|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Social Implications Of "The Singularity Moment" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Hi Straggler,
I found this paper that provided these definitions:
quote:bold added for emphasis I'm not sure that's what crash is typing about, but its something to work with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well, the rate of technological advancement is increasing, so it seems obvious, to me at least, that the advancement will outgrow the absorption.
In Message 7, crash wrote:
quote: Theo just replied with his annoying standard: "Ya got any evidence for that assertion?" Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
On the basis given in your link you could argue it already has. Yeah, and its only going to get worse.
Who but a few specialists understand genetics, particle accelerators or super-computers? In fact how many of us really understand the internal combustion engine or the humble PC to the extent that we can "optimize, upgrade and modify" one? Probably enough to say that these have been "absorbed" into culture I guess but not much beyond that. Its about the culture absorbing the technology, not the individuals of that culture. Every American does not have to understad how they work, to say that America absorbed atomic bombs.
I am guessin that this isn't what Crash et al are talking about. So I am gonna hold off and see if they revela what on Earth they are talking about before commenting further. It might not be exact, and the article was about one culture giving technology to another, as opposed to the development of the technology, but I think its along the right track. Its about mainstream utilization of the technology rather than it simply having been invented but just sitting on a shelf (so to speak). We learned about it a bit in college, that you have to develop technology slow enough for people to buy it so that further advancements can get funded. You don't just jump from a $100 processor to a $10,000 one that is a billion times faster because the culture won't absorb it because nobody will go buy it because it costs too much. Another thing that comes to mind, and this might be totally differet, but think about just after firearms got invented and the soldier would just stand in rows across a field firing at each other. The technology was better than their strategies and they weren't fully utilizing guns yet. Ya know what I mean? SO if a super-duper gun was invented tomorrow, its conceivable that it could be too advanced for us to absorb it. What do you think? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Based upon Crash's comments he must think the singularity ahs already happened. If he thinks that we haven "absorbed" the things we already have then isn't the singularity already upon us? No, I don't think the singularity is simply the existence of unabsorbed technologies.
Why shouldn't I expect evidence for something that is "clearly true"? So that you will be less annoying.
but the notion that the rate of technological change will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes is clearly true. It is an unevidenced assertion, that Straggler pointed, needs to be explained. I want to know what he means by the comment and and why it is clearly true. His explanations that technology always increases has nothing to do with my comment and does nothing to support his assertion. Its a simple deduction from the fact that if the *rate* of technological advancement only increases, then our culture's ability to absorb it will keep falling farther and farther behind. Absorption has to lag behind advancement, obviously, so if the *rate* of advancement keeps increasing then eventually absorption will just get left in the dust.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So what is your idea of what the "singularity" is? Neither your idea or Crash's has anything to do with the "singularity" of the OP. I thought crashes first post was clear:
quote: Although I think he missed placing that NOT that I added at the end and I added the bold.
Why is this worse? Why is it any different than any other time in history of technological innovation? Because the *rate* of avancement is increasing, i.e. technology is accelerating, then the displacement between advancement and absorption will keep growing, i.e. get "worse".
What the hell does any of this have to do with the "singularity"? Essentially its when that displacement spirals out of control, or as crash put it: the results of it can't be predicted.
Its about the culture absorbing the technology, not the individuals of that culture.
Still don't get what that means. Everyone needs to understand the nitty gritty of all technologies? Hell most people don't understand how POTS or even an internal combustion engine works. Seems like the criteria for cultural absorption is a little flawed. Maybe it is. No, not everybody has to understand it for it to be absorbed. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But hasn't then always been happening. Why is now so different? Seems unevidenced to me. Its the nature of exponential growth, the further along you get the more it grows. We're about 200 years past the Industrial Revolution and the last 50 years has had a lot more advancement than the previous 150. The next 50 years should be even more than that.
So I should let you and others just make unevidenced assertions without question? Yes. Its no big deal, really. Nothing bad is going to happen if you don't
I think you are on the wrong forum if that is what you expect. We're talking about science fiction in the COFFEE HOUSE FORUM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So you think the whole singularity thing is SciFi? Then why are you so adamant in your arguments that we are reaching this point?
Well, the OP brings up "super-intelligent cyborgs" so we are talkin' SciFi, but the principle behind it, that technological advancement outruns cultures' abilities to absorb them, is something that can be discussed as non-fiction.
I meant EVC in general. Oh, EvC has many forums, some of which pertain to religion and beliefs. You're wrong to think that every assertion here requires evidence.
I would rather be an irritating poster that asks for evidence, then someone that gets peeved every time they get asked to support their argument. I would rather be someone who actually contributes to discussions with something interesting to read.
In doesn't matter where we are on EVC, everyone should be able to support their assertions. Yeah, but any asshat can scan through threads looking for unsubstantiated claims and respond with: "Ya got any evidence for that assertion?" Its one thing to seek new information for something that interests you, but to just take potshots from the sidelines at everything unsupported is just annoyingly junking up the threads. You can just ignore people...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024