Journal of Consciousness Studies issue on the Singularity

3/6/2012 Addition.  Roman Yampolskiy’s article is getting *a lot* of media play including MSNBC and leaves a huge amount of room for rebuttal.  Who would like to take on co-authoring a response?  Karen?  Greg?  Morgan?

The Journal of Consciousness Studies has just published its special issue on the Singularity.  The issue consists of responses to Chalmers (2010).


Future volumes will contain additional articles from Shulman & Bostrom, Igor Aleksander, Richard Brown, Ray Kurzweil, Pamela McCorduck, Chris Nunn, Arkady Plotnitsky, Jesse Prinz, Susan Schneider, Murray Shanahan, Burt Voorhees, and a response from Chalmers.

This is a tremendous opportunity.  We should *easily* be able to produce articles of *at least* this quality and have them published here.  Their submissions guide is trivially simple and available here.

I am going to write a response to Ben’s article and submit it as quickly as I can.  Each of you should read all of these articles and think about what *you* can submit.  Creating a solid presence here would be a great way to establish the group’s credentials.



  1. Mark,

    1) You misspelled my name.
    2) How is the rebuttal article coming along?
    3) Are you still looking for additional co-authors to collaborate on it? I am interested in doing a follow up paper to address any shortcoming of my original Leakproofing paper, so let me know if you are still interested.
    Dr. Yampolskiy

    • 1) My apologies for the misspelling. I’ve corrected it.

      2) The rebuttal article that someone else in the group was writing turned into a much more general piece and we’ve convinced him not to frame it as a rebuttal to your paper since it ended up not really referencing it much at all.

      3) I/we are still interested in doing a follow-up/rebuttal to your paper. Our primary argument is that, while your conclusions do generally follow from your assumptions, your assumptions are problematical and put you in a very unlikely state space to begin with. We recognize that you did include caveats in your paper about your assumptions — but you continued on even after the caveats appeared overwhelming. 🙂

      I’m currently in the throes of revising two papers accepted for a July conference and writing a third for a November conference so I probably won’t get back to this until the end of next month (when the third paper is due ;-). I do intend to get back to it then and would love to send a draft to you for comment if you are interested. Or, if you’re writing a follow-up sooner, I’d enjoy sharing our thoughts . . . .

      4) Thanks for stopping by!

      5) I am curious how you found this particular post though . . . . while it isn’t protected, I’m not aware of an easy path to it (or maybe I’m just underestimating the Google harvesting bot ;-).

  2. I know all about taking on too many papers at the same time. If you do decide in the future to work on this paper, please keep me posted. As to how I found your post, please don’t underestimate the power of superintelligence 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: