Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2018 12:12 AM
190 online now:
LamarkNewAge (1 member, 189 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,752 Year: 13,575/29,783 Month: 1,021/1,576 Week: 233/303 Day: 1/29 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
12NextFF
Author Topic:   The Social Implications Of "The Singularity Moment"
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 169 (604611)
02-13-2011 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
02-12-2011 10:39 AM


Personally, I think that such an advance will free humans up to become more artistic, but I wonder how we will be able to understand and direct the technology if it progresses beyond the mathematical and technological comprehension of most of us?

Eloi


Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 02-12-2011 10:39 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 169 (604617)
02-13-2011 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rrhain
02-13-2011 4:16 AM


Not intended to contradict, but to expand.

Well, no. If you're disassembled and reassembled, then it isn't a copy of you. It's still you. Just because your molecules have moved doesn't make them different molecules.

What if they are different molecules? Suppose the transporter works by simply keeping a giant tub of unorganized matter at both ends - you go in one end, are scanned and transmitted, and the molecules that used to be you go into the vat. At the other end, new molecules are pulled out of the vat and organized according to the information that was transmitted, and you walk out. (Or do you?)

If it has to be the same molecules, well, I'm not even the same molecules I was when I last posted on EvC. My body isn't a closed system; it's constantly exchanging matter with its surroundings. Some comes in and starts to be "me", some of me leaves and is no longer "me." There's clearly a substantial "fuzziness" to the notion that this particular organization of molecules is "me." If we transmit the organization from place to place, who says it has to be the same molecules?

"This is my grandfather's axe. My father replaced the handle and I replaced the head." Is it still his grandfather's axe?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rrhain, posted 02-13-2011 4:16 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 5:00 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2011 1:42 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 169 (604618)
02-13-2011 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Theodoric
02-13-2011 10:43 AM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
I don't think you answered why.

Well, for the third time, the rate of technological change has only ever increased.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 10:43 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 5:00 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 19 of 169 (604637)
02-13-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 4:22 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
But that isn't an answer.

You stated

but the notion that the rate of technological change will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes is clearly true.

This

Well, for the third time, the rate of technological change has only ever increased.

Does not answer the question as to why you feel the first is "clearly true".

I do not see a valid reason why increasing technology "will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes".
That the rate of technology has only increased does not have anything to do with your first assertion.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 4:22 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 5:59 PM Theodoric has responded
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 02-13-2011 6:58 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 20 of 169 (604638)
02-13-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 4:13 PM


"This is my grandfather's axe. My father replaced the handle and I replaced the head." Is it still his grandfather's axe?

Nope


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 4:13 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 6:00 PM Theodoric has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 169 (604639)
02-13-2011 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Theodoric
02-13-2011 5:00 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
I do not see a valid reason why increasing technology "will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes".

Do you think that our culture's ability to absorb technological change is increasing? I don't see any evidence for that view. We're still struggling with birth control, for god's sake, decades after its invention.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 5:00 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by subbie, posted 02-13-2011 6:10 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 6:18 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 99 by onifre, posted 02-15-2011 1:05 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 169 (604640)
02-13-2011 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Theodoric
02-13-2011 5:00 PM


Nope

Well, ok. When did it stop being his grandfather's axe?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 5:00 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 10:32 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 38 by Modulous, posted 02-14-2011 10:03 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 23 of 169 (604641)
02-13-2011 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 5:59 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
We're still struggling with birth control, for god's sake, decades after its invention.

Birth control has been around for thousands of years, so that's not even an example of new technology that we're having trouble coping with. In addition, there are tens of thousands of new inventions that we've assimilated quite nicely. Any actual evidence of your premise?


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 5:59 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 24 of 169 (604642)
02-13-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 5:59 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
Do you think that our culture's ability to absorb technological change is increasing?

Sure do.
I don't see any evidence for that view.

All you have to do is look around.
You still have not provided any support for your assertion.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 5:59 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 6:26 PM Theodoric has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 169 (604643)
02-13-2011 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Theodoric
02-13-2011 6:18 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
You still have not provided any support for your assertion.

I'm not prepared to accept that from someone who's just tried to tell me that all the evidence for their own position is "you just need to look around."

Well, you just need to "look around", and then you can plainly see that the rate of technological progress has never, ever decreased.

Will it someday decrease? Maybe! But it's the people who believe that who are predicting something ahistorical and thus need to demonstrate evidence for their position.

The increasing rate of technological change very clearly puts a horizon on our ability to predict the results of technological change. Denying that is just plain stupid. You're asserting that we'll always be able to predict the results of technological change? Well, then by all means do so. What will society be like in 2100?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 6:18 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 10:28 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2011 11:35 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2535 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 26 of 169 (604644)
02-13-2011 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Theodoric
02-13-2011 5:00 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
I think by the rate of change is increasing he is viewing it as an accelerating system, and if he sees our cultures ability to absorb change as linear, then it is obvious that his first statement is clearly true.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 5:00 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 10:30 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 27 of 169 (604652)
02-13-2011 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 6:26 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
Well, you just need to "look around", and then you can plainly see that the rate of technological progress has never, ever decreased.

This has NOTHING to do with technological progress descreasing.

This has to to do with this assertion.

will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes

You are asserting that we are reaching a point beyond societies ability to absorb. Alas, you refuse to support your assertion.

As for "you just need to look around". Compare technology today with technology from when I was born in 1962. Culture and society has "absorbed" all of the those advancements. Give some reasons why we should not expect it to continue to happen in the future. Other than your say so of course.

I do not understand the attitude I am getting. I am simply asking for some support for your assertion.

The increasing rate of technological change very clearly puts a horizon on our ability to predict the results of technological change. Denying that is just plain stupid.

An assertion based upon what? You may claim anything you want but I do not see any evidence.

You're asserting that we'll always be able to predict the results of technological change? Well, then by all means do so. What will society be like in 2100?

Where have I said or implied anything like this?

I am just questioning this assertion.

will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 6:26 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 11:13 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 28 of 169 (604653)
02-13-2011 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by slevesque
02-13-2011 6:58 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
I think by the rate of change is increasing he is viewing it as an accelerating system, and if he sees our cultures ability to absorb change as linear, then it is obvious that his first statement is clearly true.

No that does not make it true. It makes it his belief. Someone show that our cultures ability to absorb change is linear. If it was so I think we would have hit a stumbling block a long, long time ago.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 02-13-2011 6:58 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by slevesque, posted 02-13-2011 10:55 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 29 of 169 (604654)
02-13-2011 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 6:00 PM


This is an interpretation of someones emotions. It is not a physical or concrete thing. To me it would not be his grandfathers axe. Maybe to you it would be. Sentimentality is sweet.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 6:00 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 11:16 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2535 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 30 of 169 (604655)
02-13-2011 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Theodoric
02-13-2011 10:30 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
No that does not make it true. It makes it his belief. Someone show that our cultures ability to absorb change is linear. If it was so I think we would have hit a stumbling block a long, long time ago.

I'm just trying to explain what he meant. If he thinks both assertions are the case, then his conclusion is correct.

I think we can all agree that technological progress is looking (from a layman POV) as exponential.

The question then becomes if our cultures ability to absorb change follows a similar pattern or is linear. Unfortunately this seems to be a very hard thing to quantify/analyse, although from my once again layman POV it does seem to be linear.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 10:30 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
12NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018