Kevin Kelly's book What Technology Wants is very persuasive in arguing that technology has inevitable momentum which cannot be stopped.  The Singularity one imagines will happen regardless of what we do as individuals.  We cannot wait until we are ready and then have it.  By definition we will not really be ready for it.

On the other hand, Kevin Kelly's Singularity 1 on 1 Interview here on Singularity Weblog demonstrates that Kelly himself does not really believe in the Singularity as described by Ray Kurzweil and considers it an example of "thinkism".

Post edited 12:46 am - April 13, 2011 by Nathan Wosnack

The more simulations that are tested the more reliable the results would be when applied to a "real world" singularity.

With the exponential growth of profound technological change, which will – according to the Law of Accelerating Returns – be at a rate of 20,000 years of progress in the 21st century (instead of 100 years of progress in the century when thinking linearly), we may very well reach the Singularity that Ray Kurzweil hypothesises around 2045. While the Singularity may be inevitable regardless of how many Singularity simulations and models computer scientists run, it's valuable to pay attention to the lower-level (but still very relevant to our progress) achievements being made today.

The remarkable work that tens of thousands of scientists are doing pertaining to the simulations and models for understanding the operation of the human brain – obtained from high-resolution data – which have, according to The Singularity is Near, shown to successfully simulate neurons and subcellular portions with technology of even 6 years ago (when the book was written). With the increasing power of mathematical tools (i.e. Stephen Wolfram's Mathematica) and computational power/database speed/storage, we will see new scanning tools, like extremely high resolution fMRI, and eventually new better next-generation models and simulations. Simulating parts of brains, animal brains, and eventually the entire human brain could be a real possibility in the near future.

Further discussion about the Singularity on his coined term thinkism, from the point of view of Kevin Kelly, can be found in this compelling September 2008 article on his site.

Post edited 6:13 pm - April 13, 2011 by Socrates

That was a good video Nikki, I will have to look into the dancing qualia argument. I find the classical "Chinese Room Argument"
to be, well, classic. I appreciated when Chalmers mentioned studies
have shown feral children become feral adults regardless of intelligence
indicating a distinction between a human mind with cultural
intelligence vs. feral mind.

"The Secret Life of Chaos" is a brilliant documentary that touches on the topic of creating AI in a simulated environment in a way that relates to the OP.

If you're short for time skip to about @2:15

I find the prospect of picking and choosing what direction we want the singularity to go is the most appealing or least terrifying way forward. A democratic singularity in which those who select (vote) the future might have insight into the direction it goes. Perhaps through developing AI in a simulated environment that is intended to copy our own environment we can gain said insight and use it in a democratic process all while potentially averting an "evil" AI disaster.

Post edited 7:16 pm - April 15, 2011 by simple1248

In my take on the classic mind-body problem the "body" is the agenda for which the mind contemplates. In the instance of A-life the algorithms that evolve do so to fulfill the parameters set forth by the programmers.

In the instance of the human mind it is designed to fulfill the agenda set forth the human body and it has done so by effectively synthesising solutions to problems relevant to the culture in which its brain/body develops, solutions that result in maximal survival and thus reproduction of the human body.

There is no clear line between human agenda (body) and the mind (emergent property of the brain). The sense of self or ego that individuals experience is the result of a lifetime of trial and error reinforced and molded through functions of a physiological reward system that would likely also need to be simulated.

If we reverse engineer a human brain algorithmically I believe its mind will initially reflect that of the mind of the brain from which it was copied right down to the hopes and fears. I imagine the brain used would be aware that it has been copied within a computer. This type of intelligence would be useful for certain things like carrying on a conversation or doing things that humans already do well.

Anyways, I need to post this half baked rant so I can get back to studying.