|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Social Implications Of "The Singularity Moment" | |||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
We're talking about science fiction in the COFFEE HOUSE FORUM!
I meant EVC in general. 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. In doesn't matter where we are on EVC, everyone should be able to support their assertions. ABESo you think the whole singularity thing is SciFi? Then why are you so adamant in your arguments that we are reaching this point? Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Edited by Theodoric, : replaced particular with general Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
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...
Maybe you should actually try reading my posts. I clearly am trying to find out how Crash feels he can make such absolute statements. There have been no potshots. Just an attempt to get clarifications and valid arguments. Other than lame responses like "it's obvious" or 'is clearly true". Evidently it ain't. You have yet to answer simple questions I have posed.For example, a reasonable explanation of "cultural absorption. Or this 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. But hasn't then always been happening. Why is now so different? Instead your dislike for me has started to even prohibit you from responding in an intelligent and reasonable manner.
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.
This is from Crash's original comment. Which I would like to point out again, has nothing to do with the "singularity" as presented in the OP. Why is now any different than any other time in history? At what point in time were people able to predict the results of technological change? We can do this now? Could it be done in 1960? 1800's? The year 1100? This is what I am trying to get at. If you would quit being such an asshole, maybe you could take the time to tell me how that comment of crash's even makes sense. I am still trying to get someone to explain why now and the near future are any different. Some explanation, other than just an assertion, that technological advancements are exponential and "cultural absorption"(whatever the hell that is, still waiting for a clear answer) is linear. Finally, what is so freaking special about the singularity if all it is is
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. I am just trying to understand what the big deal is. Kurzweil is obviously out in left field, but I and it seems others think this whole singularity idea is bunk. Maybe you and Crash need to decide on what is meant by the "singularity" and start a new thread. Ther seems to be many ideas about what the "singularity" even is. Tech Luminaries Address Singularity - IEEE SpectrumIEEE Spectrum - 404 Not Found Maybe we can then address the Singularity posited in the OP, which is the Kurzweilian singularity. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Trying to get you to explain your position is not worth the effort, I can go elsewhere and get a gish gallop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
That's how I see it, I don't know if that's what Theo is looking at
It would help to get a clear idea of what Crash and CS seem to think absorption means. Crash seems to want to run away from that remark, but not getting a clear answer as to what cultural absorption of technology is, is a big part of my issue. That and the throwing round of absolutes and claiming something is obvious when there has been no explanation or defense of why it is obvious. Crash seems to not understand that communication is a two way street. He can claim all he wants that he has explained it, but if you and I still are not sure what he means then there is obviously a communication problem and he has not explained it clearly. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
"absorbed by human society" Please, please, please. What the hell does this mean? If you would at least sketch out what you mean by this maybe we can agree on something. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
crashfrog writes: What the hell does this mean? Jesus, Theodoric, I've only explained it half a dozen times: Message 31Gee no explanation about what it means here Message 67It means something akin to "is your grandmother on Facebook?"
Not sure what this means in relationship to the singularity and the absorption of technology. Maybe you can expand on this so it means something.
Message 83so the technology we invent has to be something we can use and absorb.
Doesn't really tell us what it means does it?
Message 106I think Oni has done a good job explaining why this whole argument seems a bit silly. Still doesn't actually explain your absorption concept. Where did you get the idea from, maybe they can explain it better. Message 109Obviously Straggler is just as confused as I am on your attempts at explaining, or rather your attempts not to explain. We're actually having an interesting discussion. Maybe you'd like to read in and be a part of it, Theodoric? The terms being used here aren't in any way mysterious and they've been explained to you over and over again. Actually the term seems to be very mysterious. Does Straggler also not accept that technology always marches forward too? That is what you accused me of because I don't agree with you. Actually, I don't know if I agree with you. Your refusal to explain the terms or prevent evidence for you idea of "inevitability" make sit impossible to know if I agree with you or not. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
At this point I need more than your gape-mouthed assertions of non-comprehension to respond to. Your relationship to technology is different than your grandmothers - you've absorbed Facebook/iPhones/internet dating/etc but she has not. What precisely is it that confuses you about that concept? The confusion is that instead of telling what it means you give examples of what it could mean. Again, I need to ask, did you come up with the idea of "cultural absorption of technological change" or is it from someone else?. If it is from somewhere else maybe you can direct me to them. Your claim now seems to be that the singularity is the point where technological changes are no longer absorbed by anyone. Currently some subset of people can absorb any new technology. But there will be a point in the future where the subset that can absorb a new technology will effectively shrink to zero? Is that your premise? So what do you believe happens then? Or maybe you can point us to someone's writings on this. As Straggler I do not see any evidence of the inevitability you seem to think there is. This does not mean, as you claim, that I do not think technological advancement will continue. There are many technologies that were not 100% "culturally absorbed"(if I understand correctly what you mean by this). HOw many millions of people have never flown? How many millions have never ridden in a vehicle? As I asked before, why is the technological changes of today so vastly different than those of the past? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
In 1800, predictions could be (and were) reliably made about the state and impact of technology on the society of 1820. Really. Could you show us how this was done? Or examples of predictions made. There were a lot of technological innovations in that time period. I never knew that they were highly predicted. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Here are a number of technological innovations during this period.
Please show how they were reliable predicted. Also, please explain how the majority of the "culture"(by culture do you mean specifically, do you mean Western European culture?) easily "abdorbed" them.All from Wiki. 1801Joseph-Marie Jacquard develops the Jacquard Loom, in which holes strategically punched in a pasteboard card direct the movement of needles, thread, and fabric. In optics, interference between light beams is discovered by Thomas Young (1773—1829), showing the wave nature of light. 1802Charles's law (the law of volumes), describing how gases tend to expand when heated, is first published in France by Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac Thomas Wedgwood discovers a method of creating photographs using silver nitrate 1803William Symington demonstrates his Charlotte Dundas, the "first practical steamboat", in Scotland. 1804The drug morphine is isolated William Hyde Wollaston discovers palladium, and how to make malleable platinum. Alexander von Humboldt discovers that the Earth's magnetic field decreases from the poles to the equator The Cornishman Richard Trevithick's newly-built "Penydarren" steam locomotive operates on the Merthyr Tramroad between Penydarren Ironworks in Merthyr Tydfil and Abercynon in South Wales, following several trials since February 13, the world's first locomotive to work on rails. 1806The Camera Lucida (Latin: lighted room) is invented and used as an aid for drawing perspective accurately. 1808Carl Friedrich Gauss finds methods for determining an orbit based on three observations. He also presents his least squares method. 1810Nicolas Appert publishes L'art de conserver pendant plusieurs annes toutes les substances animales ou vgtales, the first description of modern food preservation using airtight containers. 1811Mary Anning discovers the fossilised remains of an Ichthyosaur at Lyme Regis. 1815Atomic decay is discovered by Swedish chemist Jns Jakob Berzelius in gadolinite, a radioactive mineral damaged by alpha particles released in its own activity. 1816Sir David Brewster (1781-1868) discovers stress birefringence. 1817Pierre-Joseph Pelletier and Joseph-Bienaime Caventou isolate chlorophyll 1818Robert Stirling builds the first practical version of his Stirling engine 1819Invention of the breech-loading flintlock by John Hall. Invention of the stethoscope by Rene Theophile Hyacinthe Laennec. 1820Charles Xavier Thomas de Colmar makes his "Arithmometer", the first mass-produced calculator. Antarctica is sighted for the first time by British navy captain Edward Bransfield. Again how is "absorption" different now? Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Now I see you're quibbling with the idea that the difference in society between 1800 and 1820 is less than the difference between 2011 and 2031 (or, for that matter, 1980 and 2000.)
Can you quantify this difference? And I do not see where I have said such a thing. Again you are making up things. You made a claim that in 1800 they could predict what technology would be in 1820. I think you are wrong and unless you can provide evidence I thin k I am safe to assume you are wrong.
You're not the first to play that tiresome game. Holmes beat you to it long ago, and was much better at it. At least his posts contained something besides relentless contrarianism. Oni does it too, but at least he's funny. You're just a tiresome troll.
If you can not defend your assertions with a coherent argument it is your problem. Again for the third time. Is the absorption idea yours or did you read it somewhere? I am very interested in trying to get an explanation of what it means in relationship to the 'singularity". So far your explanations have been shown to be inadequate and basically. as Jar would say, word salad. I am hoping there is an originator of this idea that could explain it instead of giving examples of what it "may" mean.
Theodoric, addressing your intellectual deficiencies aren't something I'm able to do.
Classic froggie. When you can't support your assertions you go to the personal attacks. Stay classy my friend.
If you're unable to connect an example to an explanation - both of which I've already provided
Then again you really haven't provided an explanation have you. I have looked at the posts you told me to and reponded showing you that there was no explanation.
Here's a hint - today's technology is based on the technology of the past, and forms the basis for the future's technological change, not the other way around.
Hasn't this always been true? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Despite Theodoric's idiotic invocation of the Jaccard loom and Charles' law, it just can't be denied that it was a lot easier to predict life in 1820 from 1800 than to predict 2000 from 1980, and life in 2031 seems to me to be utterly unknowable by basically anyone. If there's an argument that I'm wrong about that I've not heard it. (Listing all the things that happened between 1800 and 1820 certainly isn't it.) Show us how any of these were predicted. Show us someone that made accurate predictions of the technology of 1820 before 1800. You have not just said it could have been done, but you stated it was done.
Message 123 In 1800, predictions could be (and were) reliably made about the state and impact of technology on the society of 1820. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024