4 ms·

Religion is based on faith--believing in the impossible, contrary to all empiric evidence. Belief in the Singularity is a simply a prediction based on current t

Religion is based on faith--believing in the impossible, contrary to all empiric evidence. Belief in the Singularity is a simply a prediction based on current technology vectors. If you understand the theories behind artificial intelligence, and believe Moore's law will continue for 10-20 years, the Singularity is a logical conclusion. To call it a religion reveals a deep misunderstanding of the theory, and the motivations of the people who think it is a possibility.

gruseom 18y ago
It's not a religion in any complete sense, but it's kind of obvious that a gigantic leap of faith is involved (starting with the use of the definite article in the phrase "The Singularity", as was shrewdly pointed out by a recent commentator here), and I do think the leap can fairly be called religious. Why? First, despite what you and others say about "empiric evidence", Moore's Law doesn't at all imply a concomitant leap in programming power (is our capacity growing exponentially?), and extrapolation from actual achievements to date points in a decidedly more mundane direction. Second, the "singularity" predictions are the latest in a tradition of extravagant millenarian claims that people have been making about AI for decades. These claims have consistently turned out to be overblown, if not vacuous, in retrospect. Extrapolate from that historical trend and you arrive at quite a different (and rather more plausible) picture. Third and most interestingly, the emotions and language surrounding the "singularity" are distinctly religious. This really stands out in what I've seen of the discourse. Since many advocates of "singularity" are of an intellectual cast that objects to the more popular religions, it seems to me as if some are directing their religious impulses into technology. As someone brilliantly says in the OP, it's "The Rapture For Nerds". (Notice that definite article again.) By the way, I don't mean "religious" as a criticism per se. Personally, I think religious impulses are part of being human. What fascinates me about The Singularity discourse is the incongruence between its technological subject matter and its vividly religious emotional language.
rplevy 18y ago
Not all religious systems are based on faith. It seems to me that the faith aspect of some religions is a side effect of the fact that religion is motivated by a desire to explain and/or celebrate human purpose. To logically argue that (human) purpose is fundamental is a difficult thing to do, and as a result many religions are illogical and are based on faith. But there are many varieties of religion that don't rest on miracles. For example mysticism is a religion that is not based on dogma, but is a purely biological religion, in which understanding of purpose is derived from first-hand phenomenological experience (as most people who have taken LSD or reached some level of expertise in meditation can attest to). Sure, some mystics make stupid dogmatic statements and unfalsifiable claims related to these experiences, but that's just guilt by association. The Singularity could be another example of a religion, in this case a religion in which purpose is derived from a sense of the inevitable progress to a valorized endpoint (the "Point Omega" is what Teilhard de Chardin, the Catholic mystic and biologist termed it, and some Singularity-ists have adopted his terminology). It is not based on faith but on reasoned logic (which very well could be wrong), but the very zeal and the way in which human purpose is derived from it are enough reason to call it a religion. One problem with this type of discussion is that religion is sometimes subject to the same kind of moving target definition that AI is subject to. If a philosophical system that was considered religious becomes viable/practical, it is defined out of being a religion? I myself look forward to the day when all religions are based on ideas that work, rather than belief in miracles.

gruseom 18y ago

It's not a religion in any complete sense, but it's kind of obvious that a gigantic leap of faith is involved (starting with the use of the definite article in the phrase "The Singularity", as was shrewdly pointed out by a recent commentator here), and I do think the leap can fairly be called religious. Why? First, despite what you and others say about "empiric evidence", Moore's Law doesn't at all imply a concomitant leap in programming power (is our capacity growing exponentially?), and extrapolation from actual achievements to date points in a decidedly more mundane direction. Second, the "singularity" predictions are the latest in a tradition of extravagant millenarian claims that people have been making about AI for decades. These claims have consistently turned out to be overblown, if not vacuous, in retrospect. Extrapolate from that historical trend and you arrive at quite a different (and rather more plausible) picture. Third and most interestingly, the emotions and language surrounding the "singularity" are distinctly religious. This really stands out in what I've seen of the discourse. Since many advocates of "singularity" are of an intellectual cast that objects to the more popular religions, it seems to me as if some are directing their religious impulses into technology. As someone brilliantly says in the OP, it's "The Rapture For Nerds". (Notice that definite article again.) By the way, I don't mean "religious" as a criticism per se. Personally, I think religious impulses are part of being human. What fascinates me about The Singularity discourse is the incongruence between its technological subject matter and its vividly religious emotional language.

rplevy 18y ago

Not all religious systems are based on faith. It seems to me that the faith aspect of some religions is a side effect of the fact that religion is motivated by a desire to explain and/or celebrate human purpose. To logically argue that (human) purpose is fundamental is a difficult thing to do, and as a result many religions are illogical and are based on faith. But there are many varieties of religion that don't rest on miracles. For example mysticism is a religion that is not based on dogma, but is a purely biological religion, in which understanding of purpose is derived from first-hand phenomenological experience (as most people who have taken LSD or reached some level of expertise in meditation can attest to). Sure, some mystics make stupid dogmatic statements and unfalsifiable claims related to these experiences, but that's just guilt by association. The Singularity could be another example of a religion, in this case a religion in which purpose is derived from a sense of the inevitable progress to a valorized endpoint (the "Point Omega" is what Teilhard de Chardin, the Catholic mystic and biologist termed it, and some Singularity-ists have adopted his terminology). It is not based on faith but on reasoned logic (which very well could be wrong), but the very zeal and the way in which human purpose is derived from it are enough reason to call it a religion. One problem with this type of discussion is that religion is sometimes subject to the same kind of moving target definition that AI is subject to. If a philosophical system that was considered religious becomes viable/practical, it is defined out of being a religion? I myself look forward to the day when all religions are based on ideas that work, rather than belief in miracles.