Message 61 of 169 (604730) 02-14-2011 3:29 PM

Reply to: Message 40 by Straggler 02-14-2011 11:28 AM

Well, I feel like I've only said it five times or so, but for the sixth time: the notion of the "singularity" is that the rate of technological change is increasing and has only ever increased; but there's no evidence that the rate at which humans can grapple with technological change is increasing, or increasing at a comparable rate.

Thus, technology will eventually begin to change faster than humans can keep up the change. This is obvious and must, mathematically, come to pass.

That's it. That is the extent of the position I've taken in this thread. Attempts to predict what society will be like after that point are stupid; the point of the singularity is that it represents an effective predictability horizon on the social effects of technological change.

Theodoric, on the other hand, apparently believes that technology will be predictable forever. Yet, in spite of this view, he doesn't seem to be willing to take a stab at predicting what life will be like in 2100.

Message 62 of 169 (604731) 02-14-2011 3:31 PM

Reply to: Message 43 by Theodoric 02-14-2011 11:47 AM

Uh, no, it's not "my idea." I'm not the one who came up with the idea for the "singularity." I'm not even the one who opened this thread about it.

Is there some reason you can't stop telling lies about me, Theodoric?

Message 63 of 169 (604732) 02-14-2011 3:35 PM

Reply to: Message 50 by Theodoric 02-14-2011 12:29 PM

Yes, Theodoric, which is why the burden of evidence is on you to defend your contrary position that the rate of technological change will not always increase.

Nothing now is "so different", which is why the singularity will obviously occur. Your position that it will not occur is what needs to be evidenced; you're the one that is asserting that conditions are suddenly so different now, or will be different in the future, such that the trends of technological change and social adaptation to technology that currently exist will be reversed.

What's your evidence for that assertion?

Message 64 of 169 (604736) 02-14-2011 3:55 PM

Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog 02-14-2011 3:29 PM

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.

Actually just forget it it. Your lies and dishonesty make it impossible to have any sort of conversation with you.

Message 65 of 169 (604738) 02-14-2011 3:58 PM

Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog 02-14-2011 3:31 PM

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?

Message 66 of 169 (604739) 02-14-2011 3:59 PM

Reply to: Message 64 by Theodoric 02-14-2011 3:55 PM

I see, so your repeated attempts to misrepresent and misquote me are the result of a personal grudge you hold against me. Well, that's fair.

It's that part where you keep disagreeing with me when I say "the effect of technology on society will become increasingly unpredictable."

Message 67 of 169 (604740) 02-14-2011 4:03 PM

Reply to: Message 65 by Theodoric 02-14-2011 3:58 PM

No, I'm not. My understanding is that Kurzweil is the one who came up with these notions, for the most part, and Phat is the one who started the thread.

What does it mean for society to absorb technological change? It means something akin to "is your grandmother on Facebook?" The singularity, very roughly, is the point at which technology is changing so fast that everybody will become the equivalent of an octogenarian trying to use an iPhone.

Message 68 of 169 (604742) 02-14-2011 4:04 PM

Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog 02-14-2011 3:59 PM

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.

Message 69 of 169 (604743) 02-14-2011 4:07 PM

Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog 02-14-2011 4:03 PM

Did you or did you not post this in Message 7

Message 70 of 169 (604744) 02-14-2011 4:12 PM

Reply to: Message 68 by Theodoric 02-14-2011 4:04 PM

Half of the difficulty you have in these exchanges, Theodoric, is that you don't read closely and thus don't understand what I'm saying to you.

I'm the one taking the position that the effect of technology on society will become increasingly unpredictable. That's my position.

Your position, which you adopt when you disagree with mine, is that technology's impact on society will always be predictable, forever, because the singularity will never occur.

Which is fine. You're entitled to hold that position.

What is your evidence for it? Be specific.

Message 71 of 169 (604745) 02-14-2011 4:13 PM

Reply to: Message 69 by Theodoric 02-14-2011 4:07 PM

Obviously I did, and have never claimed otherwise.

Again - you need to slow down, calm down (because you're clearly very upset) and learn to read for comprehension, not for words of mine that you can quote out of context and misrepresent.

Message 73 of 169 (604758) 02-14-2011 5:39 PM

Please refer to my message Message 57 above as a starting point. Then maybe we can help answer Phat's OP.

If we use Ray Kurzweil's own definition of the Singularity then, my dear Phat, we will all understand the new technologies quite well since we will all be plugged into the common human knowledge bank which will give us the intellect (augmented by technology) to understand.

Message 74 of 169 (604760) 02-14-2011 5:41 PM

Reply to: Message 73 by AZPaul3 02-14-2011 5:39 PM

Or if history and reality is considered, we will mostly be home watching the latest entertainment while a very few understand the technology and play with it.

Message 75 of 169 (604761) 02-14-2011 5:46 PM

Reply to: Message 74 by jar 02-14-2011 5:41 PM

Just think. After so many eons of intellectual development we end up with Ghost Hunters. Imagine the inanity we can achieve with a technologically-augmented thousand-fold intellect!