Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Social Implications Of "The Singularity Moment"
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 129 of 169 (605206)
02-17-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Straggler
02-17-2011 2:36 PM


Re: Granny Power and The Ever Shrinking Subset
Of course this granny-friendly seperation of usability and knowability means that the white, affluent tech-head subset you have been talking about will be forever doomed to fixing the fucking things for their spouses and mothers and grandmothers when they inevitably go a bit wrong.
Boy, tell me about it. Ever since I got married it's two families' worth of tech support I'm doing now. I'm hardly in the door at her parent's house for Christmas before they're like "hey, while you're here..."
The guy who develops the technology that the whole world wants to buy will end up in the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs stratosphere of wealth. The guy who develops the great technology that nobody wants to buy will have to get a day job to fund his bedsit hobby. As long as we live in a world where such economic factors play a significant role in the development of technology your "ever-shrinking-subset" prediction remains unlikely to come to actuality.
This is probably the most compelling case against the singularity, yet. I'm not saying I'm convinced by it, nor by any argument that relies on profit motive - frankly, people do a lot of things that have nothing to do with money - and I continue to believe that the predictability horizon of the impact of technology is shrinking, but you've probably made a pretty good case against Kurzweil's notions, at the very least.
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.)
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Straggler, posted 02-17-2011 2:36 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 4:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 132 of 169 (605213)
02-17-2011 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Theodoric
02-17-2011 4:52 PM


Re: Please define this phrase
And I do not see where I have said such a thing.
You made a claim that in 1800 they could predict what technology would be in 1820. I think you are wrong
Theodoric, these two statements of yours were adjacent sentences. Not only can you not understand my posts, apparently you can't understand your own!
Is the absorption idea yours or did you read it somewhere?
Asked and answered, Theodoric. It's time for you to either stop participating in this thread, or begin participating in a constructive and honest manner. I'm simply not prepared to allow you to lie about me.
When you can't support your assertions you go to the personal attacks.
I don't recall making a personal attack. But I do recall your personal attack:
quote:
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.
Scurrilous and unfounded, indicative of a deep personal, irrational animus against me. You admitted it, Theodoric. And now you have the gall to accuse me of making personal attacks? Unbelievable.
I have looked at the posts you told me to and reponded showing you that there was no explanation.
You didn't "show" anything. You simply denied that what was written in my posts was written there. Part and parcel with your general level of gape-mouthed denialism.
Hasn't this always been true?
Yes, Theodoric. Now you're catching on!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 4:52 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 5:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 134 of 169 (605215)
02-17-2011 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Theodoric
02-17-2011 5:27 PM


Re: Please define this phrase
Then why is now different?
Now isn't different. The technology of the present continues to be built on the technology of the past. It's the fact that "now" is not different that will result in the singularity. You're the one asserting that present trends won't continue into the future.
We have a term for the mathematical model where the rate P'(x) of the growth or decline of something at time x - say, a population - is proportional to the size or amount P(x) at time x. You may wish to look up that term, because it is instructive to the case of where future circumstances build off of present ones.
Seems to be I am circling back to what I originally asked.
Why don't you circle back to all those times I already answered it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 5:27 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 5:40 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 136 of 169 (605220)
02-17-2011 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Theodoric
02-17-2011 5:40 PM


Re: Maybe 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.
I never said there was going to be a singularity now. I've said nothing about when the singularity will occur.
I literally have no idea when it will occur. That's a calculation I'm not able to make. But it seems obvious that it will happen in the future, given the exponential rate of technological increase combined with the linear rate at which technologies are absorbed by society. Stragger believes that technology inherently cannot increase beyond the rate at which society can absorb them, so I suppose he believes in a kind of anti-singularity, a point at which technology stops growing exponentially and begins growing linearly.
I don't agree, because I don't believe that the rate at which technologies are adopted is a limiting factor on the rate at which they're created; that's why most human beings are subsistence-level farmers using cast-iron hand tools, and why malnutrition continues to be the leading cause of death. It's actually quite common for the development of technology to dramatically outstrip its adoption; I've given and defended examples of that being the case.
So people of 1800's were able to "absorb" the technological changes of the time more than people today can?
No, not at all. They simply had a lot less technological change to absorb. 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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 5:40 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 6:50 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2011 6:12 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 144 by onifre, posted 02-18-2011 5:23 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 138 of 169 (605229)
02-17-2011 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Theodoric
02-17-2011 6:50 PM


Re: Maybe getting someplace
Mostly word salad.
"Word salad"? Will exponential growth eventually overtake linear growth, or not? Do you need to see the proof? I can walk you through it.
But they also started from a much lower technological level. So I am not sure your premise necessary holds.
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.
The derivative of the exponential function e^x is e^x.
So your going to take a mulligan on this.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 6:50 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 7:02 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 140 of 169 (605231)
02-17-2011 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Theodoric
02-17-2011 7:02 PM


Re: Maybe getting someplace
How about addressing the meat of my comment?
I did. Does exponential growth eventually outstrip linear growth, or not? Do you need to see the proof?
We are discussing your concept of "absorption".
Yes. And a lower level of technology in 1800 is supportive of my premise, not contradictory with it.
Keep up.
You made the assertion.
No, I never made any assertions about how predictions were made in 1800, only that they were made. You appear to believe that predictions were never made before now. What's your evidence for such an absurd and ahistorical position?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 7:02 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 8:53 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 145 of 169 (605385)
02-18-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Theodoric
02-17-2011 8:53 PM


Re: Maybe getting someplace
I guess I am going to have to repost the original query in order for you to actually address it.
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.
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:
Also still waiting for you to show us how people of 1800 could predict the technology of 1820.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2011 8:53 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2011 9:01 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 146 of 169 (605386)
02-18-2011 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Straggler
02-18-2011 6:12 AM


Re: Non-Linear Absorption
I made the case that for economic reasons high absorption (i.e. easy to use mass appeal) technologies, and indeed those technologies that facilitate absorption itself (e.g. communications technologies), are more likely to dominate and prevail.
It's my hope that I made it clear that I recognize you made a very compelling case for this position. I'm not sure I'm convinced by it, but I don't have an equally-compelling counter to it, either. For whatever that's worth.
Thanks for clarifying your views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 02-18-2011 6:12 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by onifre, posted 02-19-2011 1:34 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 148 by xongsmith, posted 02-19-2011 5:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 150 of 169 (605983)
02-22-2011 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Theodoric
02-19-2011 9:01 PM


Re: Maybe getting someplace
You are going to ride this "how" thing like you di the embassy issue.
What, you mean where I continually demonstrated multiple instances of Dronester's own words showing him saying the very thing he insisted he wasn't saying? The words that he could never offer any alternative explanation of, only flat denials that whatever I said he was saying, that's what he wasn't saying?
Heavens, no, I certainly wouldn't want to do that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2011 9:01 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2011 2:20 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 152 of 169 (606042)
02-23-2011 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Theodoric
02-23-2011 2:20 PM


Re: Maybe getting someplace
Having addressed them, I feel no need to do so again. You're simply not going to read any post that attempts to do so, so why bother?
There's no further point in talking to you - reasonable, honest debate is something that eludes you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2011 2:20 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2011 3:13 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 154 of 169 (606047)
02-23-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Theodoric
02-23-2011 3:13 PM


Re: I'll take that as a concession
Since you refuse to answer a few basic questions I have, I will take it as your concession that you can not answer them.
You only reveal your intent to interpret whatever I say in the most dishonest way possible. It's actually you making the concession - that you're not someone who can honesty grapple with the arguments of his opponents, but rather someone who must misrepresent his opponents in order to have arguments he's capable of addressing.
You 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.
Asked and answered. And answered again. Answers linked to, repeatedly. All ignored and lied about by you.
Why would I talk to you about anything, Theodoric? You can't be relied upon to respond in good faith. You've already admitted that this is part of a personal vendetta against me:
quote:
Crash I actually have much more respect for creationists than you.
Did you write those words or not? Given your admission of a deep and abiding animus towards me, why should anyone believe you're capable of discussing with me in good faith?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2011 3:13 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 157 of 169 (608135)
03-08-2011 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Rrhain
03-08-2011 2:01 AM


It's why we still haven't managed to come up with a really good weather simulator. There are too many variables involved, especially when the very code you use to generate the object (your genes) gets to change as the process runs.
Well, this is just the fallacy of "argument by changing the terms of my analogy to suit your ends." Whatever that's really called.
In principle we could simulate the weather with sufficient knowledge about the state of the molecules on Earth and a simulation sufficiently robust to simulate the interaction of all those molecules. The Earth's weather is on a scale much, much larger than the limit where the uncerrtainty principle would matter.
Now, it's true that what we have not been able to do is produce a simulation of the weather sufficiently simplified as to be computable, but that's not at all the same thing. And it's true that a simplified simulation of my brain wouldn't be the same as me.
But simulation doesn't have to mean simplification. In principle, a sufficiently complex simulation could accurately model real-world things like brains or weather by being equally complex as the phenomenon they simulate. I guess that leads to weird ideas like the idea that this universe is being simulated on some kind of OmniVax, but if that were true we couldn't really know, anyway.
Genes get turned on, they get turned off, physical changes happen to your brain that cannot be "simulated" as such.
What? Why on Earth do you think we can't simulate changes in a gene? I can do it easily. Genes get methylated? I add a field to the Gene object class called "methylated" that takes a boolean value. A repressor binds to a promoter? Another field in the Gene object class for repressor binding.
In the lac operon, a combination of negative repression by lactose and positive repression by glucose results in the complex regulation of beta-galactosidease, such that:
Glucose    |  Lactose     |  B-Gal
    yes    |    yes       | none
    yes    |     no       | none
    no     |     yes      | high
    no     |     no       | none
As biochemists, we call this "metabolic logic", for two reasons: one is that we can easily represent the behavior with truth tables, as I've just done; and two, because this behavior evolved because it's the logical metabolic response to the situation - glucose is easier to metabolize than lactose, but when lactose is what's available it makes sense to use it.
Again, I am not denying the possibility of being able to copy your brain (be it into a cloned body or a cybernetic support system). But a copy is not the original.
Well, but again - if there's a perfect copy of me, perfect in every detail, and then suddenly the "original" me disappears in a flash an instant after the copy is made, that would seem to represent a singular, consistent existence of myself discontinuous in space - teleportation, in other words. It's no more discontinuous than the eight hours every night that I utterly lack any experience of the world around me. It's no more discontinuous than people who experience comas, or brain injuries or diseases that cause tremendous changes in attitude and temperament. It's certainly no more discontinuous than when your young cousin ages from 10 to 15 in the years between your visits and he seems to be a new and unique individual every time you see him.
The truth is that the notion of the continuous human being is a bit of a fiction, and I see no reason why "cp/rm" teleportation (to use the Unix lingo, and as opposed to "mv" teleportation) introduces any more of a discontinuity than any one of a dozen situations where humans experience a substantial discontinuity in their consciousness or nature but are yet considered the exact same person. The individual is a moving target and always has been.
Then at the end of the process I will still be in my own body.
Well, yeah. There's two of you. There's a pretty limited period of time before you and your clone accumulate so much divergent experience that, indeed, we have to consider you two separate people - one of you grows the beard, perhaps, and decides to go by his middle name, instead:
But we can easily remedy this problem by killing one of you as soon as possible. Ideally at the very instant that we create the clone, or even slightly before. That way there's not two individuals both claiming to be "Rrhain" experiencing different things. That way, there's only one of you experiencing a single physical location - just like you did the entire rest of your life.
No, we didn't. Not the way you're playing with it.
Well, I know you don't agree with the conclusion; what I'm trying to show you is that my position is inescapably logical, and yours is just "well, it's not you because I say it's not."
Because "you" are a biological construct, not an electronic one.
But I'd be a biological construct simulated electronically, instead of simulated biologically.
I think maybe you don't understand how simulations work.
Assuming we could trick it into not detecting the physical location shift when it comes online
You're saying that if I fall asleep on an airplane, I'm a different person when I get off? Obviously untrue. Again - unconscious, unexperienced shifts in physical location are a discontinuity in experience that we nonetheless have no difficulty reconciling with our fiction of the continuous person. Similarly, we have no trouble reconciling the discontinuity in physical composition we're always experiencing with our fiction of the continuous person.
So, I contend that the shift in physical composition from physical atoms to simulated atoms, and/or the sudden shift in location from over here to over there, are things we could just as easily reconcile with our fiction of the continuous person. Your notion that "cp/rm" teleportation isn't the same person, but "mv" teleportation actually is only makes sense if you privilege the stuff out of which you are currently constituted, but we've already both agreed that that stuff is transient anyway, and really has nothing to do with your continuity as a person. Your continuity is just a function of how many people there are with memory of your experiences and your personality at any one time, and "cp/rm" teleportation solves that problem and preserves continuity by only allowing no more than one of you to be alive at any one time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Rrhain, posted 03-08-2011 2:01 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Taq, posted 10-31-2017 11:39 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024