
1) Near-immortality
2) Digital Eden
3) other stuff that sounds religious but are straightforward consequences if uploading is possible
Zorpette and others look at the consequences first, then evaluate the requirements in light of the stated consequences. But wait! This is premature. Ignore the consequences. Look at the requirements on their own merits. If the requirements are fulfilled, then no amount of squirming will free us from extreme consequences, like copying Stephen Hawking's brain a thousand times and letting them loose on the Internet.
High-profile figures like Koch, Tononi, and Brooks have a tremendous interest to discuss possible requirements on their own merits, but specifically avoid conclusions that lead to anything like uploading. So it's no wonder that many of them are sanguine about possibilities of uploading. Of course, there are high-profile figures like Marvin Minsky, who I've been fortunate enough to get significant one-on-one time with, who do embrace the technological requirements of uploading and its likely consequences. But these are the minority.
My final impression? This is a critical article that attacks life extension and uploading, while mostly ignoring the other 20 points I address as components of this useless "Singularity" word. As for my personal emotional impression of the article, I find it difficult to get excited either way, maybe because I believe the Singularity concept is already as popular as it really needs to be. What is needed is to enhance understanding among those already exposed, not necessarily expose it to a wider audience.
As stated before, however, I would have preferred if the article focused on a critique of the nearness of smarter-than-human intelligence, rather than a critique of (the rather intuitive and heavily-supported) position of "death avoidance", or critiques of the consequences (rather than the requirements) of mind uploading.
Zorpette views the Singularity as a special case of old-as-history death avoidance, when in reality it is quite a new vision of the dynamics of self-improving and nonbiological intelligence entirely distinct from death avoidance. For instance, most "singularitarians" believe that the Singularity could kill us all as easily as it makes us live indefinitely. Only Ray Kurzweil, and a lesser-known transhumanist futurist, John Smart, have seemingly suggested that the Singularity is necessarily a good thing. Vernor Vinge, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and at least 100 other Singularity advocates I know personally would argue against that.
IEEE Spectrum Special Issue on the Singularity
IEEE Spectrum's special issue on the Singularity is out -- and all the articles are online. Most of the articles are critical, but fascinating. (I explicitly reject EY's view of the issue as a "sad little attempt at Singularity coverage". To quote Patri Friedman, "It's got a piece by Robin Hanson, so it can't be all bad.")
Singularity critics rejoice -- this is the most unified and coherent set of critical arguments against "singularitarians" that has yet been assembled. At the same time, there are responses to most if not all of these critical arguments that seem even more reasonable, some of which I will address in subsequent posts.
One of the funny parallels between many of the articles is that they acknowledge how popular Singularity-oriented thinking has become in the last few years. This is in no small part due to the efforts of individuals within the transhumanist community, especially Ray Kurzweil (whose deterministic graph-based predictions, confusing definitions, and spiritual view of the Singularity draws the ire of the majority of self-described singularitarians, including myself), but also the Singularity Institute, which has organized the highly-publicized Singularity Summit conferences.
Let me begin by pointing out that "Singularity", in its messy and reckless common usage nowadays, contains at least 22 distinct, but loosely interrelated ideas (and probably far more):
1. Can robots be conscious?
2. Is technological change accelerating? (Core claim of Accelerating Change school.)
3. Does technological change follow smooth exponential curves? (Strong claim of AC school, by Kurzweil.)
4. Will smarter-than-human intelligence lead to a predictability horizon? (Core claim of Event Horizon school.)
5. Is smarter-than-human intelligence absolutely unpredictable? (Strong claim of EH school.)
6. Is intelligence enhancement a tipping point? (Core claim of Intelligence Explosion school.)
7. Could intelligence enhancement lead to a hard takeoff? (Strong claim of IE school.)
8. Is mind uploading possible?
9. Is mind uploading desirable?
10. Is mind uploading possible in the next few decades?
11. Is the human mind a finite-state machine?
12. Is Turing Test passing AI possible?
13. Is superhuman intelligence desirable?
14. Is superhuman intelligence feasible?
15. Is superhuman intelligence possible in the next few decades?
16. Is human enhancement desirable?
17. Is human enhancement feasible?
18. Is human enhancement possible in the next few decades?
19. Is molecular nanotechnology feasible?
20. Is it appropriate for engineering goals to parallel age-old human ambitions, like flight or eternal youth?
21. Is it possible for us to achieve anti-aging therapies that clean up damage faster than it accumulates?
22. There have been big changes in history and another one is coming soon. (Robin Hanson)
With just two minutes of writing, I have added a large amount of clarity to the discussion that this special issue could have benefited from: simply splitting various concepts associated with "Singularity" into independent parts, so we can examine them one by one, instead of refuting or supporting a incoherent blur of different positions, and pretending they're all the same package. Often, one approaches the Singularity by asking, "do I support or reject this blur of positions?" If they reject, they reject them all (often unnecessarily), if they support, they may support many of them unnecessarily (as I did as a teenager).
Why couldn't any of the nine authors of the contributed articles do this? These questions are so complex, new, and confusing, they demand to split this shit up. I ask all writers on the topic, including journalists and academics, to consider taking my advice on this.
Anyway, here are the links to the eight pieces:
“Introduction: Waiting for the Rapture†by Glenn Zorpette
"Economics of the Singularity" by Robin Hanson
"Reverse Engineering the Brain" by Sally Adee
“Can Machines Be Conscious?†by Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi
"Singular Simplicity" by Alfred Nordmann
“Rupturing the Nanotech Rapture†by Richard A. L. Jones
“I, Rodney Brooks, Am a Robot†by Rodney Brooks
“Signs of the Singularity†by Vernor Vinge
If you visit the site, there are some videos, graphs, interviews, and other web-exclusive stuff.
In the coming days, I'll respond to as many of these articles as I feel like.