I've come to some sort of conclusiony idea about all this

[Jasper]

Again, I disagree.  They're subliminated, not denied.  They still exist, they still exert influence and they are still acted out.  Culture acts as a frame, giving shape to the force behind it.  If culture could overcome basic programming, it would be a necessary component of most psychological and psychiatric research, which it isn't.

Also, your counterexample wasn't very good.  000 cited numerous cases where people were wrong, you cited one that may eventually be right.  It doesn't invalidate the idea that prediction is very mostly wrong.  Its one I'm sympathetic too, because my own field is filled with theories that consistently fail to predict the future, but are dearly held on to regardless.

I know that there are a lot of poor predictions out there, and a new prediction doesn't really prove a thing, but I still think it's more than just what we hold onto because we care about it.  Probably the best way to predict things is to only predict what will make the most money for the smallest investment.  

Also, I'd cite the PPX as a counterexample to the argument that predictions are impossible.  They've got a pretty good system, and it'd be even better if they stopped playing with monopoly money. 

[Cain]

000 didn't say all predictions are wrong, only the vast majority of them.

Technological predictions are more likely to be accurate, because we have an understanding of the basics behind it, what is theoretically possible and what is impossible (currently or totally).

Society, on the other hand, is nearly impossible to predict and I would agree with Triple Zero that the impact of technology on society is as unpredictable as social changes themselves.  The example of the computer is a good one.  They knew how to make it, and how to possibly improve on it, but they had absolutely no idea of its social impact and utility.  There are plenty more, as well.

[Jasper]

I can get behind that, to some degree.  I think you can generalize though.  For example, you must admit that people who want to become informed are in a lot more luck than people thirty years ago.

[Cain]

Are they?  Excess of information leads to a noise/signal ratio that can make such things difficult to find.

For those that can access those information resources.

I think your argument is based too much on an assumption of progress, it must be said.  Areas can degrade.  Look at Kenya, or Iraq.  Technology has been used to spread false assumptions there, by creating propaganda stations that act as real news centres.  People believe they are getting the real news, but much of it is lies, assumptions and distortions, passed around in a modern day version of Chinese Whispers.

I believe the only safe assumptions about technology is that it acts as multipliers in whatever field it is invested (military force, information, curative ability, processing speed etc) or it opens up entirely new possibilities, which are by their nature impossible to speculate about.

[Jasper]

So you're saying tools are just labor saving devices like always, more or less?

I think they have more symbolic power than that, at least. 

[Cain]

Symbols only have whatever meaning you wish to give to them.

[Richter]

Just a few things I wanted to throw out there before we get existential:

Are they?  Excess of information leads to a noise/signal ratio that can make such things difficult to find.

For those that can access those information resources.

I think your argument is based too much on an assumption of progress, it must be said.  Areas can degrade.  Look at Kenya, or Iraq.  Technology has been used to spread false assumptions there, by creating propaganda stations that act as real news centres.  People believe they are getting the real news, but much of it is lies, assumptions and distortions, passed around in a modern day version of Chinese Whispers.

I believe the only safe assumptions about technology is that it acts as multipliers in whatever field it is invested (military force, information, curative ability, processing speed etc) or it opens up entirely new possibilities, which are by their nature impossible to speculate about.

Most valid points:  Even 20 years ago I remember how proper fucked some people were if they lost a manual for a home appliance.  Look forward to rpostrating yourself at a retailer, or mailing the company for another.
Things are easier now, hell I can find the manual for the phone on my desk in 5 min. when so inclined, but you're very correct that there is a good deal more noise.  I can know the contents of Amazon.com's wearhouse acurately in seconds, but what, if any WMD's were in Iraq in 2001 is likely lost to history for a few decades.

Especially with the internet, the culture behind it is what makes it effective.  That great fragile Glastnost that lets it be open, unfiltered, and cluttered.  Sure a country can censor it to hell and back, but the experience at large allows for a great deal of access.

So you're saying tools are just labor saving devices like always, more or less?

I think they have more symbolic power than that, at least. 

Drawing back to the discussion of progress and technology, labor savers have a way of ultimately multiplying labor.  I recall some "world of tomorrow" flick from the 1950's that predicted technology would have us working only 4 hours a day by this time.  ...OR we could still work 8 hours a day getting twice as much done. 
Still beats the shit out a typewriter.

[Jasper]

Some people can manage only 4 hours a day.  Just because you can do it, doesn't make it a good idea.

And in this Great American culture, the general m.o. is to work even more if you can get more done with tools.  We do love our OT pay.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So you're saying tools are just labor saving devices like always, more or less?

I think they have more symbolic power than that, at least. 

Labor saving devices, energy saving devices, things to make stuff faster and easier to get to... but that's not fundamental change, its window dressing.

Sure society changes, but it usually seems to be society that changes and tools that become the symbol of that change in society. Which came first the Hunter Gatherer society, or the arrowhead? The people demanding access to information, or smart phones? And as someone who has been on the net since 1989, I would argue that society had a much greater impact on the Internet, than the Internet had on society.

I guess I'm saying that technology usually tends to be Reactive. If necessity is the mother of Invention, then surely she is at least the egg donor of Technology.   

[Jasper]

What happens when the tools start doing the work themselves?  What happens when they stop asking permission?

There's your social change.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

What happens when the tools start doing the work themselves?  What happens when they stop asking permission?

There's your social change.

Uhhh, you realize that you're watching a heck of a lot of Ghost In The Shell?

[Jasper]

I haven't watched that since I was a kid. 

Matteroffact, gfys.  What kind of counterargument is that?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I haven't watched that since I was a kid. 

Matteroffact, gfys.  What kind of counterargument is that?

One with LULZ behind it.

Seriously though, we may someday create extremely complex types of artificial intelligence, but what the hell does that really have to do with here and now and what exists? If your argument is that Technology has changed everything. I agree... in some sense, we can certainly model things in a way to support that. However, I find it a more compelling model to look at society as changing technology. Both models are probably true in some sense, false in some sense and meaningless in some sense.

But let's not seriously argue that technology will soon be inventing itself. From my perspective, unless we get a really big surprising discovery, such complex AI seem more likely to appear well beyond our lifetimes if at all. Technology building technology sure (see automated assembly lines etc), technology making it faster and easier for humans to create something new, of course (3d computer modeling for engineers). Maybe we can even marry the two and the computer would draw the model and make the object... there still appears a necessity for a human, influenced by society, somewhere playing the eye on top of the big robot pyramid.

Or not

[Jasper]

There will most probably always be some human element to some minute degree, as that everything we make is more or less a caricature of our own design.  But that's another argument.  I also dispute that strong AI won't appear in our lifetimes.  In fact, I'd be amazed if there wasn't at least one in ten years.  Again, not this thread.

The here and now is made of tools.  Look around you.  It's the scaffolding on your reality tunnel. 

It's interesting to think that the male physique's main muscle difference in women is in the muscles built for throwing spears.  We're already evolved to incorporate tools.  If you want, I'll look for a citation, but you can too if you like.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

There will most probably always be some human element to some minute degree, as that everything we make is more or less a caricature of our own design.  But that's another argument.  I also dispute that strong AI won't appear in our lifetimes.  In fact, I'd be amazed if there wasn't at least one in ten years.  Again, not this thread.

Strong AI yes... AI capable of doing its own thing and making up its own new tech, I just don't see support for that position.

The here and now is made of tools.  Look around you.  It's the scaffolding on your reality tunnel. 

Now, is it the scaffolding I use, or is it the "here and now"? I think tools are very important, but I think you might be looking at their relationship with humans slightly backwards. But I could be wrong.

It's interesting to think that the male physique's main muscle difference in women is in the muscles built for throwing spears.  We're already evolved to incorporate tools.  If you want, I'll look for a citation, but you can too if you like.

If this statement is true in any sense, wouldn't it indicate that Humans used spears and the ones that were best at using the tool survived and passed on their genes? It would seem that society still made its advances in need of spears, before such a trait could become selected. I dunno.