Bring On The Singularity

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The first issue I have with The Singularity is the singular nature of its most vocal proponents. Don't get me wrong, some of those guys are great sci-fi authors, futurists and philosophers. However, their writing is usually big on theory and philosophy and big on bad metaphors, poor analogies and a fundamentally bizarre perception of technology. From personal experience with some of the big names in Transhumanism, a lack of basic Internet/Web/current technology skills, to me, betrays an interest more in pontification than knowledge. If a person doesn't really understand where we are NOW with technology, how can they guess with any legitimacy, what the future of humans and tech will be?

Wetware will make us no less human than bronze tools made our ancestors less human.

OMGZ, THIS NEWFANGLED STEEL STUFF WILL CAUSE A STEEL SINGULARITY!!!!

Technology and tools have made it easier for humans to be human. That's all. Lazy humans find technology that helps them have more time to be lazy. Infophilic humans use technology that makes it easier to gather information. Warlike Humans will find ways to use technology and tools to better kill more people, more easily. At the end of the day however, they're still lazy, infophilic or warring humans. They behave much like their ancestors, with simply different toys to inflict their reality upon the world around them. The mindset of the solider is much the same, be he armed with a sword or a Gatling gun or a Gauss Rifle. The mindset of the geek is much the same. They may be digging through dusty volumes in an ancient library, or querying Google with a 30 character boolean search to get precisely what they want. They are still human, acting like humans.

I have yet to see a credible argument that any Singularity will actually change the fundamental basic human.... there may be new tools to help us live longer, move faster, think better... but all of those exist today and We're Still Human. I love the idea of a Singularity... I hope one day that we reach the point where technology is moving so fast, that we never know what new and exciting things will happen. I think new and more and better and faster tools are great. If I can build a tool to build better tools, HOLY FUCK, that's awesome. But, I'm still a tool using monkey.

[LMNO]

I WANNA BE A BIONIC MONKEY!
  \

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This is crap.

I want my fucking 5 minutes back.

[Arafelis]

I'm sorry, what was that? Oh right, I don't take lectures from pretentious kids with BA's in philosophy.

And when you no longer need them, I'll stop offering them.

Wait.  You say that the singularity is scary, because the technology will bring about the "end of humanity"; and then you scold TBS by pointing out that every non-biological assist we currently have is also "technology."

Contemplating the end of your species is frightening for many people.  This does not necessitate the cause being intrinsically frightening.

All the most meticulous logical arguments will fall apart in front of him.

When I see a logical argument presented to respond to, I'll take note.

YOU WERE MISINTERPRETING HIS VAST SUPERPOWERED SPACE-BRAIN'S WORDS OF INFINITE WISDOM.

I'll just let this stand.

From the writing style of the majority of his posts here, he seems to demonstrate many of the behaviors and mentality of Asperger's Syndrome.

Ridiculously over-diagnosed.  I'm a proponent of neurodiversity, and I wouldn't be particularly bothered if I discovered I were an Aspie.  But I do not fit most of the characteristics.

No, my diagnosis is "pompous know-it-all high-school graduate".

None of these characteristics are false.  I would, in turn, attribute each of them to you, along with "wanna-be Madonna."  And the further, trivially verifiable statement, "non-collegiate."

I want my fucking 5 minutes back.

Post your phone number and I'll call to wake you up five minutes early tomorrow.  

I promise.

[Arafelis]

Wetware will make us no less human than bronze tools made our ancestors less human.

Do you mean things like customized organs or cortecies?  No, it won't, and hope I didn't give the impression that that is what I thought.  But it seems unlikely that that's the end point of the trend.  In fact, it's seeming gradually more and more unlikely that that will even be the intermediary step of it.

If we alter ourselves genetically to the point where any naturally-conceived and born children we have are no longer homo sapiens sapiens, then literally, we have ended our own species.  Given how well this sidesteps the need for much sci-fi "wetware" and how incompatible we currently would be with most such developments anyway, it seems a much more likely outcome.

Similarly, if we create something deserving the title of "machine life", I would not consider it a taxonomic stretch to call it a child species.  And it's likely that while such a species would inherit the bulk of human knowledge and context, it's also fairly likely that biological humans would gradually die out.

But, I'm still a tool using monkey.

And that's what some people find so frightening about the singularity -- why it deserves to be called scary shit.  Because should either of those two things I've described above occur, whatever calls itself "human" at that point won't be.

One of the things I was trying to highlight was the point that, yes, fearing the singularity because "all of the sudden" technology will be "advancing itself" is silly.  Species adapt and evolve all the time, and the fact that we tool-using monkeys are adapting our tools is basically a pointless distinction.  We've been in one "singularity" (wow, lots of quotes here) since inorganic molecular machines became capable of reproducing themselves in a resource-rich environment, and another since the first proto-primate picked up its first heavy rock or stick.  But there is probably another one coming, one that will most likely be no more apparent or distinct to those involved, and yet indicates, literally, the end of humanity.  No more homo sapiens.  And for the first time as far as we are yet aware in all of the universe, it will not be because environment and chance caused the species to end, but because a collection of sapient minds chose something they thought would be better, somehow, to replace it.  That's really something, and something I find very fascinating to consider.

And while I do foresee the end of the species and I understand the fear it can inspire, I don't feel any such terror myself.  Samsara, man.

[Thurnez Isa]

No more homo sapiens. 

WISHFUL THINKIGN

[Triple Zero]

If you want a dystopian account of how this could all go horribly wrong, read Feed.

ah yes! you recommended this one before ... browsed a few online bookstores, found one on amazon.de for €6.99 ($9.70), including shipping.

but damn the dollar is cheap again, hadnt realized, maybe I should check out some more USA stores (though ordering without creditcard is usually not possible). Hm no Amazon US seems to ask $12 to ship to the Netherlands, and the prices are, I assume, ex import tax as well.

anyway thanks for reminding

[Triple Zero]

Also, I wouldn't call him an Aspie. I know plenty of Asperger's types who aren't THAT hideously stupid.

Dunno about Asps in particular (especially not to make a diagnosis), but I get where LMNO is coming from. Something about the obsessive/compulsive need to correct other people's spelling, grammar, and requiring everyone to adhere to his definitions of words, going off on a tangent crusade about those definitions, if needed.

Arafelis, i would like to politely request you to drop that behaviour. It will reduce the continous mocking and improve communication. Especially if it's the result of some "neurological diversity" (cause we're all about taking responsibility for ourselves here).

The first issue I have with The Singularity is the singular nature of its most vocal proponents.

multi-larity? polylarity? high-larity?

I have yet to see a credible argument that any Singularity will actually change the fundamental basic human.... there may be new tools to help us live longer, move faster, think better... but all of those exist today and We're Still Human. I love the idea of a Singularity... I hope one day that we reach the point where technology is moving so fast, that we never know what new and exciting things will happen. I think new and more and better and faster tools are great. If I can build a tool to build better tools, HOLY FUCK, that's awesome. But, I'm still a tool using monkey.

the point is, the singularity will happen when the tool becomes larger than the monkey, so to say, the monkey becomes the tool's tool.

at least that's one possibility.

but obviously, it has to be like something unlike we have ever seen or known, which makes your comparisons to previous inventions, tools and revolutions invalid as an argument: per definition our history of tools/revolutions is a lower limit on the singularity (since it surpasses all by at least an order of magnitude), but your argument "previous revolutions didnt change monkeys that much" hinges on history/revolutions being an upper limit or at least of the same magnitude as the singularity.

ok that's not an argument that it will happen, just an argument against your argument

that it will change the fundamental basic human? depends on what will happen. if we all become batteries to power the Matrix, I'd say that changes the fundamental basic human, but if we "just" go into a hyperspeed mega information novelty trip, maybe it won't

but the point is, (per definition) you can't tell what happens afterwards. so maybe we get absorbed into the superconsciousness of awesome, or maybe we don't and have to battle terminators and shit, we can't tell. cause the singularity is defined as a moment after which you can't tell what society will look like anymore

that's why it's IMO not very interesting to talk about what happens after the singularity (because you can't say), but a discussion about the singularity should focus on whether we will ever get there, or what possible shapes the path to it can take.

personally, I'd say whether we get there or not, depends on whether we survive this (half?) century, without being plunged back into the stone age. which, given increase of global epidemics (swine flu's the first that actually hits big. what if two hit in one winter?), climate change (whether we caused it or not--new cloud types for craps sake!) and perhaps to some extent the economic crisis (not on its own, but may help in pushing us over the edge).

buuuut if we manage that without too many setbacks and just continue on our current scientific invention trip, with this information technology thingy--we can fit an entire library, on a STAMP for fucks sake, not a book, not an encyclopedia, a library.

[Arafelis]

Something about the obsessive/compulsive need to correct other people's spelling, grammar, and requiring everyone to adhere to his definitions of words, going off on a tangent crusade about those definitions, if needed.

Recognizing the irony, I still have to say  .  Except when people attribute something to me (like you're doing now) that I have not said, I believe I limit my corrections to Kai and places where they have been requested.  And yes, I do require people to attribute my definitions to words when responding to my use of those words.  There should be nothing surprising about that.

As for Kai, who really ought to be requesting corrections anyway, I consider that a public service.

It will reduce the continous mocking and improve communication.

I'm curious what makes you think that.  The only people I can possibly imagine being less precise in language improving my communication with are people who don't have anything particularly interesting to communicate anyway, or who are so deeply opinionated that language precision is hardly the primary barrier.  And the mockery of such people sounds sweet indeed.

As far as I can tell, my style of communication has never seriously impeded my conversations with you, Ratatosk, Telarus, Cramulus, Cainad, Enki-][, or TGRR, whom I consider some of the most intelligent and interesting people presently on the PD forums (regardless of their opinions of myself or one another; and in one case regardless of my personal opinion of them).  In the cases where miscommunications have occurred and been resolved with those individuals, it was when language precision was increased, not decreased.

but the point is, (per definition) you can't tell what happens afterwards.

Conjecture is possible and interesting.  For instance, one of the relatively likely outcomes that hasn't been brought up is that we will engineer a child life-form that will be completely uninterested in us -- perhaps even unaware of us.  What would the possible reprecussions of that be?  Examining these possibilities provides us, ideally, with avenues for investigation and innovation, and at worst with interesting (to some) conversation topics.

[Triple Zero]

because it has impeded communication. i cannot speak for the others, but for myself, I find myself rather reluctant to continue a discussion with you because they get soooo tedious after a while.

further, because you consider miscommunications resolved because language precision increased, does not mean a lot of other miscommunications ensued for the same reason.

plus, it appears this language precision in most cases is increased for your sole benefit, not that of others. hence the tediousness.

you may think it benefits the discussion as a whole, but trust me, it doesnt. I am a lot like that, IRL. and so is one of my best friends. and in some way, also my father. experiencing such behaviour from an external perspective taught me it is incredibly annoying and pushed myself towards making an effort to summarize and streamline conversation somewhat, instead of stopping and pounding upon every roadblock you hit until it's out of the way. yes that is hard, but I feel it's only fair that I keep my brain-hiccups to myself and not burden others with it.

on the whole, how often do you resolve a conversation making your point, versus some party losing interest because the topic has drifted off into some insignificant detail of an insignificant detail without one ever getting to state their main point?

[Kai]

Something about the obsessive/compulsive need to correct other people's spelling, grammar, and requiring everyone to adhere to his definitions of words, going off on a tangent crusade about those definitions, if needed.

Recognizing the irony, I still have to say  .  Except when people attribute something to me (like you're doing now) that I have not said, I believe I limit my corrections to Kai and places where they have been requested.  And yes, I do require people to attribute my definitions to words when responding to my use of those words.  There should be nothing surprising about that.

As for Kai, who really ought to be requesting corrections anyway, I consider that a public service.

You just keep telling yourself that.

[bds]

Yeah, I 'gree with Trips. Your incessant "correcting" of other people's posts is... Annoying, to say the least.

And, for the record, I turn my mobile off for about 8 hours a day.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The first issue I have with The Singularity is the singular nature of its most vocal proponents.

multi-larity? polylarity? high-larity?

If the economy keeps to current trends, it will be Po' larity.

I have yet to see a credible argument that any Singularity will actually change the fundamental basic human.... there may be new tools to help us live longer, move faster, think better... but all of those exist today and We're Still Human. I love the idea of a Singularity... I hope one day that we reach the point where technology is moving so fast, that we never know what new and exciting things will happen. I think new and more and better and faster tools are great. If I can build a tool to build better tools, HOLY FUCK, that's awesome. But, I'm still a tool using monkey.

the point is, the singularity will happen when the tool becomes larger than the monkey, so to say, the monkey becomes the tool's tool.

Yes... unfortunately every book, essay, rant, manifesto and discussion I've encountered on the subject posits the most absurd aspects of science fiction to get the 'larger tool'. Perhaps someday we'll invent a tool that invents a tool that invents the Matrix and enslaves humans... but thats a long fucking jump in logic to presume such a thing is possible, let alone likely.

As I said though, a lot of my skepticism comes from interacting with some prominent Transhumanists who can't seem to figure out FTP or basic web functionality... yet the pontificate endlessly on what Technology WILL be in the future. They don't grok it today, but they know about tomorrow, and quite often their tomorrow looks far more like science fiction than a reasonable, probable or even rational assumption about technology.

at least that's one possibility.

but obviously, it has to be like something unlike we have ever seen or known, which makes your comparisons to previous inventions, tools and revolutions invalid as an argument: per definition our history of tools/revolutions is a lower limit on the singularity (since it surpasses all by at least an order of magnitude), but your argument "previous revolutions didnt change monkeys that much" hinges on history/revolutions being an upper limit or at least of the same magnitude as the singularity.

ok that's not an argument that it will happen, just an argument against your argument

I can get on board with aspects of that argument. That is, I see technology getting to the point where technology beget technology... where a guy on smart drugs develops a new kind of network which allows a bunch of kids who are very smart due to genetic selection to develop an awesome neural network which figures out how to improve itself. Etc etc etc

I think, however, the debate jumps the shark once it tries to define "human" by the nature of its tools, even if they're really cool self-improving ones.

that it will change the fundamental basic human? depends on what will happen. if we all become batteries to power the Matrix, I'd say that changes the fundamental basic human, but if we "just" go into a hyperspeed mega information novelty trip, maybe it won't

but the point is, (per definition) you can't tell what happens afterwards. so maybe we get absorbed into the superconsciousness of awesome, or maybe we don't and have to battle terminators and shit, we can't tell. cause the singularity is defined as a moment after which you can't tell what society will look like anymore

I agree with your last line 100%, the Singularity, if it happens, will absolutely mean that society is gonna be up in the air. But then, thats precisely what's happened with all the other big tool revolutions. Iron, Bronze, Steel, Steam, Industry etc all fundamentally changed society in ways no one expected, or could predict. Hell, I'd argue that the technical advances over the past 20 years have done that... the bit that I can't get behind, is that somehow we won't be humans in that society. Again, it just seems like semantic fappery on the label human (and as we've discussed before, it appears to be a 'transcendental' sort of philosophy to me.

that's why it's IMO not very interesting to talk about what happens after the singularity (because you can't say), but a discussion about the singularity should focus on whether we will ever get there, or what possible shapes the path to it can take.

Indeed, I much prefer to look at current tech and guess as to what might Bring On the Singularity... rather than argue about what happens afterward. Indeed, depending on what tech brings the Singularity, may very well answer the question of human/metahuman on its own. If the Singularity is AI that can improve itself and create new tech, then humans will still be, human. If the Singularity is DNA manipulation at will, maybe you've got an argument.

[quote[
personally, I'd say whether we get there or not, depends on whether we survive this (half?) century, without being plunged back into the stone age. which, given increase of global epidemics (swine flu's the first that actually hits big. what if two hit in one winter?), climate change (whether we caused it or not--new cloud types for craps sake!) and perhaps to some extent the economic crisis (not on its own, but may help in pushing us over the edge).

buuuut if we manage that without too many setbacks and just continue on our current scientific invention trip, with this information technology thingy--we can fit an entire library, on a STAMP for fucks sake, not a book, not an encyclopedia, a library.
[/quote]

Agreed with all of this 

[fomenter]

pompous and arrogant arguments carefully crafted  using philosophical terminology covering minutia are (sorry to say ) of no value outside of academia, they are of value only to arrogant ands pompous philosophy professors attempting to impress other arrogant and pompous philosophy professors in an effort to secure tenure in academia. 

while having a passing knowledge of the terminology and methods of philosophy are of some value (many if not most pd'rs have such a passing knowledge ) what works is ideas and forms of communication that have real world application most of us have been out in the real world working, living, fucking, surviving (many for longer than you have been living) and have developed a way of thinking and communicating that reflects it,
if your sense of importance is derived from some ability to nitpick what people say on the Internet .. well...its not even original you are not the first (or last) parents house living, philosophy student to come along and act superior based on an ability to communicate in a manner that is useless outside of the tiny little world of academic philosophy.

[Thurnez Isa]

you talking about Arafelis?

I stopped reading his stuff
Just like DK, Bhode and other pompous asses he feels the need to write a fucking novel to say.. absolutely nothing of any interest