Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Social Implications Of "The Singularity Moment"
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 6 of 169 (604521)
02-12-2011 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
02-12-2011 10:39 AM


Timely subject. This month Skeptic Magazine has an article entitled "The Singularity Isn’t Even Close: Why Ray Kurzweil’s Predictions About the Future Are Flawed"
The article does a great job showing the flaws of Kurzweil's Singularity and exposes it for the hooey it is.
I highly suggest you pick up a copy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 02-12-2011 10:39 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2011 9:08 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 158 by Phat, posted 10-30-2017 2:43 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 9 of 169 (604537)
02-12-2011 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
02-12-2011 9:08 PM


Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
but the notion that the rate of technological change will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes is clearly true.
Why?
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.
Maybe you should read a little of Kurzweil.
Epoch Six
quote:
... Kurzweil predicts that all particles of the universe will be endowed with data processing capabilities and also will be able to store knowledge. This is where the universe will "wake up". (besides this, an awful lot of good things, including eternal life, are supposed to come to humanity in the future.)
Excerpted from Skeptic Magazine Vol. 16 No.2 page 20
Kurzweil's singularity is not what you seem to think it is.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2011 9:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 2:14 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 15 of 169 (604592)
02-13-2011 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 2:14 AM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
but the notion that the rate of technological change will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes is clearly true.
Why?
What's going to stop it? The rate of technological change has only ever increased.
I don't think you answered why.
Others, well known in the technological field disagree with your assessment.
quote:
Many prominent technologists and academics dispute the plausibility of a technological singularity, including Jeff Hawkins, John Holland, Jaron Lanier, and Gordon Moore, whose eponymous Moore's Law is often cited in support of the concept.
Source
The wiki article even links to original sources.
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.
Well the article in Time is about Kurzweil's thoughts on the subject, so I think maybe that should be what we are talking about. But all this talk of a technological singularity is seemingly a bunch of unsubstantiated hooey.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 2:14 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 4:22 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 19 of 169 (604637)
02-13-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 4:22 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
But that isn't an answer.
You stated
but the notion that the rate of technological change will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes is clearly true.
This
Well, for the third time, the rate of technological change has only ever increased.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 4:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 5:59 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 02-13-2011 6:58 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 20 of 169 (604638)
02-13-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 4:13 PM


"This is my grandfather's axe. My father replaced the handle and I replaced the head." Is it still his grandfather's axe?
Nope

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 4:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 6:00 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 24 of 169 (604642)
02-13-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 5:59 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
Do you think that our culture's ability to absorb technological change is increasing?
Sure do.
I don't see any evidence for that view.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 5:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 6:26 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 27 of 169 (604652)
02-13-2011 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 6:26 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
Well, you just need to "look around", and then you can plainly see that the rate of technological progress has never, ever decreased.
This has NOTHING to do with technological progress descreasing.
This has to to do with this assertion.
will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes
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.
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.
An assertion based upon what? You may claim anything you want but I do not see any evidence.
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?
Where have I said or implied anything like this?
I am just questioning this assertion.
will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 6:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 11:13 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 28 of 169 (604653)
02-13-2011 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by slevesque
02-13-2011 6:58 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
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.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 02-13-2011 6:58 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by slevesque, posted 02-13-2011 10:55 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 29 of 169 (604654)
02-13-2011 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 6:00 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. Maybe to you it would be. Sentimentality is sweet.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 6:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 11:16 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 35 of 169 (604672)
02-14-2011 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
02-13-2011 11:13 PM


Re: Maybe read some of what Kurzweil writes?
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.
No I am not. I am arguing that you have provided no support to your assertion that we are nearing the limit of society to absorb technological changes. You have as yet to support this assertion.
This is getting to get like your embassy claim on another thread. You misrepresent what someone says then attack that strawman. No matter how many times you are told that your are misrepresenting their point you refuse to acknowledge the fact.
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.
I am not sure how this supports any concept of a technological singularity. Maybe your concept of this technological singularity is different than what I understand. Maybe if you explained what you mean by the technological singularity, what you are claiming may make sense.
By the way.
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.
You have shown no evidence for the first. SO the second does not automatically follow. Until you can show evidence of the first I think you may have a non-sequitor.
You think maybe there were people in the 1820's making the same claims?
Maybe in the 1100's too?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2011 11:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 3:24 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 36 of 169 (604673)
02-14-2011 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
02-13-2011 11:35 PM


Re: Never Decreased?
I think crashy is having fun building strawmen again.
Well, you just need to "look around", and then you can plainly see that the rate of technological progress has never, ever decreased.
No one, least of all me, has claimed such a thing. Do you feel we are reaching a "singularity" event, in which pour culture will no longer be able to absorb the rapid technological changes around us?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2011 11:35 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 02-14-2011 9:51 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 43 of 169 (604691)
02-14-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Straggler
02-14-2011 9:51 AM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
Straggler writes:
What does it even mean for "society to absorb technological change"?
How do we assess "society's ability to absorb technological change"?
I have to admit that I am lost as to what is even being discussed here.
You will have to ask Crashfrog. It is his idea. I am trying to get a clarification too, but seem to be getting a run around.
Message 7
Frog writes:
but the notion that the rate of technological change will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes is clearly true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 02-14-2011 9:51 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 3:31 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 45 of 169 (604693)
02-14-2011 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
02-14-2011 11:33 AM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
Based upon Crash's comments he must think the singularity ahs already happened. If he thinks that we haven "absorbed" the things we already have then isn't the singularity already upon us?
As for this bullshit.
Theo just replied with his annoying standard: "Ya got any evidence for that assertion?"
Why shouldn't I expect evidence for something that is "clearly true"?
but the notion that the rate of technological change will increase past our ability to culturally absorb the changes is clearly true.
It is an unevidenced assertion, that Straggler pointed, needs to be explained. I want to know what he means by the comment and and why it is clearly true. His explanations that technology always increases has nothing to do with my comment and does nothing to support his assertion.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2011 11:33 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2011 12:05 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 47 of 169 (604695)
02-14-2011 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye
02-14-2011 11:49 AM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
So what is your idea of what the "singularity" is? Neither your idea or Crash's has anything to do with the "singularity" of the OP.
Yeah, and its only going to get worse.
Why is this worse? Why is it any different than any other time in history of technological innovation? You and Crash both may have sound reasoning for this belief, as of yet Crash refuses to give any reasoning. Maybe you can explain your reasonings for this belief.
You don't like me that is clear. How about just trying to provide an argument to support this belief?
Its about the culture absorbing the technology, not the individuals of that culture.
Still don't get what that means. Everyone needs to understand the nitty gritty of all technologies? Hell most people don't understand how POTS or even an internal combustion engine works. Seems like the criteria for cultural absorption is a little flawed.
What the hell does any of this have to do with the "singularity"?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2011 11:49 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2011 12:12 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 50 of 169 (604700)
02-14-2011 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by New Cat's Eye
02-14-2011 12:05 PM


Re: "Absorb Technological Change" - Huh?
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? Seems unevidenced to me.
So that you will be less annoying.
So I should let you and others just make unevidenced assertions without question? I think you are on the wrong forum if that is what you expect.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2011 12:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2011 12:57 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2011 3:35 PM Theodoric 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