Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Social Implications Of "The Singularity Moment"
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 169 (604522)
02-12-2011 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Theodoric
02-12-2011 8:51 PM


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. The rate of technological change has never decreased throughout human history. The people who are predicting that it will are the ones making predictions utterly at odds with history, not Kurzweil.
Does that mean AI, teleportation, living forever in virtual worlds? Who knows? The point of the "singularity" is that it's the point at which technological change is happening so fast the results can't be predicted.
And it just can't be argued that that is going to someday be the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Theodoric, posted 02-12-2011 8:51 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 02-12-2011 9:34 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 9 by Theodoric, posted 02-12-2011 11:14 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 169 (604550)
02-13-2011 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Theodoric
02-12-2011 11:14 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
Why?
What's going to stop it? The rate of technological change has only ever increased.
Kurzweil's singularity is not what you seem to think it is.
I'm sorry, I wasn't describing Kurzweil's singularity. Clearly, he's making untenable predictions.
But sweeping dismissals of the idea of singularity on the basis of Kurzweil spinning fables are clearly nonsense, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Theodoric, posted 02-12-2011 11:14 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by dwise1, posted 02-13-2011 2:58 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 15 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2011 10:43 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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 replied

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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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 replied

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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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 replied

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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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 replied

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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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 replied

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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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 replied

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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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 replied

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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 169 (604728)
02-14-2011 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Theodoric
02-14-2011 9:12 AM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
I am arguing that you have provided no support to your assertion that we are nearing the limit of society to absorb technological changes
I've never made such an assertion. I said nothing about nearing the limit; only that the limit exists.
Which, mathematically, it must. QED.
You misrepresent what someone says then attack that strawman.
Whatever you say (Dronester actually had made precisely the claims I said he did, as I repeatedly showed), but currently you're the one attacking a strawman. I never claimed we're nearing the limit of society to absorb technological changes.
This actually is a lot like the embassy thread - complete with your general level of dishonesty and spurious accusation.
Maybe your concept of this technological singularity is different than what I understand.
Well, I've only explained the concept four times, now. Maybe you'd like to go back and read for comprehension, instead of with an eye towards misleading and dishonest misstatements of the positions I've articulated.
You have shown no evidence for the first.
I'm not under an obligation to. Those who, like you, assert that society's capacity to absorb technological change is growing exponentially are the ones who are obligated to provide evidence for their views. Can you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 9:12 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2011 3:55 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 80 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-14-2011 8:04 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 02-15-2011 5:48 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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 replied

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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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 replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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 replied

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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


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 replied

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024