Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2018 5:08 PM
233 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, DrJones*, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (6 members, 227 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,460 Year: 10,283/29,783 Month: 947/1,583 Week: 416/291 Day: 65/59 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
12Next
Author Topic:   The Social Implications Of "The Singularity Moment"
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 169 (604656)
02-13-2011 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Theodoric
02-13-2011 10:28 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
You are asserting that we are reaching a point beyond societies ability to absorb.

Is the rate at which our society's ability to absorb technological change is growing increasing, or not? Is that number even positive? Even if that ability is growing, it doesn't seem to be growing exponentially.

If it's not, then mathematically it will eventually be exceeded by the exponential rate of technological growth. QED.

Compare technology today with technology from when I was born in 1962. Culture and society has "absorbed" all of the those advancements.

All of them? No, not all of them. Nuclear power has not been absorbed. Reproductive technologies like in vitro fertilization have not been absorbed. As a society we're still struggling with the cheapness and availability of genomic sequencing technology. Space travel remains the province of a select few.

An assertion based upon what?

Based upon the increasing rate of technological change. How are you not following this?

Where have I said or implied anything like this?

The part where you're arguing with me. If you think I'm wrong when I talk about the predictability horizon, then you're asserting that technological change is infinitely predictable. Well, let's see some support for your assertion. What will the world be like in 2100? Be specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 10:28 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by AZPaul3, posted 02-14-2011 7:38 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 9:12 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 169 (604657)
02-13-2011 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Theodoric
02-13-2011 10:32 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.

I know, I'm just trying to get a handle on your opinion, here. It's clearly his grandfather's axe when it has the original head and handle, right? And your opinion is that it has stopped being his grandfather's axe once the head and handle have been replaced.

So where's the boundary? Be specific. When his father replaces the head? When he replaces the handle?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 10:32 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by xongsmith, posted 02-14-2011 12:51 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16025
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 33 of 169 (604658)
02-13-2011 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 6:26 PM


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

And it would be a dark age for us if it did.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 6:26 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 9:14 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3456
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 34 of 169 (604667)
02-14-2011 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 11:13 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
Nuclear power has not been absorbed. Reproductive technologies like in vitro fertilization have not been absorbed. As a society we're still struggling with the cheapness and availability of genomic sequencing technology. Space travel remains the province of a select few.

You might want to re-think these first two.

Nuclear power was enthusiastically embraced 40 years ago. In the USA a political decision was made to stop its expansion. In France they chose just the opposite.

In vitro fertilization is a major method used to overcome infertility issues. There are IVF clinics in every major city in the country.

I don't understand the gene sequence issue. We use it all over the world sequencing more and more organisms each day.

Space travel, at our present level of technology, is so expensive it can only be funded at the level of the society - government. But the technology we do have is being used by many nations.

Maybe you use some other definition of "absorb"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 11:13 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

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


Message 35 of 169 (604672)
02-14-2011 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 11:13 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
The part where you're arguing with me. If you think I'm wrong when I talk about the predictability horizon, then you're asserting that technological change is infinitely predictable. Well, let's see some support for your assertion. What will the world be like in 2100? Be specific.

No I am not. I am arguing that you have provided no support to your assertion that we are nearing the limit of society to absorb technological changes. You have as yet to support this assertion.

This is getting to get like your embassy claim on another thread. You misrepresent what someone says then attack that strawman. No matter how many times you are told that your are misrepresenting their point you refuse to acknowledge the fact.

All of them? No, not all of them. Nuclear power has not been absorbed. Reproductive technologies like in vitro fertilization have not been absorbed. As a society we're still struggling with the cheapness and availability of genomic sequencing technology. Space travel remains the province of a select few.

I am not sure how this supports any concept of a technological singularity. Maybe your concept of this technological singularity is different than what I understand. Maybe if you explained what you mean by the technological singularity, what you are claiming may make sense.

By the way.

Even if that ability is growing, it doesn't seem to be growing exponentially.

If it's not, then mathematically it will eventually be exceeded by the exponential rate of technological growth. QED.

You have shown no evidence for the first. SO the second does not automatically follow. Until you can show evidence of the first I think you may have a non-sequitor.

You think maybe there were people in the 1820's making the same claims?
Maybe in the 1100's too?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 11:13 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 3:24 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

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


Message 36 of 169 (604673)
02-14-2011 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
02-13-2011 11:35 PM


Re: Never Decreased?
I think crashy is having fun building strawmen again.

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

No one, least of all me, has claimed such a thing. Do you feel we are reaching a "singularity" event, in which pour culture will no longer be able to absorb the rapid technological changes around us?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2011 11:35 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 02-14-2011 9:51 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Straggler
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 37 of 169 (604676)
02-14-2011 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Theodoric
02-14-2011 9:14 AM


"Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
What does it even mean for "society to absorb technological change"?

How do we assess "society's ability to absorb technological change"?

I have to admit that I am lost as to what is even being discussed here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 9:14 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2011 11:22 AM Straggler has responded
 Message 43 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 11:47 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(3)
Message 38 of 169 (604678)
02-14-2011 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 6:00 PM


Half a bee, philosophically , must, ipso facto, half not be
Well, ok. When did it stop being his grandfather's axe?

Excuse me, I just had to comment how odd it is to see someone say "Philosophy is primarily an endeavor whose purpose is the destruction of human knowledge" on Thursday decides to discuss Theseus' Paradox on the following Sunday

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 6:00 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 169 (604683)
02-14-2011 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Straggler
02-14-2011 9:51 AM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
Hi Straggler,

I found this paper that provided these definitions:

quote:
Technology transfer is a two-way interaction. Host as well as supplier nations have critical stakes in technology transfer. Technology adoption is the process by which various features of technology, which is the subject of transfer, are suitably modified keeping in view the needs of the buyers. Technology adaptation is a phase that takes place after a technology has been adopted and put to use. Technology is said to be absorbed if it is fully understood, so that the transferee is able to further optimize, upgrade, and modify the technology on its own.
bold added for emphasis

I'm not sure that's what crash is typing about, but its something to work with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 02-14-2011 9:51 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Straggler, posted 02-14-2011 11:28 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 40 of 169 (604684)
02-14-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by New Cat's Eye
02-14-2011 11:22 AM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
Cheers for trying!! Your quote says:

CS's quote from elsewhere writes:

Technology is said to be absorbed if it is fully understood, so that the transferee is able to further optimize, upgrade, and modify the technology on its own.

So if a culture has absorbed a technological change it has reached a point where it can "optimize, upgrade and modify" that technology on it's own.

It would seem that on this basis there are plenty of technologies that are restricted to a relatively few specialists and which cannot be said to have been "absorbed" by wider human culture yet.

I am still confused as to what Crash is saying (and to what those disagreeing with him are disagreeing about)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2011 11:22 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2011 11:33 AM Straggler has responded
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 3:29 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 169 (604687)
02-14-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Straggler
02-14-2011 11:28 AM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
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:
...the notion that the rate of technological change will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes is clearly true.

Theo just replied with his annoying standard: "Ya got any evidence for that assertion?"

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Straggler, posted 02-14-2011 11:28 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 02-14-2011 11:40 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 45 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 11:54 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 42 of 169 (604690)
02-14-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
02-14-2011 11:33 AM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
CS writes:

Well, the rate of technological advancement is increasing, so it seems obvious, to me at least, that the advancement will outgrow the absorption.

On the basis given in your link you could argue it already has. 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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2011 11:33 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2011 11:49 AM Straggler has responded

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


Message 43 of 169 (604691)
02-14-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Straggler
02-14-2011 9:51 AM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
Straggler writes:

What does it even mean for "society to absorb technological change"?

How do we assess "society's ability to absorb technological change"?

I have to admit that I am lost as to what is even being discussed here.

You will have to ask Crashfrog. It is his idea. I am trying to get a clarification too, but seem to be getting a run around.

Message 7

Frog writes:

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 02-14-2011 9:51 AM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 3:31 PM Theodoric has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 169 (604692)
02-14-2011 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Straggler
02-14-2011 11:40 AM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Straggler, posted 02-14-2011 11:40 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 02-14-2011 11:57 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 12:02 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

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


Message 45 of 169 (604693)
02-14-2011 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
02-14-2011 11:33 AM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
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?

As for this bullshit.

Theo just replied with his annoying standard: "Ya got any evidence for that assertion?"

Why shouldn't I expect evidence for something that is "clearly true"?

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.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2011 11:33 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2011 12:05 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Prev12
3
456
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018