The Social Implications Of "The Singularity Moment"

Eloi

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Not intended to contradict, but to expand. 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?

Well, for the third time, the rate of technological change has only ever increased.

But that isn't an answer.You stated This Does not answer the question as to why you feel the first is "clearly true".I do not see a valid reason why increasing technology "will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes".
That the rate of technology has only increased does not have anything to do with your first assertion.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Nope

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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.

Well, ok. When did it stop being his grandfather's axe?

Birth control has been around for thousands of years, so that's not even an example of new technology that we're having trouble coping with. In addition, there are tens of thousands of new inventions that we've assimilated quite nicely. Any actual evidence of your premise?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Sure do. All you have to do is look around.
You still have not provided any support for your assertion.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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?

I think by the rate of change is increasing he is viewing it as an accelerating system, and if he sees our cultures ability to absorb change as linear, then it is obvious that his first statement is clearly true.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This has NOTHING to do with technological progress descreasing.This has to to do with this assertion. You are asserting that we are reaching a point beyond societies ability to absorb. Alas, you refuse to support your assertion.As for "you just need to look around". Compare technology today with technology from when I was born in 1962. Culture and society has "absorbed" all of the those advancements. Give some reasons why we should not expect it to continue to happen in the future. Other than your say so of course.I do not understand the attitude I am getting. I am simply asking for some support for your assertion. An assertion based upon what? You may claim anything you want but I do not see any evidence. Where have I said or implied anything like this?I am just questioning this assertion.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

No that does not make it true. It makes it his belief. Someone show that our cultures ability to absorb change is linear. If it was so I think we would have hit a stumbling block a long, long time ago.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This is an interpretation of someones emotions. It is not a physical or concrete thing. To me it would not be his grandfathers axe. Maybe to you it would be. Sentimentality is sweet.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I'm just trying to explain what he meant. If he thinks both assertions are the case, then his conclusion is correct.I think we can all agree that technological progress is looking (from a layman POV) as exponential.The question then becomes if our cultures ability to absorb change follows a similar pattern or is linear. Unfortunately this seems to be a very hard thing to quantify/analyse, although from my once again layman POV it does seem to be linear.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.