|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Social Implications Of "The Singularity Moment" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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 No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I don't think you answered why. Well, for the third time, the rate of technological change has only ever increased.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Nope Well, ok. When did it stop being his grandfather's axe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024