[OT] Singularity (Kurzweil) Article in Scientific American?

Does anyone recall the Subject article, and what issue it was in? I
think it had six points to make against the idea of Kurzweil.

I thought it was in an issue this year, but maybe it was much further.
Google showed nothing.

W. eWatson:

Does anyone recall the Subject article, and what issue it was in? I
think it had six points to make against the idea of Kurzweil.

I thought it was in an issue this year, but maybe it was much further.
Google showed nothing.

A search of digital editions back through Jan '09 shows no instances of
"Kurzweil" in the context to which you refer. Could the article in
question perhaps not address him by name? The Feb '09 issue has "Naked
Singularities" as the feature article. The Dec '10 issue has an article
entitled "Black Stars, Not Holes."

If you could think of some unusual word or (preferably) verbatim phrase
that you recall from the article that would help in the search.

Davoud

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 5/22/2011 10:08 AM, Davoud wrote:
W. eWatson:

Does anyone recall the Subject article, and what issue it was in? I
think it had six points to make against the idea of Kurzweil.

I thought it was in an issue this year, but maybe it was much further.
Google showed nothing.

A search of digital editions back through Jan '09 shows no instances of
"Kurzweil" in the context to which you refer. Could the article in
question perhaps not address him by name? The Feb '09 issue has "Naked
Singularities" as the feature article. The Dec '10 issue has an article
entitled "Black Stars, Not Holes."

If you could think of some unusual word or (preferably) verbatim phrase
that you recall from the article that would help in the search.

Davoud

Thanks. Yes, he might not have been mentioned. I vaguely recall that the
title might not have included singularity.

It was really about the Kurzweil nonsense. I recall printing it out, so
maybe I'll find it here in the den. Perhaps I scanned it. If so, then it
should be on my HD. Possibly it was another magazine. Discover?

On May 22, 11:08*am, Davoud wrote:
The Feb '09 issue has "Naked
Singularities" as the feature article. The Dec '10 issue has an article
entitled "Black Stars, Not Holes."

But the idea of "The Singularity" has to do with artificial
intelligences (or uploads) doing science with intuitive human brains
thinking at computer speed - thus resulting in an explosive
advancement in science in a short period.

It does not have to do with matter being compressed to a single point
under the force of gravity.

John Savard

On May 22, 4:50*am, "W. eWatson" wrote:
Does anyone recall the Subject article, and what issue it was in? I
think it had six points to make against the idea of Kurzweil.

I thought it was in an issue this year, but maybe it was much further.
Google showed nothing.

Could this - not in an issue, but in a blog - referenced he

http://singularityhub.com/2010/07/01...etter-critics/

be it?

John Savard

On May 22, 12:39*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On May 22, 4:50*am, "W. eWatson" wrote:

Does anyone recall the Subject article, and what issue it was in? I
think it had six points to make against the idea of Kurzweil.

I thought it was in an issue this year, but maybe it was much further.
Google showed nothing.

Could this - not in an issue, but in a blog - referenced he

http://singularityhub.com/2010/07/01...izes-kurzweil-...

be it?

And this is the blog post itself:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...uls-2010-06-23

Indeed, it doesn't offer much in the way of careful, reasoned argument
against the idea of the Singularity, I have to admit.

John Savard

Found it. Skeptic magazine. Vol. 16, #2. The Singularity Isn't Even Close.
http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201101/2274226231.html