Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8869 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-19-2018 3:40 AM
268 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, xongsmith (5 members, 263 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,415 Year: 15,238/29,783 Month: 1,182/1,502 Week: 180/492 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
12Next
Author Topic:   The Social Implications Of "The Singularity Moment"
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 169 (604730)
02-14-2011 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Straggler
02-14-2011 11:28 AM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
I am still confused as to what Crash is saying (and to what those disagreeing with him are disagreeing about)

Well, I feel like I've only said it five times or so, but for the sixth time: the notion of the "singularity" is that the rate of technological change is increasing and has only ever increased; but there's no evidence that the rate at which humans can grapple with technological change is increasing, or increasing at a comparable rate.

Thus, technology will eventually begin to change faster than humans can keep up the change. This is obvious and must, mathematically, come to pass.

That's it. That is the extent of the position I've taken in this thread. Attempts to predict what society will be like after that point are stupid; the point of the singularity is that it represents an effective predictability horizon on the social effects of technological change.

Theodoric, on the other hand, apparently believes that technology will be predictable forever. Yet, in spite of this view, he doesn't seem to be willing to take a stab at predicting what life will be like in 2100.


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 64 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 3:55 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 80 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-14-2011 8:04 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 5:48 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 169 (604731)
02-14-2011 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Theodoric
02-14-2011 11:47 AM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
You will have to ask Crashfrog. It is his idea.

Uh, no, it's not "my idea." I'm not the one who came up with the idea for the "singularity." I'm not even the one who opened this thread about it.

Is there some reason you can't stop telling lies about me, Theodoric?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 11:47 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 3:58 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 169 (604732)
02-14-2011 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Theodoric
02-14-2011 12:29 PM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
But hasn't then always been happening.

Yes, Theodoric, which is why the burden of evidence is on you to defend your contrary position that the rate of technological change will not always increase.

Why is now so different?

Nothing now is "so different", which is why the singularity will obviously occur. Your position that it will not occur is what needs to be evidenced; you're the one that is asserting that conditions are suddenly so different now, or will be different in the future, such that the trends of technological change and social adaptation to technology that currently exist will be reversed.

What's your evidence for that assertion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 12:29 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

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


Message 64 of 169 (604736)
02-14-2011 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
02-14-2011 3:29 PM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
Crash I actually have much more respect for creationists than you.

Most of the creationists do not know that they are wrong or are unwilling to face their own ignorance.

You on the other hand continue to build strawmen and out right lie. I have no respect for that.

Theodoric, on the other hand, apparently believes that technology will be predictable forever.

Please show where I have said or even implied such a thing. Oh an while you are at it please show me when technology was predictable. Or are you saying it is currently?

Actually just forget it it. Your lies and dishonesty make it impossible to have any sort of conversation with you.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 3:29 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 3:59 PM Theodoric has responded

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


Message 65 of 169 (604738)
02-14-2011 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
02-14-2011 3:31 PM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
Crash keep up. You are the one that brought up the concept of cultures ability to absorb technological change.

That is what Straggler was commenting about. The idea of the "singularity" is not what I or Strag were referring to.

So that lie you are claim I made, is that another misrepresentation by you?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 3:31 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 4:03 PM Theodoric has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 169 (604739)
02-14-2011 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Theodoric
02-14-2011 3:55 PM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
Crash I actually have much more respect for creationists than you.

I see, so your repeated attempts to misrepresent and misquote me are the result of a personal grudge you hold against me. Well, that's fair.

Please show where I have said or even implied such a thing.

It's that part where you keep disagreeing with me when I say "the effect of technology on society will become increasingly unpredictable."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 3:55 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 4:04 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 169 (604740)
02-14-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Theodoric
02-14-2011 3:58 PM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
You are the one that brought up the concept of cultures ability to absorb technological change.

No, I'm not. My understanding is that Kurzweil is the one who came up with these notions, for the most part, and Phat is the one who started the thread.

What does it mean for society to absorb technological change? It means something akin to "is your grandmother on Facebook?" The singularity, very roughly, is the point at which technology is changing so fast that everybody will become the equivalent of an octogenarian trying to use an iPhone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 3:58 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 4:07 PM crashfrog has responded

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


Message 68 of 169 (604742)
02-14-2011 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
02-14-2011 3:59 PM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
"the effect of technology on society will become increasingly unpredictable."

Please show where I have said or implied such a thing. My question is your comments about the ability of culture to absorb technological changes. That some how we are going to hit a point where we can no longer "absorb" (still waiting for an explanation of what that means) technological change.

My problem is your implication that the effect of technology on society was some how predictable in the past and now.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 3:59 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 4:12 PM Theodoric has responded

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


Message 69 of 169 (604743)
02-14-2011 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
02-14-2011 4:03 PM


WOW
Ray Kurzwiels' pretty much predicting science fiction, but the notion that the rate of technological change will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes is clearly true.

Did you or did you not post this in Message 7


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 4:03 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 4:13 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 169 (604744)
02-14-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Theodoric
02-14-2011 4:04 PM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
Please show where I have said or implied such a thing.

Half of the difficulty you have in these exchanges, Theodoric, is that you don't read closely and thus don't understand what I'm saying to you.

I'm the one taking the position that the effect of technology on society will become increasingly unpredictable. That's my position.

Your position, which you adopt when you disagree with mine, is that technology's impact on society will always be predictable, forever, because the singularity will never occur.

Which is fine. You're entitled to hold that position.

What is your evidence for it? Be specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 4:04 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 4:43 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 169 (604745)
02-14-2011 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Theodoric
02-14-2011 4:07 PM


Re: WOW
Did you or did you not post this in Message 7

Obviously I did, and have never claimed otherwise.

Again - you need to slow down, calm down (because you're clearly very upset) and learn to read for comprehension, not for words of mine that you can quote out of context and misrepresent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 4:07 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

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


Message 72 of 169 (604749)
02-14-2011 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by crashfrog
02-14-2011 4:12 PM


I give up
Trying to get you to explain your position is not worth the effort, I can go elsewhere and get a gish gallop.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 4:12 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 7:51 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

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


Message 73 of 169 (604758)
02-14-2011 5:39 PM


Oh.
Well, I suppose if the pissing contest is over we might as well get back to the topic at hand.

Please refer to my message Message 57 above as a starting point. Then maybe we can help answer Phat's OP.

If we use Ray Kurzweil's own definition of the Singularity then, my dear Phat, we will all understand the new technologies quite well since we will all be plugged into the common human knowledge bank which will give us the intellect (augmented by technology) to understand.


Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 02-14-2011 5:41 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 74 of 169 (604760)
02-14-2011 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by AZPaul3
02-14-2011 5:39 PM


Re: Oh.
AZPaul3 writes:

Well, I suppose if the pissing contest is over we might as well get back to the topic at hand.

Please refer to my message Message 57 above as a starting point. Then maybe we can help answer Phat's OP.

If we use Ray Kurzweil's own definition of the Singularity then, my dear Phat, we will all understand the new technologies quite well since we will all be plugged into the common human knowledge bank which will give us the intellect (augmented by technology) to understand.

Or if history and reality is considered, we will mostly be home watching the latest entertainment while a very few understand the technology and play with it.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AZPaul3, posted 02-14-2011 5:39 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by AZPaul3, posted 02-14-2011 5:46 PM jar has responded

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


Message 75 of 169 (604761)
02-14-2011 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jar
02-14-2011 5:41 PM


Re: Oh.
A kill joy realist.

Just think. After so many eons of intellectual development we end up with Ghost Hunters. Imagine the inanity we can achieve with a technologically-augmented thousand-fold intellect!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 02-14-2011 5:41 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 02-14-2011 5:52 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
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