|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
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 |
Yes, Theodoric. Now you're catching on!
Then why is now different? Seems to be I am circling back to what I originally asked. Nice how you refuse to address some substantive questions in my post.
Can you quantify this difference? 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 we are getting someplace.
So now isn't different, then why is there going to be a "singularity" now? Instead of in the past or instead of the far, far future. So people of 1800's were able to "absorb" the technological changes of the time more than people today can? Also still waiting for you to show us how people of 1800 could predict the technology of 1820. Or do you want to take a mulligan on that? 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 |
That's the point, here - the linear or even static ability of human society to absorb technological change compared with the exponential growth of technology. It's simply a matter of mathematical fact that exponential growth will always overtake linear growth, no matter how much larger the linear trend starts out at. Always. This is based on your assumptions. Mostly word salad. You have shown nothing that shows that humans ability to "absorb"(still not sure what you actually mean by this) technology is linear. How would that be determined? So your second line may be true but you ahve not shown that it has anything to do with the subject.
They simply had a lot less technological change to absorb
But they also started from a much lower technological level. So I am not sure your premise necessary holds. Maybe you can present an argument to support this.
Also still waiting for you to show us how people of 1800 could predict the technology of 1820. How people make predictions does not even remotely begin to be on the topic of this thread. People made predictions in 1800 the same way that they make them in 2011, presumably - using their intellect and judgement. So your going to take a mulligan on this. Right on. 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 |
"Word salad"? Will exponential growth eventually overtake linear growth, or not? Do you need to see the proof? I can walk you through it.
So now you are going to quote mine me? How about addressing the meat of my comment?
Theodoric writes: This is based on your assumptions. Mostly word salad. You have shown nothing that shows that humans ability to "absorb"(still not sure what you actually mean by this) technology is linear. How would that be determined? So your second line may be true but you ahve not shown that it has anything to do with the subject. A lower technology level would be confirming to my premise, not contradictory to it. A lower "absolute" technology level would mean a lower rate of change, because the change is exponential. We are discussing your concept of "absorption". Keep up.
On how people made predictions in 1800? Yes, I'm going to not bother to chase an irrelevancy in that regard. How people make predictions isn't the subject of this topic.
You made the assertion. But refuse to back it. I am not surprised. So it was bullshit, just like I thought. 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 |
I guess I am going to have to repost the original query in order for you to actually address it.
Theodoric writes:
You will notice that I have not said anything about exponential vs. linear growth. This is something you made up. Why would you do that? Are you going to address this or lie about what I said.
You have shown nothing that shows that humans ability to "absorb"(still not sure what you actually mean by this) technology is linear. How would that be determined? So your second line may be true but you ahve not shown that it has anything to do with the subject. Yes. And a lower level of technology in 1800 is supportive of my premise, not contradictory with it. Not sure how you think this supports your "absorption" theory. If they are at a low level technologically wouldn't the level of technological change have to be relatively low for them to be overwhelmed. Wouldn't they have trouble "absorbing" new technology too? Therefore what seems to us a minor technological change would be for them a much harder change to "absorb" Speaking of "absorb". since you won't adequately define it or explain where you got the concept, how about answering a few questions. maybe that will help.1) How do you determine if a technology is "absorbed"? 2) What are some newer technologies that are "absorbed"? 3) What are some newer technologies that are not "absorbed"? 4) Are POTS(plain old telephone service) technologies absorbed? If so, why? If not, why not? 5) Are internal combustion engines absorbed? If so, why? If not, why not? These will help me get a better idea of what "absorbed" means. No, I never made any assertions about how predictions were made in 1800, only that they were made.
And I never asked you to show how predictions were made. This is something else you made up. I asked you to show that they were made. I see you agree that that is what you said, so how about showing some of those predictions. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling 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 |
I've addressed it multiple times in multiple posts that I have repeatedly brought to your attention, but feel free to continue to lie about it. We can chase your various absurd falsehoods around and around again if that's what you wish to do.
I wasn't sure if you were crazy or deliberately misrepresenting what I say. I think your quote mines here clearly show a deliberate attempt to misrepresent. You do know people can go back and read what I actually asked don't you? No you have not addressed this particular question. Ever. Here it goes againYou have shown nothing that shows that humans ability to "absorb"(still not sure what you actually mean by this) technology is linear. How would that be determined? Am I to expect you to lie again and claim that I don't understand how exponential growth out paces linear growth? I have never disputed this. I would like to know how you determined humans ability to "absorb" technology is linear and how you determined this.
And I never asked you to show how predictions were made. I'm sorry? Were these your words, or not? They appear in your Message 135:
quote: Playing stupid? You are going to ride this "how" thing like you di the embassy issue.You do realize that there is a difference between "how" and "how could" don't you? You claim these predictions were made. As of yet there have been no posts by you showing this. We have gone on so long on this that I am quite sure you have no support for this. If you want to pick this hill to die on go ahead. 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 |
And again you do not address the specifics my post at all.
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 |
Since you refuse to answer a few basic questions I have, I will take it as your concession that you can not answer them.
Looking back through the thread anyone can see you have not answered the questions or presented the evidence for certain claims. FirstYou have shown nothing that shows that humans ability to "absorb" technology is linear. How would that be determined? I would like to know how you determined humans ability to "absorb" technology is linear. This is my biggest problem with your premise. If you could show some support for this you may convince me, but as of yet all you have said is that it is obvious. Obviously it is not obvious. Looking over the last few years I think a strong argument can be made that it is not linear. But it would be silly for me waste my time to present an argument for that if you have no argument for your original premise. SecondStill waiting for evidence that prior to 1800 people predicted the technological changes that would happen by 1820. Your original statement. froggie writes:
Yet you have provided no sources to show this is in fact true. What were the predictions that were made? just one example is all I am asking for. 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