Friday, 10 December 2010

Supercomputers faster than human brain: Facebook discussion

This "Facebook discussion" arose from a wall post I made regarding the following news article:

"By 2018, supercomputers could operate 100 times faster than the human brain"

I will only include my comments because otherwise this blog would be too long. The comments are open for everyone to see on Facebook but you will probably need to log-in:



You have to see the connection between consequences and causes. The cause of civilization is the collective will of all humans. Civilization is a consequence of human causality. We are all interconnected. Civilization is a manifestation of our collective consciousness. Many people have not fully unleashed their consciousness; perhaps they were mentally unable to unleash their consciousness, thus The Masses delegated intellectual responsibility to corporate and political leaders and that delegation of intellectualism will soon be returned to everyone when high powered computing becomes widely available and helps to augment human brains. Expect utopia.

The Masses are dis-empowered because they want to be. I don't subscribe to the blame-game. I believe we are all responsible for our own destiny and people should take responsibility for their lives instead of blaming their misfortune on other people. I believe the existential approach is the most logical. The blame-game is a childish, infantile symptom of willful dis-empowerment. Blaming others adds to the dis-empowerment. People are dis-empowered because they blame other people for their circumstances. People should not let circumstances control their destiny, but people do want to be controlled, technology will change this.

People should take control of their lives but people have forgotten how to take control of their lives so people blame other people or organizations for their misfortune; technology and science will change this.
I am highlighting the value of technology. I highlight the reason why technology exists and I highlight the nature of the corporate agenda. I highlight how the purpose of technology is not merely just doing something because we can, it is about creating utopia. The interconnections are plain to see if you can look close enough but perhaps you need to wait a few years yet for your perspicaciousness to grow in tandem with technology. Sci-Tech will enhance human perspicaciousness.

Here's one source: and for other sources here you can see the health benefits of sci-tech:

Vision has also been restored, via stem cells, for people suffering chemical burns to their eyes:

Here is a more recent trial regarding stem cells curing blindness:

Here is a trial regarding stem cells being used on a stroke victim:

The internet (via Wikileaks etc) is also a valuable aspect of how technology will create utopia because our communication abilities are enhanced. Information is power. Information will be free.

The Wikileaks arrest warrant is about the personal life of Assange not his public life. Who created the internet? The internet was part of the Establishment agenda and it is used for good egalitarian things. Yes there is some resistance to utopia, such as net censorship, but these obstacles will be overcome eventually. Stem calls treatments will eventually be available to everyone via national health services where insurance is not needed. When mobile phones first were marketed there were very expensive and only a few people had them and now almost everyone has mobile phone. It will take 35 years for utopia to arise (year 2045 at the latest). Post-Scarcity is coming but I am aware of the potential dark side of technology. All obstacles will be overcome.

I'm not here to discuss my personal life. The details of my "education background" are irrelevant and I am mystified why you consider such a question to be relevant.

I am not saying people should completely ignore unpleasant realities but I feel it is far more beneficial to focus on positive aspects.

Sorry what questions and issues do you think I have I completely ignored in this supposedly logical conversation?

The answer to your earlier question is this: It would be more beneficial for everyone to focus on the positive aspects of sci-tech. I am also an Anthropologist and I speak of the Masses from an anthropological viewpoint. I have said before I am not here to discuss my personal life but you insist upon pushing the matter. My personal life is not relevant to the issue and your disparaging allegation of a 'disconnect in my responses' is an invalid distraction from the issue. Rather than trying to poke holes in my personal identity I suggest you should use logic to try and refute my views; but having said that, I think, due to your apparent hostility, we should draw this discussion to a close and agree to disagree.

Finally, I just want to say that the corporate agenda is moving towards altruism slowly. The creation of the internet, advances in health-care, and computing progress are at a very early stage. Over the next ten years we will see greater strides forward towards Post-Scarcity but in the year 2010 people can already watch many films online for free and music is freely available on YouTube. Free software is also another altruistic example of tech. In the year 2020 it will be easier to see the move to towards egalitarian Post-Scarcity. Medicine will vastly improve during this decade and eventually high quality healthcare will be freely available to everyone. It will take 35 years at the most for a Post-Scarcity utopia to occur. Utopia will occur by the year 2045 at the latest.

I've not skipped back from anything, I was merely responding to an earlier question you asked, which I had not fully answered. You have accused me of not answering your questions thus I thought it only fair that I clarify that point.

You are paraphrasing Mary Midgley with her "philosophical plumbing" nonsense, which I previously exposed to you as flawed regarding how Midgley views Singularitarians.

"...poses a cerebral void of what appear to be a lot of nonsense."... so you say, but I'd like to point out that your insults would be more sensible (logical) if you could have added "because...." by which I mean you need to explain WHY the optimistic view is a cerebral void. When people use insults they are not really seeking logical discourse therefore it is understandable that you fail to explain why optimism is a cerebral void.

Focusing on positives is beneficial because negatives are mentally draining. Negatives lead to despair. Merely by focusing on positives many of the negatives are fixed. Optimism is more productive on many levels. Problems do need to be addressed but our overall focus should be on the positives, an optimistic focus.

I am surprised people value incompetent philosophers such as Midgley She is incompetent regarding logic because she fails to see how creations beyond-human-level can solve intractable human problems. Electricity would be magic for cavemen (Stone-Age-primitives), and the Singularity would appear magic if we could jump instantaneously 35 years into the future. Humans evolve, our culture progresses. What is unsolvable today can be magically cured tomorrow.

As anthropologists we should be aware of history:

Problems do need to be addressed but our overall focus should be on the positives, an optimistic focus.

How can electricity (and light blubs etc) solve the problem of creating artificial light for cavemen who cannot create electricity, the answer is time solves things. Humans create solutions beyond themselves.

All definitions vary somewhat. Intelligence will be created artificially and like the human variety of intelligences, AIs will have a variety of minds.

There is no weakness in education there is only weakness in minds and weakness of mind is a self-imposed punishment. Humans do not depend upon someone educating them for them to be intellectually brilliant. Mental dependency on others and intellectual brilliance are not compatible, they are mutually opposed therefore education provided "to" people will always be flawed no matter how great the intentions are to make the education good. Truly good education only happens when a person independently seeks out knowledge rather than being spoon fed knowledge like a baby, people need to grow up and technology will help with this. There is a certain degree of irony or contradiction regarding technology finally being able to impose mental awaking on people, but this contradiction is resolved comparatively via analogous parents giving (bestowing) life to a child. An appropriate push in the right direction can in certain revolutionary circumstances create great independence, a liberation from the womb. Technology will allow people to become self sufficient.

Listen, I don't know who you think I am but my life is not a sheltered life. Far from it indeed. I'm not rich and I never have been. I have no aristocratic notions about my heritage being genetically superior to the common man. If I am superior it is due to my free-thinking, which I believe is the genetic heritage of all humans.

The education is not weak. Poverty of education is a symptom of poor minds. The minds are weak and education merely conforms to the minds of those to be educated. You can't improve 'education' because you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Can we drop this now? We seem to be going nowhere.

No problem, glad I could help.

There is a distinction between: a large section of the population blithely, obliviously, trundling through life without considering the deeper intellectual ramifications of existence; and on the other hand you have an intellectual minority ...of deep thinkers. I termed the large unthinking (narrow-minded) section of the population "The Masses" but you could also label them "Hoi polloi" or "common people" or "the unthinking multitudes"; the disparaging term "sheeple" is also used. Whatever way you look at it, there is currently a distinction between thinkers and mentally apathetic multitudes.

You are welcome to speculate upon my intellectual state but I do not consider it necessary to justify my intellect. You are also welcome to insult my vocabulary and again I do not feel it is necessary to justify myself. The topic of this post is: "By 2018, supercomputers could operate 100 times faster than the human brain." My personal intelligence and my usage of language is a diversion from the issue. Insults (personal attacks) shouldn't divert attention away from the issue therefore I will not respond to personal attacks with the one exception of this comment, which states I will not respond.

One final time I will repeat myself on this issue because maybe you missed the first time when I mentioned my background. For the record I do NOT come from a privileged background. I haven't had a good quality education provided by any institution. I consider your claim to be insulting regarding my vocabulary being "prep school" but maybe you didn't consider it an insult. It seems your upbringing, which you admit to being in an Elitist environment, has caused you to make unjust assumptions. I also have great sympathy for the poor because I am poor but I don't starve. It seems you have a prejudice towards intellectual ability. You say I fail to address the negatives of technology but if you scroll down the wall for this group you will see a note I have posted regarding the dark side of tech: "DARK SIDE OF TECHNOLOGY DEMANDS A POST-SCARCITY ANTIDOTE" and the note is in CAPS so hopefully you will not miss it, furthermore the note has a skull and crossbones logo. I have also posted on the wall for this group a note which touches upon the injustice of capitalism: "Singularity Seeds: How to avert economic collapse (collapse of civilisation) via Post-Scarcity-Awareness. How to create utopia." (see the circular PS symbol).

You mention "... a struggle for dominance and superiority"; "...for the conquest of universal prestige and absolute power." You believe such things refute a Post-Scarcity-Utopia, but both concepts you mention are based on scarcity of resources. The whole concept of POWER is about control of scarcity. People only need to dominate other people when they must fight over resources due to scarcity. The hole history of mankind has been about scarcity. Food, shelter, and luxury do not grow on tress; people have been forced to fight to survive.

Religion is a system of control similar to Government. Religions have fought wars for ideological dominance, which is no different to a Government fighting a war for ideological dominance. Religious people have wars and those wars are due t...o scarcity. Religion in itself, at the very foundations, is due to scarcity. The scarcity of eternal physical life (the shortness of our life-spans) leads religions to invent the concept of eternal spiritual life. Heaven is an invention based on the finite duration of our lives (the scarcity of our lifespans). The need to dominate is due to scarcity in all circumstances. Religions are systems of control. Systems of control are needed in situations of scarcity.

Thanks for the Wikipedia religious war link, but I was already aware of religious wars throughout history. Seeing as you want to educate me maybe I should turn the tables and educate you? Do you know the meaning of this:


Everlasting eternal life in heaven is a religious form of existential Post-Scarcity, but if the leaders of religion discover heaven was merely their fictional creation to become powerfully rich; then at least the delusion of everlasting life in heaven and their great wealth on Earth will have made their religious lives easier.

It's all about scarcity. Governments, religions, etc.

Ideological wars are territorial wars. If you put rats in a cramped cage they will fight because the territory is not big enough, or you could say each rat fights for its ideology. Fighting for your ideology is fighting for your mental-space and physical-space. Ideas are extensions of desires. When conditions are cramped your mind will feel constrained by the presence of other minds. Each mind is an ideology in its own right. The whole concept of ideology is a cultural glorification of basic desires: territory, sustenance, procreation, shelter. Each ideology is based on how best to configure our environment so that the aforementioned basic needs are best fulfilled. Territory is needed for natural resources thus people fight because each ideology has thinks it knows best how the utilize the territory. Men and woman also fight for procreational rights. Our future understanding of matter and biology will effectually create unlimited resources and procreation will not depend upon women becoming pregnant.

Sheeple is not a term I prefer to use, I merely mentioned it as an example of different terms people use to describe the divide. Terms such as The Masses verses the intelligentsia or cognoscenti are generalizations thus the general nature of the terms means they are imprecise. Nothing is blank and white. Grey areas exist but generalities can be helpful. Wise people can occasionally be foolish and the foolish can occasionally be wise. A person can be predominately foolish or predominantly wise therefore such predominant states need to be described, especially when large groups of people are either foolish or wise. The KKK could be described as foolish and such a definition is helpful. A President can be described as wise and such a definition is helpful, or all Presidents can be described as foolish and such a definition could be helpful. Language needs a great variety of terms, phrases, and definitions so that all circumstances can be described. The concept of The Masses describes a large portion of people who go-with-the-flow meekly accepting political or business propaganda, but this is a generalization because not every member of The Masses will always go with the flow. Some people are VIPs, some people travel First Class, some people are part of an Elite, some people have very low intelligence, and some people have very high intelligence. Most people are average, mediocre perhaps? Variety is the spice of life.

But what does "ideology" stem from? It stems from basic needs such as territory etc. Ideology is an abstraction of basic desires. You say the Civil War was wholly ideological, it was regarding slavery issues, but let's look at the root of this ideology: slavery.

Slavery arises due to scarcity of resources. Slavery is an overreaction to scarcity, therefore wars based on *slavery-disagreements* are wars based on disagreements regarding the levels of scarcity. The root of it all is scarcity whatever war you cite. Reread my previous post and maybe you will get my point.

Scarcity can cause people to overreact thereby committing atrocities. Supposedly ideological wars arise, but the underpinning of ALL war is scarcity: there is the fear that the overreaction to scarcity (the atrocities perpetrated in the name of ideology) could spread and the next atrocity could be on your doorstep.

Regarding the Dark Side of tech here is a note I wrote prior to these comments:

This note, which I again wrote before the above debate, also raises the possibility of dsytopia:

I earlier I stated: "Yes there is some resistance to utopia, such as net censorship..." and in the above notes you can see how I am aware of possible dystopia.

It may transpire (it looks exceedingly likely) that Julian Assange's arrest regarding his personal life was a politically motivated arrest/prosecution; but despite all the pitfalls, perils, and resistance to utopia, such as net censorship, spying, and injustice, I am confident utopia will arise. The Establishment does good in addition to the bad. The internet was created by the Establishment and the internet is a great tool for gaining freedom but censorship issues do exist. Things hang in the balance and they could tip either way therefore people should be careful not to tip things into dsytopia.

Expectations are especially powerful when things teeter on the edge of uncertainty, because when things are precariously balanced the slightest bit of effort can cause things to tip one way or another. We can move mountains merely via a few simply key events. A few strategically placed words here and there can dramatically alter the path of history. We are changing the future via these comments, and with greater awareness of how we change the future, the changes become more dramatic. UTOPIA IS COMING. Feel the power of the the Singularity. Imagine what the future will be like. You can make your wildest most special dream come true. Via a Self-Fulfilling prophecy our actions change reality according to our expectations. We must expect utopia.

Thursday, 9 December 2010

LessWrong Overcoming Bias (more notes) on Facebook

Regarding a Facebook comments-discussion... this blog will focus on some more notes for my critique of "Less Wrong" and "Overcoming Bias", which I hope to write sometime before June 2011. This blog focuses on LessWrong.

These comments were in relation to a Facebook wall post by Br****** Gar**** (I must censor her name otherwise I fear she could try to get this blog deleted). She didn't appreciate my comments and has now unfriended me; so I no longer have access to her wall comments therefore I cannot provide a URL for her wall post (it is possible she has deleted the whole post). Thankfully I saved my comments in my computer rather than only in Facebook cyberspace.

Ironically her "political views" are listed as "libertarian". The nature of her wall post, which I commented on, was that she was stating something such as: here is the best, greatest, and most rational article on the web and she was linking to a LessWrong article (sorry I don't have the link, I couldn't retrieve it before she unfriended me, but I did manage to save this additional link, which she cited as another alleged example of allegedly great rationalism).

I'm absolutely exhausted. AH the PAIN! I've been running on adrenaline too long trying to enlighten people, wearing my body down, but these things needed to be stated at this point in time, for the record, and I will now log them (not in the original order):

My Facebook wall comments to Br****** Gar****:

  • LessWrong is basically a negative (unwittingly-pessimistic) movement, it would be better to say "MoreRight"; but "MoreRight" doesn't mean we should ignore the negatives, it is simply a realization that the concept of "Self-Fulfilling Prophecy" is a powerful force therefore focusing on the positives is MoreRight.

    It all depends on how you define "rational" some people "think" they are rational but they are actually not. The logic of LessWrong is somewhat flawed. At some point in the future I will publish an article about the unaware-bias of LessWrong; but having stated this I don't want to appear overly critical because we should focus on points we agree on, we should seek unification thereby progressing forward positively.

    Peter Thiel writes in the article:

    "From a contrarian perspective, one could be more optimistic if others were not so naively “optimistic.” "

    Peter is making a poor back-handed excuse for pessimism. Pessimists blame others for their shortcomings whereas optimists take charge of a situation to achieve their goals. "Making excuses" is NOT a symptom of a rational mind. It is shocking to see in Peter's article about our financial futures that he fails to mention the concept of Post-Scarcity.

    Sometimes it can be positive to highlight failings. You have to break a few eggs make an omelette. Via bringing to your attention possible failings you and others can then progress forward positively. Imagine if you see somebody doing something wrong, but they don't realize what they are doing is wrong; if you tell them how they are wrong they may mistakenly deem your criticism as negativity, but in actual fact the criticism is made positively so that they can modify their negative actions thereby progressing forward positively in the future. It is difficult to correct mistaken notions because people don't like to be criticized even when the criticism is helpful. My comment was made with positive intentions. Furthermore none of us are perfect, perhaps I could have explained the situation in a more positive light; thankfully we will all become perfect because the utopian Singularity is coming by 2045 at the latest.

    LessWrong and MoreRight are both "invariant" methods of thought, but one is pessimistic and the other is optimistic. Optimism (MoreRight) is rational whereas LessWrong (pessimism) is irrational.

    LessWrong seems to admit fundamental flaws (pessimism) whereas MoreRight seems to admit fundamental perfection (optimism). The LessWrong premise, as I see it, is that we are all wrong but we can be less wrong. LessWrong is an improvement upon wrongness but it is nevertheless wrong at the core, thus pessimistic; whereas MoreRight starts out from a positive outlook (we are right) and the positivity feeds back thus we become MoreRight.

    LessWrong is the rationalist equivalent of a person with cancer cutting back on smoking cigarettes. The smoker with cancer cuts back and says to him or herself: "smoking 3 a day is less wrong than smoking ten a day." The truly rational solution is not to smoke.

Monday, 6 December 2010

Wikileaks Mirrors

Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 507 sites
(updated 2010-12-06 14:02 GMT) "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6" "ipv6"

Singularity-Deniers comparable to Holocaust-Deniers.

A Singularity-Denier is someone who denies a utopian Singularity will happen by year 2045 at the latest. Deniers either forecast a possible dsytopia, or they predict the Singularity happening later than year 2045, or they say a Singularity can never happen. Singularity-Denial is denial of technological utopia occurring by year 2045 at the latest.

STOP the denial of utopia.

editing in progress

Singularity-Denial is incredibly destructive. The level of destruction is comparable to The Holocaust.

  • People initially experience difficulty appreciating how the issue of Singularity-Denial is comparable to the Holocaust.


In the year 2010 the daily global death toll was 150,000.

Aubrey De Gray Chief Science Officer of the SENS Foundation states around 150,000 people die throughout the world each day. It is difficult to appreciate this amount of people dying each day. It is shocking to contemplate 150,000 people dying daily. Approximately two thirds of these deaths are regarding old-age. Contemplating this shocking amount of deaths helps people overcome any difficulties they experience regarding comprehension of the atrocity caused by Singularity-Denial. Once you begin to comprehend the atrocity of 150,000 people dying daily you can begin comprehending the atrocity of Singularity-Denial.

  • The Singularity will create immortality.
  • Denial of the Singularity delays the Singularity.
  • Delaying immortality causes enormous loss of life.

All the daily deaths, or at least 94% of them, will be prevented when the Singularity occurs. Delaying the arrival of the Singularity causes massive loss of life. Singularity-Deniers hinder the arrival of the Singularity. Delaying the Singularity is the greatest Weapon of Mass Destruction humans have ever known.


Global mortality rates are decreasing. Medical improvements mean less people die each year. Shortly before the Singularity (perhaps in the year 2040 or 2035) it is possible the daily mortality rate could drop to 100,000 or 75,000. Perhaps in the year 2040 or 2035 daily global mortality could drop to the low number of 10,000. Forecasts of mortality presented here, regarding a delayed Singularity, are inevitably imprecise (they are estimates). Regardless of your viewpoint on foretasted daily mortality, the level of mortality is shocking in the best case scenario.


close enough

Sociopolitical-economic attitudes in the year 2010 mean the daily mortality rate of 150,000 deaths is unlikely to decrease before the 2020. Sociopolitical-economic attitudes in year 2010 showed no evidence substantially changing before 2020 therefore we must force attitudes to change. Via raising awareness of the restrictive impact....

Singularity-Denial impacts restrictively upon science and technology. Singularity-Deniers create despair regarding the future therefore investors are less likely to invest in Singularity-related ventures because the Deniers will tell the investors that the Singularity will not happen for a ....

The daily amount of deaths in 2010 is undeniable but Singularity-Deniers sometimes deny the ability of future medical science to completely and perfectly repair our bodies via Stem Cells. In the year 2010 smart-phones are undeniable but Singularity-Deniers will deny the ability of technology to become smarter thereby solving complex problems beyond human capability. Already in the year 2010 medical science can compel Stem Cells to regrow or repair eyes, bladders, windpipes and other body parts. Computers in 2010 already perform amazing feats beyond human ability. Singularity-Denial is idiotic and destructive.

To begin I shall address the worse case scenario regarding Singularity-Denial.

Consider a delayed Singularity based on 150,000 people dying each day; if the Singularity was delayed by only five years then around 273,000,000 people will have needlessly died. The deaths of 273 million people due to a five year delayed Singularity is easily comparable to the Holocaust deaths. Now consider a delayed Singularity based on 100,000 people dying each day, which gives a death total of 182,000,000 for a five year delayed Singularity. Each year of delayed-Singularity creates enormous loss of life. The amount of deaths due to a 5 year delayed Singularity causes more loss of life than the holocaust.

Cynics could say the amount of daily deaths due to delayed Singularity is over-exaggerated. Cynics could insist the delay will only be a few months, or maybe pessimistic people will insist this speculation regarding immortality is irrelevant because immortality will never be achieved. If we reduce the daily deaths to 75,000 per day this nevertheless gives a monthly death-toll of 2,250,000, which is a horrific amount of deaths I do not want on my conscience.

Singularity-Denial is the biggest atrocity in the entire history of the human race. If the Singularity is delayed by five years based on only 10,000 people dying each day this creates a death-toll of 18,250,000.

Critics (deniers) could perhaps insist the Singularity and immortality are two separate issues, but from my viewpoint the inextricable interconnectedness of immortality and the Singularity means these two issues the same issue. There are many aspects to the Singularity. Consider Artificial Intelligence and nanobots: AI and nanobots are distinct issues on their own, but AI and nanobots are also inextricable aspects of the Singularity. Immortality, nanobots, and AI could arrive five or ten years before the Singularity. Despite some aspects of the Singularity happening slightly before the Singularity all the diverse aspects of the Singularity are parts of the Singularity. Immortality is utterly synonymous with the Singularity. Immortality and the Singularity are essentially identical issues. Immortality and the Singularity are so intimately linked that we can comfartable classigy them as the same issue.

  • Singularity-Deniers are worse than Holocaust-Deniers. Singularity-Deniers could theoretically be compared Nazis committing mass murder.

Via the mechanism of Self-Fulfilling-Prophecy the critics, cynics, sceptics, naysayers, or pessimists can easily cause the Singularity to be delayed.

The Singularity will create immortality via technological utopia. When the Singularity arrives (or shortly before the Singularity) people will cease to die from old age, disease, accidents, murder, and war. All death will be abolished therefore nearly all the 150,000 daily deaths occurring in the early part of the 21st century will cease. Despite immortality a small percentage of people will always choose to die, and they will have the right to end their lives, but almost everyone naturally wants to live. When the Singularity happens everyone will have the choice to live. In the future everybody can avoid death if they wish.

Singularity-Deniers are indirectly causing massive loss of life for each day they delay the Singularity. Deniers of utopia are complicit in a heinous atrocity. People who delay the Singularity via their cynicism, pessimism, and scepticism are delaying the speed of technological progress therefore abolition of death is delayed.

Perhaps the doubters (the deniers of the Singularity) are now beginning to grasp the horror of their negativity. Based on 140,000 daily deaths for each month the Singularity is delayed at least 29 million people will die. If the Singularity is delayed by six months around 176 million people will needlessly die. Based on 20,000 daily deaths the monthly death total is 600,000 and the six month total is 3.6 million. Do you want to delay immortality by six months? Would you be happy if could be proved your negativity had delayed the Singularity by only a few days?

I have presented some unrealistically low figures regarding daily mortality rates (10,000 and 20,000).

Based on current attitudes to the Singularity (immortality) the daily mortality rate in the year 2010 (150,000) is not likely to improve significantly until around 2020. Currentattitudes towards the Singularity mean daily mortality will not reach the low level of 20,000 until sometime between the years 2030 and 2040 The optimism,,,,,,

The daily death toll will decrease during our approach to the Singularity, but the nature of the Singularity is "explosive growth" therefore the majority of gains will not happen until we are very close to the Singularity. Already it is likely the Singularity has been delayed because the stifling nature of religion has historically hindered scientific progress. In the year 2010 the Church hinders science via objections to Stem Cell research, human cloning, and synthetic life.

Prior to the Singularity, the precise number of needless deaths due to a delayed Singularity is difficult to calculate because it cannot yet be proved, beyond doubt, the will Singularity will occur. Only after the Singularity has been proved can we begin to look back a see how many needless deaths were caused due to a delayed Singularity and who caused them. In a Post-Singularity world we will be able to determine how many years the Singularity was delayed due to the Galileo_affair. In the future we will be able to determine the length of delay caused by Christian people refusing to accept the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. In the future, post-Singularity, we will be able to determine the damage Creationism has inflicted upon scientific progress.

The difference between historic deniers of scientific progress and current deiners of scientific progress is that many deniers alive today will be alive when the Singularity happens and then they can they can be held guilty for the atrocity they have inflicted upon the human race.

People who contribute to the Singularity being delayed are contributing to needless death. Furthermore, when immortality arrives it is likely that nobody will want to kill themselves because the Singularity will create utopia, everyone will be perfectly happy.

The pessimism of a vicious circle is truly vicious indeed. The cruel self-defeating ideology of dystopian despair is exceedingly harmful because such pessimism has the potential to delay the Singularity thereby causing needles death.

Singularity-Deniers cause needless death and suffering. Stop the Singularity-Denial.

Singularity-Deniers could actually be compared to Nazis because denial of the Singularity has


Singularity Deniers have blood on their hands

Singularity-deniers should be compared to Holocaust-deniers because their flawed logic is a comparable idiocy, but the prime reason for comparing Singularity deniers to Holocaust-deniers is that denial of the a Singularity occurring in the near future hinders progress thereby causing many needless deaths.

Singularity Deniers could possibly be compared to Nazis because via engaging in Singularity Denial the deniers could potentially be complicit in the deaths of millions of people if the denial causes a delay in the Singularity. Prior to the Singularity it cannot be proved the deniers are actively participating in the deaths of millions of people, therefore Post-Singularity it will be the task of super-intelligence to retrospectively ascertain the level of guilt (the amount deaths caused by denial) relative to each individual denier.

Singularity-deniers can also inflict great pain for the living because they can cause people to feel immense despair regarding the future. Telling people the future is hopeless and that the Singularity will take much longer than expected to arrive is exceedingly cruel. Singularity-deniers are engaging in self-harm and harm to others. Singularity-denial could be described as a form of manslaughter or homicide

Awareness of the coming utopia gives people hope but Singularity-deniers want to cruelly suppress that hope via flawed delusional logic.

Singularity-Denial should be made a criminal offense but in practice it would be a difficult offense to apply prior to the Singularity happening because defendants could argue there is no proof the Singularity will happen, therefore I suggest delayed prosecution of Singularity -Deniers whereby they will only be prosecuted after the Singularity happens. Supreme AI could would have the brainpower to decide accurately how many years months the Singularity Denier delayed the Singularity by and therefore the precise amount of people the Singularity Denier had killed would be known in the future after the Singularity happens and punishment can then be belated applied.

Although the phrase Singularity-denial and Singularity deniers has been used before I am the first to use it in the context of comparing Singularity-deniers to Holocaust-deniers therefore please note for the record that I originated this concept of Singularity-Denial on 4th December 2010


It is alleged that over-exaggeration can occur due to researchers and publishers in the sci-tech arena wanting to make their gains seem better than they are so they can acquire increased funding or revenue.

If this does happen, over-exaggeration to gain greater funding/revenue, is this a bad thing?


We ARE very close to a tipping point therefore the balance is delicate and slight things can have BIG consequences.

Increased funding will increase the rate of progress.

This is a classic example of self-fulfilling prophecy (despite constantly mentioning self-fulfilling prophecy I imagine many of you have not yet read up on it).

The claims maybe untrue, or over-exaggerated, but the very nature of the untrue claims actually cause the claims to become true: it is a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby actions and expectations cause increased funding, which allows for greater research, which increases the rate of progress, thus the initial allegedly untrue claims subsequently become true - fantastical targets are met.

You can do anything if you put your mind to it.

My utopian vision is not really a case of mind over matter because the references I cited were true. Self-fulfilling prophecy in this cases works against the truth of utopia, because untruthful expectations regarding slow progress cause a decrease in funding therefore due to the decreased funding progress IS slower than expected.

Please don't mess things up with your negativity.


Deceitful Religious Smearing

Christain Rapture is a religious event falsely applied to the Singularity

Singularity-Deniers will often resort to unfair insults towards Singularitarians. When people are incapable of logical and rational debate they will resort of insults, calumny. "Smearing" of a person's character is a common feature associated prejudicial beliefs. "Smearing" is an unthinking lynch-mob mentality. Singularity-Deniers will utilize unjustified religious smears to cast aspersions upon the concept of a utopian Singularity. People who resort to smears and insults commonly do so because they are unable to engage in logical rebuttal of an ideology. Smears indicate a dearth of intellect. The idea of smearing is to throw muck at your opponent with the hope that if you throw enough muck some will stick. The religious smearing of Singularitarians by Singularity-Deniers is a very mendacious form of denigration. The Singularity is not a religion but Singularity deniers will often try to smear the Singularity with religious terminology, thereby via association to something irrational (religion) the deniers feel they can prove the supposed irrationality of the Singularity. This religious smearing is a form of attack which is exceedingly deficient in logic. Logic for a rational person must always be the prime form of discourse but logic is absent from in the discourse of Singularity-Deniers. Unfairly and unjustly associating a rational concept (the Singularity) with an irrational concept (religion) does not refute the logic of the Singularity, but the deniers feel they can successfully taint the Singularity via associating it with religion. Many people will not believe such a ridiculous smear but a significant potion of people will dismiss the Singularity due to the smear.

The Cassini Division, where a character derides ‘the Rapture for nerds’, the singularity actually happens.

Insults "kooks" "kooky" "wacky" "woo"


Why Do Deniers Focus on Religion?

This phrase "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." comes to mind as a possible reason why deniers persistently utilize religious terminology to attack the Singularity.

The Singularity-Denier doth protest too much regarding religion.

QUOTES by Extropia:

Is Max More, founder of the Extropy movement and someone who Ben Goertzel described as being "as close to the “father of transhumanism” as one can get" kooky in the sense that you would have us believe MMG and PZ Myers is? After all, of the technological Singularity he said:

"The Singularity has worried me for years- it's a classic religious, Christian-style, end-of-the-world concept that appeals to people in Western cultures deeply. It's also mostly nonsense...The Singularity concept has all the earmarks of an idea that can lead to cultishness, and passivity. There's a tremendous amount to be done, and intellectually masturbating about a supposed Singularity is not going to get us anywhere" (quoted from 'The Spike' by Damien Broderick).

Or how about:

" I want to sound a note of caution. As the near-universal prevalence of religious belief testifies, humans tend to attach themselves, without rational thought, to belief systems that promise some form of salvation, heaven, paradise, or nirvana. In the Western world, especially in millennarian Christianity, millions are attracted to the notion of sudden salvation and of a “rapture” in which the saved are taken away to a better place.

While I do anticipate a Singularity as Surge, I am concerned that the Singularity concept is especially prone to being hijacked by this memeset. This danger especially arises if the Singularity is thought of as occurring at a specific point in time, and even more if it is seen as an inevitable result of the work of others. I fear that many otherwise rational people will be tempted to see the Singularity as a form of salvation, making personal responsibility for the future unnecessary. Already, I see a distressing number of superlongevity advocates who apparently do not exercise or eat healthily, instead firmly hoping that medical technology will cure aging before they die. Clearly this abdication of personal responsibility is not inherent in the Singularity concept. But I do see the concept as an attractor that will draw in those who treat it in this way. The only way I could see this as a good thing is if the Passive Singularitarians (as I will call them) substitute the Singularity for preexisting and much more unreasonable beliefs. I think those of us who speak of the Singularity should be wary of this risk if we value critical thought and personal responsibility. As much as I like Vernor and his thinking, I get concerned reading descriptions of the Singularity such as “a throwing away of all the previous rules, perhaps in the blinking of an eye.” This comes dangerously close to encouraging a belief in a Future Rapture".

The documentary 'Technocalypse' (which is pro-transhumanism/singularitariansism) informs us that 'technocalypse [means] the convergence of two seemingly unrelated things. The appocalyptic imagination, which has been around for centuries, and the rise of modern technology. And the connection seems to be this: The appocalyptic imagination is based on one fundamental idea. That is, that human life on earth, and earth itself- all existence- is going to be transformed through the influence of a divine intervention. Now, that idea seems to be rooted in human consciousness. But, what is interesting is that now we have the technology to translate some of those fundamental dreams of the human species into reality. The difference, of course, is that it is we human beings that are transforming the earth and transforming ourselves. That's the surpise of history, that a vision that began as a prophetic and religious vision now seems to be in the process of being appropriated by humanity itself".

Establishing a comparison between the Singularity and appocalyptism/ Rapture does not necessarily prove the Singularity is nonsense. If it proves anything, it proves the Singularity is driven by some core human desires. You could say this is strong evidence in favour of arguing if it can be achieved, we shall surely keep trying and trying until it is achieved, and no amount of failed attempts along the way shall discourage us in our pursuit of it. But we should also be wary of a tendency to mistake wishful thinking for reasonable expectations, which is what Max More cautioned against.

# Blog visitors since 2010:

Archive History ▼

S. 2045 |