I think technology will pick up where the surrealists could not follow in their main goal. Technology will transform the mind and all that resembles it. It's already done so when compared with how we used to live.
Technology seems to dictate a huge amount of our culture and lifestyle. More than I thought when I had this forum in mind. Name one activity or aspect of life that is not altered or caused by modern technology.
And of course I mean YOUR life, not S'wada in Djambouti.
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 11, 2008, 07:14:59 PM
Name one activity or aspect of life that is not altered or caused by modern technology.
Gardening. Unless you count hosewater as "modern technology".
Sex, excretion, and other elementary bodily functions.
Knitting.
Most of my other hobbies.
I mean, people CAN use modern technology to alter the way they do just about anything, but that doesn't mean it's necessary or even typical.
I agree with Nigel on the point that it's still possible to avoid it in ways and in part. Still, my own way of life simply would not be plausible without the Internet. When I have connection problems, I literally feel like I'm missing a vital organ, or a part of my brain.
Felix, I think you might be a bit too optimistic... Technology already has the potential to pick up the surrealists' goal, but it seems more likely to either destroy mankind or make life really, really boring forever.
I didn't start with all that, did I?
Obviously it often sounds like I mean it to seem that way, but in this case I'm really just going as far as trying to show how alien out lives must look to someone who knows nothing of electricity.
Agreed... I love the Internet, I'm grateful for it, because it makes the simplicity of my way of life possible. For me, a typical day would be taking the kids to school, goofing on the internet, making some beads, picking up the kids from school, walking to the store, making dinner, putting some beads in my online store, doing a bit of shipping with online postage, and then goofing on the internet some more or watching a movie.
I'm very familiar with the low-tech life because of how I grew up (crazy mom moved us to a wood-heated A-frame on an island when I was 12, I did a lot of huntering and gathering and didn't go to school or have friends) but I do like the high-tech stuff. A happy medium for me would be more or less what I have now, which is a mostly low-tech life + internets.
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 11, 2008, 10:05:10 PM
I didn't start with all that, did I?
Obviously it often sounds like I mean it to seem that way, but in this case I'm really just going as far as trying to show how alien out lives must look to someone who knows nothing of electricity.
Well, you asked us to name one thing... after that, speculation is free.
Granted. I guess I was thinking too broadly, in larger aspects of life such as friendship, business, eating, clothing, schooling, talking, loving, etc.
Quote from: Nigel on February 11, 2008, 10:10:03 PM
A happy medium for me would be more or less what I have now, which is a mostly low-tech life + internets.
It is my dream to become an ancient and gnarled Chinese man, tending the rice paddies by day and porn trolling the internets by night...
One can only dream. *whistful sigh*
My dream is to build a castle with lodestone magnets built into the walls. There would be a big sign above the door:
"YUOR CELL PHONE CAN FUCK OFF"
It's my dream to be really rich and put heavy, permanent sculptures in public places, and see how long it takes the city to figure out what's going on.
I've noticed a lot of atavistic themes in society lately, now that you mention it. I think people are on the verge of being sick of technology everywhere.
It takes taking some things for granted before you realize how sick you are of them, and technology is offering, or at elast facilitating that.
Being reachable any time and anywhere is a good example of this.
I thik this makes people value peace, quiet and isolation more, in some time. (Or my inner curmudgeon has jsut found validation :wink:)
There's that, along with the advent of modern society recognizing introvertedness as a distinct personality trait, and they're learning that it takes solitude sometimes. Knowlege is sort of crystallizing everything.
Quote from: Pope Naughty Nasturtiums on February 11, 2008, 11:25:57 PMQuote from: Nigel on February 11, 2008, 10:10:03 PMA happy medium for me would be more or less what I have now, which is a mostly low-tech life + internets.
It is my dream to become an ancient and gnarled Chinese man, tending the rice paddies by day and porn trolling the internets by night...
One can only dream. *whistful sigh*
how about Thailand?
life's cheap there, and they have internet. more internets than the Chinese do, in fact :)
I think they were hoping for a rather less 3rd world locale.
It seems today in modern society, with everything being mass-produce and requiring to be plugged in and wired up, that people eventually crave a sort of authenticity.
This search for authentic experience, outside of a plastic and artificial world, seems unique to developed nations. What other countries see for example, as merely mundane daily life, we see as "quaint" and "ideal" and "rustic". It's sort of like when people see those shows on TV about remote tribes in Africa, and exclaim to themselves "Oh! What a peaceful life they must live, at one with nature, without the woes of modern life, taxes, and the stress of constantly having to manage my iPhone! Oh, woe is me!" The low-tech life is seen as more attractive, while in reality those tribes are constantly at struggle to even scrap out a living, and will probably die out of cholera.
Maybe it's a sort of common nostalgia, maybe it's a case of "the grass is always greener".
Maybe people just don't like taxes, police, pollution, mean city people, commuting, shitty junk food, overpriced mediocre food, and stiflingly small living spaces.
Quote from: Cainad on February 12, 2008, 12:31:03 AM
My dream is to build a castle with lodestone magnets built into the walls.
I initially read this as "lodestone midgets" and it made my night.
:lulz:
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 12, 2008, 04:43:58 AM
Maybe people just don't like taxes, police, pollution, mean city people, commuting, shitty junk food, overpriced mediocre food, and stiflingly small living spaces.
They don't. I sure as hell don't.
Things have a way of looking MUCH better than they actually are when you 're in need of them and they're in yuor face. Cities are very good at putting things in your face.
A term for it read awhile back was the "Ghetto Tax". It's when you get things in an over priced, un - sustainable manner in order to get them quickly. Like when you have no bank account, so you pay for a check cashing service, or have no car so you pay for a Taxi to get 2 miles to buy groceries, and so forth.
Like Jim Bowie said, "it's a crooked game, but it's the only game in town."
This is both failure of society to NOT oppress people, and failure of people to have the reserve and discipline to walk around the traps.
Relating back to the topic, technology in itself can be both a help, and a thing people chase after. Fun shiny tools, but traps if you let them be.
Technology can also be the trap itself.
"Anything that can help humanity can harm it."
In the 50s, they used to perform lobotomies and electro-shock therapy in order to change the ways people thought. To make sure they only thought in socially accepable ways. The Soviets did the same, using drugs and torture to 'break' people so that they would not resist the Bolshevik regime.
They failed, but only because their theories were wrong. People are not blank slates, mentally, and while such treatment shatters the mind, it doesn't change the basic forms beneath it. People would be disabled, suffer from debilitating psychosomatic symptoms, have permament memory loss...essentially be unable to cope within modern society.
Technology would serve a better purpose of finding out why people change their minds, the limits of such changes, why the brain rejects being 're-written' etc to see to what extent it is possible to transform the human mind before any more attempts at changing it do happen.
Quote from: Nigel on February 11, 2008, 08:31:43 PM
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 11, 2008, 07:14:59 PM
Name one activity or aspect of life that is not altered or caused by modern technology.
...excretion....
what, you just poop in the middle of the yard?
:lulz:
Like hell, that lawn was mowed by technology.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on February 12, 2008, 10:22:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 11, 2008, 08:31:43 PM
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 11, 2008, 07:14:59 PM
Name one activity or aspect of life that is not altered or caused by modern technology.
...excretion....
what, you just poop in the middle of the yard?
:lulz:
How recent is your cutoff for "modern" technology? The flush toilet has been around for several hundred years.
But the scaled manufacturing methods for making the parts inside of it haven't.
The only way that affects my life is that when the mechanism inside my current toilet finally give up the ghost, I will be able to replace them for $12 instead of $40. That impacts my pocketbook, not my day to day functioning.
Are you familiar with the parts inside a typical toilet? Bone-simple. It's a couple of valves, a tube, and a float.
Yeah, but the point is that if everything had to be manufactured the old fashioned way, everytyhing would cost way too much to live the way we do.
Edit: You think a shitter would be too expensive, computers are right out.
The whole point is that it's mass-information, economies of scale, and technology that pervade the way we live and think.
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 13, 2008, 05:43:29 PM
Yeah, but the point is that if everything had to be manufactured the old fashioned way, everytyhing would cost way too much to live the way we do.
Edit: You think a shitter would be too expensive, computers are right out.
Not true. Remember Ford? The mechanization and offshoring of all manufacture is tanking our economy. If manufactured goods were still made the long slow way by hand, they would cost a great deal more because they would require more labor by more laborers. I don't think I need to go on, it's an old principle that most people are familiar with.
And you making the link from shitter to computers is a straw man in this particular discussion.
Pretty much, but it it illustrates my point easily enough. And mechanization doesn't hurt the economy, it's just outsourcing that does. And outsourcing is something any sane government would inhibit to some degree, imo.
Class, bbs.
I don't think technology helps or harms society... it's just a bunch of tools. Communication is still communication, if we use technology to communicate faster... its just a tool. Making stuff is still making stuff, but technology can help make it cheaper, faster and more consistent. Of course, technology could be used to interrupt communication, or to impede the making of stuff, if its in the hands of people willing to use it in that manner.
Bush may spy on our phone calls, but Abe Lincoln read our mail... what's the real difference?
The difference is enormous. You couldn't hold a conversation over the pony express. Not very easily, at any rate. You couldn't live the way you do at all without modern science. You wouldn't be wearing manufactured clothes with zippers that you picked out of thousands and thousands of garments to suit your taste, and you couldn't have music wherever you liked, eat whatever cuisine you can think of, find people who are into the same things as you, or even laugh at the same jokes, as a lot of humor these days is somewhat connected to the internet. Information itself is no longer something for scribes and the privileged, it can be found anywhere for the taking. With diligent self-study you can save yourself several paychecks in remedial college classes, or learn a whole new hobby on a whim.
I could go on, but it'd be tl;dr.
"just a tool" sounds almost like an oxymoron to me. Tools change everything. Tools change the way we think, the way we live, absolutely everything about our lives.
Agreed, and I'll raise you a "our minds extend to become the tool".
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 13, 2008, 05:54:04 PM
Pretty much, but it it illustrates my point easily enough. And mechanization doesn't hurt the economy, it's just outsourcing that does. And outsourcing is something any sane government would inhibit to some degree, imo.
Class, bbs.
But that STILL has nothing to do with your original question, or my answer, or my defense of my answer.
I know several people who don't have computers. Their lives are actually pretty similar to mine, other than that. I mean, of course computers have changed a lot about the way people communicate, and at this point they're pretty ubiquitous, but fundamentally, life itself remains relatively unchanged by them.
Cars, on the other hand, really make a huge difference. Not just in individual lives, but in society.
Sure the brain is just a tool... my point wasn't that tools don't make our lives easier... but that tools, in and of themselves are not necessarily either good nor bad... just tools. Some people see changes in society and blame them on technology... (OMGZ teh peeples are stupider because they watch the television!!!!!) rather than recognizing that these are the yahoos that would be wasting their time in other ways were the television not there. To me it seems like they confuse the symptom with the cause.
Lincoln and Bush both did the same Bad Thing, technology had little to do with the badness or the possibility of badness. And while phone conversations and letters are in a different format, I would argue that reading a series of letters written by someone living in an age when that was the primary form of communication would be analogous to listening in on todays phone conversations, emails and IM's... except it would probably be easier to pick specific targets and get absolutely everything they communicated.
I agree that our lives are affected in some ways by technology. But technology isn't a trap, evil or anything else... its just a large label that gets applied to all sorts of different tools. Tools always affect how we live, but technology no more so than other tool revolutions like Steam, Bronze, Iron, etc. I think its important that we don't get to excited by (or paranoid of) technology.
Quote from: Nigel on February 13, 2008, 08:24:52 PM
I know several people who don't have computers. Their lives are actually pretty similar to mine, other than that. I mean, of course computers have changed a lot about the way people communicate, and at this point they're pretty ubiquitous, but fundamentally, life itself remains relatively unchanged by them.
Cars, on the other hand, really make a huge difference. Not just in individual lives, but in society.
I'm talking about changes that pervade more deeply than what you buy or what you do for a living. We have a different mindset than previous generations because what we are is made of bits and pieces of society's memes that just didn't exist in previous ages. We're made of different information, and a lot more of it. Most of the information inside our heads is garbage like television and advertisements, but there's also a lot more useful information in our heads these days too.
As for cars, it's true. They have changed everything from where we can go, what we can import and export, to the very air we breathe. Asthma was not a big deal to us before cars, and neither was the environment. There are literally more cars in america than there are people, and you cannot meaningfully live in our society without depending on them. They're a quintessential example of technology changing our lives.
Quote from: Nigel on February 13, 2008, 05:48:28 PMThe mechanization and offshoring of all manufacture is tanking our economy. If manufactured goods were still made the long slow way by hand, they would cost a great deal more because they would require more labor by more laborers. I don't think I need to go on, it's an old principle that most people are familiar with.
When it comes down to it, what's tanking our economy is bad business and worse politics, and has nothing to do with manufacturing and only a very little amount to do with offshore manufacturing itself.
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 13, 2008, 09:36:46 PM
I'm talking about changes that pervade more deeply than what you buy or what you do for a living. We have a different mindset than previous generations because what we are is made of bits and pieces of society's memes that just didn't exist in previous ages.
But, isn't that true of every age, when compared to the ones before it? Otherwise, why would there be a new age? People in the 1800's had much more access to literature and education than previous generations. People in the 1400's found themselves free of the Church for the first time in a thousand years, giving rise to the Enlightenment. Different mindset, different memes.
I guess I attribute the changes to humans and the tools just happen to be what we use to evoke change.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 13, 2008, 09:45:20 PM
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 13, 2008, 09:36:46 PM
I'm talking about changes that pervade more deeply than what you buy or what you do for a living. We have a different mindset than previous generations because what we are is made of bits and pieces of society's memes that just didn't exist in previous ages.
But, isn't that true of every age, when compared to the ones before it? Otherwise, why would there be a new age? People in the 1800's had much more access to literature and education than previous generations. People in the 1400's found themselves free of the Church for the first time in a thousand years, giving rise to the Enlightenment. Different mindset, different memes.
I guess I attribute the changes to humans and the tools just happen to be what we use to evoke change.
It IS true of every age, and the exciting thing is that it's been going on long enough to discern what's going to happen next, broadly speaking.
no.
we still can't discern what's going to happen next, and we probably never will.
look at any past prediction of the future, and observe how 99% of them were dead wrong. there are no flying cars, yet everybody has a computer (instead of the stated "i guess a country will only need a couple of tens of them"), nobody in their right mind uses virtual reality, we are not living in outer space, we totally failed to become particularly more enlightened than we were, nobody predicted the internet or mobile text messaging .. etc etc need i go on?
these are quite recent predictions of the future, only a number of decades old, and most of them have turned out to be dead WRONG.
i see no reason at all to assume we have suddenly grown in our predictive power.
(and in fact, reading more of Nicholas Taleb, i see a lot of reasons to assume lack of predictive power is hardwired into ourselves and our reality, and not changing any time soon)
which doesn't mean we can't dream, don't get me wrong.
How much do you want to bet that information will become intelligent and aware?
How is that related to what 000 asked?
I also take offence to the idea that we have a different mindset, because I don't think we do. There is nothing to suggest physical changes in our brains from previous generations. Culturally, we may have adapted in some ways, but culture is about the most flexible part of a person's personality, and often does not override more basic human behaviour, such as territorialism, desire to spread genes, basic survival etc etc. Culture is the icing on the cake as it were, on a very basic level, we are the same creatures we were 50, 100, 500 years ago. It can change how many of those basic drives are expressed, but it doesn't stop them from existing.
The above remark was intended to illustrate a counterexample to 000's post.
You can't separate cultural/intellectual behaviours from basic animal behaviours, in that they correlate into how we behave in practice. It's not apparent with cultures like ours that are milder and more mutable, but cultural reactions can overpower animal reactions in a lot of cases.
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.
Quote from: Nigel on February 11, 2008, 08:31:43 PM
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 11, 2008, 07:14:59 PM
Name one activity or aspect of life that is not altered or caused by modern technology.
Gardening. Unless you count hosewater as "modern technology".
Sex, excretion, and other elementary bodily functions.
Knitting.
Most of my other hobbies.
Unless all you use is your bare hands for those things, you are likely using tools (trowel, pots, KYlube, toilets, knitting needles) which were manufactured using modern methods and materials. Thus, "modern technology"
Because technology can mean anything from a flint-knapped clovis point to a superconducting microchip. And by modern I'm assuming you mean within the last 20-30 years or so.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2008, 12:43:16 AM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Symbols only have whatever meaning you wish to give to them.
Just a few things I wanted to throw out there before we get existential:
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2008, 01:39:26 AM
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.
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 01:59:43 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 01:59:43 AM
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. :fnord:
What happens when the tools start doing the work themselves? What happens when they stop asking permission?
There's your social change.
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 05:09:26 PM
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? :lulz: :lulz:
I haven't watched that since I was a kid.
Matteroffact, gfys. What kind of counterargument is that?
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 05:21:30 PM
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
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.
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 05:52:29 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
It's hard for me to participate meaningfully in a discussion when the premise of the argument shifts every time the OP posts.
Felix, every time someone gives you a meaningful answer, you try to discredit it by changing the terms of your argument... which isn't really productive. Why not instead acknowledge their argument, THEN present either the ways in which you disagree in the context of your earlier argument, THEN present new related thoughts?
It's just frustrating to discuss anything rationally when you keep introducing different, tangentially-related arguments as answers to other people's perspectives. For instance, the massive and illogical shift from "technology affects every aspect of life" to "In the future, information will be intelligent and we will have self-replicating machines". WHUT?
Thread drift, Nigel. I think the problem is that I'm just discussing and you're trying to debate.
I really do love talking about all this stuff, but I can't really restrict myself to just one point that easily.
I'm not talking about thread drift though, I'm talking about replies that are phrased as rebuttals, but make no logical sense as rebuttals.
I'm having a hard time picking up where you left off, actually. It's difficult to keep track of several rebuts at once in a thread, and I'm amazed roger ever had the attention span for it. I'll try harder. Could you indicate what I'm to rebut, please?
Oh, it's not that you are supposed to rebut anything, it's that what often appear to be rebuttals are apparently not rebuttals at all, but introductions of new thoughts, but because they are phrased as direct replies to other people's posts (and often start out as rebuttals but then go in some other direction) it becomes difficult to follow any kind of cohesive discussion.
Yeah, I can ramble and stuff. I try not to, but it's hard. My mind really does work like a grape stomp, you know? I just fill it with stuff, work it all together, then store the stuff for a while then something delicious comes out.
I don't mind rambling discussions at all, I'm just suggesting separating the rebuttals from the rambling so that your replies don't come across as "you're wrong and the reason is <totally unrelated argument>" so that other people (well, in this case just me) don't make the mistake of thinking you're engaging in a really illogical debate and try to defend their position, and then give up and wander off. I don't actually like debate much at all, but if I think someone is telling me I'm wrong I'll usually feel obligated to try to defend my position.
It's just a suggestion though, from ADD girl.
I'm not sure I follow either POV here. I've been working under a few assumptions with this sub - forum that seem functional so far.
1. This is brainstorming. Not every idea will be finished.
2. Arguements will not be lost nor won. Good luck even getting them acknowledged.
3. If an idea you've thrown out is left unadressed, there is nothing the hive mind has to add.
Your results may vary.
Quote from: Richter on February 15, 2008, 08:44:46 PM
I'm not sure I follow either POV here. I've been working under a few assumptions with this sub - forum that seem functional so far.
1. This is brainstorming. Not every idea will be finished.
2. Arguements will not be lost nor won. Good luck even getting them acknowledged.
3. If an idea you've thrown out is left unadressed, there is nothing the hive mind has to add.
Your results may vary.
And here I was thinking that those points applied to the whole of the Internets ;-)
LAWL!!
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 01:59:43 AM
So you're saying tools are just labor saving devices like always, more or less?
no.
i was just saying that we are unable to predict the cultural impact of new technology and tools.
you can dream and fantasize all you want, but just take a look at my examples (and i can continue adding to that list a lot longer than you can come up with "counterexamples"), and see how it's not useful at all.
it is useful, maybe, to make new technology, but playing the "what if" game is fruitless.
for example, this Artifical Intelligence that you are so certain will appear Any Day Now, i can guarantee you two things:
1) it will take a completely different form than you are now expecting -- also because i strongly get the idea that you have no idea what the field of AI has accomplished so far, is researching right now, and which way it is trying to head. let me tell you this, they are not looking for a "talking computer".
2) whatever form this AI will take, we are in NO position to make
any predictions about its cultural and societal impact when it arrives. which is why i think musings like these are a waste of time. instead i'd be better off improving my Machine Learning algorithms (next week .. hopefully)
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 15, 2008, 08:59:49 PM
Quote from: Richter on February 15, 2008, 08:44:46 PM
I'm not sure I follow either POV here. I've been working under a few assumptions with this sub - forum that seem functional so far.
1. This is brainstorming. Not every idea will be finished.
2. Arguements will not be lost nor won. Good luck even getting them acknowledged.
3. If an idea you've thrown out is left unadressed, there is nothing the hive mind has to add.
Your results may vary.
And here I was thinking that those points applied to the whole of the Internets ;-)
LAWL!!
Some parts of the internet think they are serious buisiness, it seems. :lol:
Still, you're ridding the correct motorcylcel there Rat.
Quote from: triple zero on February 15, 2008, 09:06:21 PM
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 01:59:43 AM
So you're saying tools are just labor saving devices like always, more or less?
no.
i was just saying that we are unable to predict the cultural impact of new technology and tools.
you can dream and fantasize all you want, but just take a look at my examples (and i can continue adding to that list a lot longer than you can come up with "counterexamples"), and see how it's not useful at all.
it is useful, maybe, to make new technology, but playing the "what if" game is fruitless.
for example, this Artifical Intelligence that you are so certain will appear Any Day Now, i can guarantee you two things:
1) it will take a completely different form than you are now expecting -- also because i strongly get the idea that you have no idea what the field of AI has accomplished so far, is researching right now, and which way it is trying to head. let me tell you this, they are not looking for a "talking computer".
2) whatever form this AI will take, we are in NO position to make any predictions about its cultural and societal impact when it arrives. which is why i think musings like these are a waste of time. instead i'd be better off improving my Machine Learning algorithms (next week .. hopefully)
Zoooom goes TripZip and his snazzy motorcycle!!
On top of all that, the form that AI will take 9if it ever arrives) will be heavily influenced by our society. Consider how much work is going into making new robots "look" human. Good AI could fit in a box and do what it needed to do. However, such technology wouldn't be accepted by society (so AI researchers have found), thus they are constantly trying to make AI fit in a shell that appears more Human, even if it means they must constrain what they can do with AI.
It's sort of like Wearable Computers. When I built my first wearable, it involved an old camcorder viewfinder, a belt with battery packs, and a PC_104 system and a small clicker keyboard. The potential was impressive (google Steve Mann for details)... but wearables didn't catch on. Instead, computers turned into little handheld devices that were attached to the hip.
Society didn't accept cyborg looking systems.
but AI aren't robots. robots are just machines, mechanical. you don't go developing complex software like AI straight into a mechanical device. something that is able to reason, self-aware, etc is imo much more likely to first appear on a computer, without any mechanical limbs attached.
and if you want me to make a guess, but don't hold me to it :) i think it's likely that any self aware AI would sooner come into existence by accident, than by design. just somebody hooking the right systems together and crosses the threshold, is what i expect, if it's gonna happen.
Quote from: Richter on February 15, 2008, 08:44:46 PM
I'm not sure I follow either POV here. I've been working under a few assumptions with this sub - forum that seem functional so far.
1. This is brainstorming. Not every idea will be finished.
2. Arguements will not be lost nor won. Good luck even getting them acknowledged.
3. If an idea you've thrown out is left unadressed, there is nothing the hive mind has to add.
Your results may vary.
The only thing I'm getting at is that it's hard for me to respond meaningfully to certain types of presentation, and one of them is "No, you're wrong because (insert unrelated brainstorming). The first part makes it hard for me to respond to the second part. This is just something I'm throwing out there, in the interest of communication and blah blah etc.
Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2008, 04:45:37 AM
Quote from: Richter on February 15, 2008, 08:44:46 PM
I'm not sure I follow either POV here. I've been working under a few assumptions with this sub - forum that seem functional so far.
1. This is brainstorming. Not every idea will be finished.
2. Arguements will not be lost nor won. Good luck even getting them acknowledged.
3. If an idea you've thrown out is left unadressed, there is nothing the hive mind has to add.
Your results may vary.
The only thing I'm getting at is that it's hard for me to respond meaningfully to certain types of presentation, and one of them is "No, you're wrong because (insert unrelated brainstorming). The first part makes it hard for me to respond to the second part. This is just something I'm throwing out there, in the interest of communication and blah blah etc.
And I sort of find it hard to respond to that. Instead of explaining what you meant you're just repeating yourself. Try again.
Quote from: triple zero on February 15, 2008, 09:06:21 PM
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 01:59:43 AM
So you're saying tools are just labor saving devices like always, more or less?
no.
i was just saying that we are unable to predict the cultural impact of new technology and tools.
you can dream and fantasize all you want, but just take a look at my examples (and i can continue adding to that list a lot longer than you can come up with "counterexamples"), and see how it's not useful at all.
it is useful, maybe, to make new technology, but playing the "what if" game is fruitless.
for example, this Artifical Intelligence that you are so certain will appear Any Day Now, i can guarantee you two things:
1) it will take a completely different form than you are now expecting -- also because i strongly get the idea that you have no idea what the field of AI has accomplished so far, is researching right now, and which way it is trying to head. let me tell you this, they are not looking for a "talking computer".
2) whatever form this AI will take, we are in NO position to make any predictions about its cultural and societal impact when it arrives. which is why i think musings like these are a waste of time. instead i'd be better off improving my Machine Learning algorithms (next week .. hopefully)
1) The Popsci Predictions Exchange uses a stock exchange format for betting on predictions, and is highly successful when compared to any unilateral prediction by any author. Google it.
2)The "what if" game is not relevant. I may mention works in progress but we're talking about the
current direction of technology's role in society.
3) You're really rude to just assume I have no idea what I'm talking about when you say I don't know what the field of AI has accomplished. I don't know half of it, but I do make an effort, thanks. You're just making appeals to authority because you're known here as a technology specialist.
4) If you think this thread is a waste of time, why are you still here?
Quote from: triple zero on February 15, 2008, 11:07:04 PM
but AI aren't robots. robots are just machines, mechanical. you don't go developing complex software like AI straight into a mechanical device. something that is able to reason, self-aware, etc is imo much more likely to first appear on a computer, without any mechanical limbs attached.
and if you want me to make a guess, but don't hold me to it :) i think it's likely that any self aware AI would sooner come into existence by accident, than by design. just somebody hooking the right systems together and crosses the threshold, is what i expect, if it's gonna happen.
Hooking the right systems together and crosses the threshold? I'd be generous to assume something is lost in translation here, but you're fluent enough for me to think you just said AI will be an accident. And you call me unscientific? What's this threshold? There's no threshold for consciousness, it's an analog phenomenon.
My current theory of AI is that to be truly conscious you must have an array of physical sensors that feed constant data into a behaviour algorithm. The model for intelligence simply does not need consciousness to be intelligent, and all intelligence is intrinsic to behaviour and how it reacts to new experiences and internal stimuli like abstract calculations such as emotions. I could go on, because this has a high mindshare with me.
To address your main point, AI isn't robots
right now, but it will inevitaby be so in my opinion because intelligence without a physical presence is incapable of doing real work, which is what we want robots for in the first place. And in a physically enabled intelligence of any type it must have sensors to understand the world it's interfacing with, so it must de facto have senses. And there you have it; my prediction is that robotic AI will occur because there is money in it (real work to be done) and they will be governed by behavioural intelligence which must require sensors and will THUSLY be comparatively conscious in the same way humans are.
And strong AI will perforce be MADE on a computer, because broccoli and cheese doesn't process binary code very fast. So yes, it WILL occur first on a computer lacking robotics. However, I am highly suspect of any robotic AI that was programmed on a computer without some kind of physical interface to train on. I think any kind of useful strong AI with a robotic form will have to be given the form, then trained with algorithmic learning processes to attain a level of control that makes it useful. The future of AI is in robotics because if it remains purely digital then it has far fewer ways of being a profit to it's creators. You're just not following the money if you can't see that.
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 16, 2008, 05:19:53 AM
1) The Popsci Predictions Exchange uses a stock exchange format for betting on predictions, and is highly successful when compared to any unilateral prediction by any author. Google it.
interesting, i did. unfortunately the server seemed to be in the process of breaking down just as i went there :)
http://ppx.popsci.com/
this place, right?
ok it's back online, where do i see the accuracy of total predictions based on the moment they were made?
(as opposed to the moment when they appear in some successfull guy's portfolio, because that way you're reading pure survivorship bias == noise with no predictive value).
Quote2)The "what if" game is not relevant. I may mention works in progress but we're talking about the current direction of technology's role in society.
but, what direction? apart from a general vague notion of "forward" *, i don't see technology (just like evolution) moving in any particular direction.
* explicitly
not "better", "more efficient" or "faster"
Quote3) You're really rude to just assume I have no idea what I'm talking about when you say I don't know what the field of AI has accomplished. I don't know half of it, but I do make an effort, thanks. You're just making appeals to authority because you're known here as a technology specialist.
i'm really sorry felix, it wasn't my intention to be rude. it might have been a rough couple of days caused by a rough couple of weeks caused by a rough couple of years that made me just a littlebit cranky yesterday.
i don't wanna be the authority technology specialist here (though it's a nice feeling that people take my word at face-value, i would rather have a bunch of others argue me about it). i just happen to know computer programming, study something closely related to artificial intelligence (no matter the fact that my research has been at a complete standstill for over a year or so), and been coding little AI and AL applications since i was 12 or so :)
to counter that, i know hardly anything about computer hardware, robots, fixing cars or fluid dynamics. (but i do make an effort, except for fixing cars, by lack of drivers license :-P )
and with that apology, i'll split the rest of my reply into a different thread, because i'd like to keep the subject in this one about the feasibility of predictions of social impact of future technology :)
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 16, 2008, 05:19:53 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2008, 04:45:37 AM
Quote from: Richter on February 15, 2008, 08:44:46 PM
I'm not sure I follow either POV here. I've been working under a few assumptions with this sub - forum that seem functional so far.
1. This is brainstorming. Not every idea will be finished.
2. Arguements will not be lost nor won. Good luck even getting them acknowledged.
3. If an idea you've thrown out is left unadressed, there is nothing the hive mind has to add.
Your results may vary.
The only thing I'm getting at is that it's hard for me to respond meaningfully to certain types of presentation, and one of them is "No, you're wrong because (insert unrelated brainstorming). The first part makes it hard for me to respond to the second part. This is just something I'm throwing out there, in the interest of communication and blah blah etc.
And I sort of find it hard to respond to that. Instead of explaining what you meant you're just repeating yourself. Try again.
Then don't respond to it. I assume you understand my point, because I have rephrased it in terms a retard could understand, and you have not said "I do not understand." Therefore you either understand and don't care, or you understand, care, and do not wish to respond.
I could if you'd just cut out that attitude like you don't even want to communicate. Fuck, Nigel. What am I supposed to say? I understand where you're coming from with it all, but I'm just not getting through to you.
ORLY?
BE NICE!!!!
And if you can't be nice, don't just act pissy at each other... FIGHT! I mean the audience draw for Golden Showers isn't nearly as large as the audience for WWF. :fnord:
Quote from: triple zero on February 18, 2008, 02:53:29 PM
BE NICE!!!!
You know, I once heard that the word nice actually used to mean dumb. Serious.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=nice&searchmode=none
it's also a city on the coast of France that holds the european headquarters of the W3C.
:lulz:
I'm not actually being pissy, just not sure what I'm supposed to say to make my suggestion any more clear. It seemd like I had simplified it to the point that it could not be simplified any further.
I thought you might want to know that making a distinction between disagreeing with something someone says and the introduction of unrelated lines of thought would make your writing more clear and easier to respond to.
Example:
Sue says to Sally, "Green shoes are the best!"
Sally: "No way, purple shoes are better! I went for a walk yesterday and there was a field of lavender, and it was a prime habitat for butterflies and moths."
Sue: "WTF does that have to do with the color of shoes??? You are a complete freak, goodbye."
If Sally had made some sort of transition that indicated that she was moving on to a new thought, it might go something like this:
Sue: "Green shoes are the best!"
Sally: "No way, purple shoes are better! Oh, that reminds me, I went for a walk yesterday and there was a field of lavender, and it was a prime habitat for butterflies and moths."
Sue: "How neat! I wonder what other sorts of small wildlife lavender fields are habitat to?"
Your observations are noted.
Quote from: nigel
butterflies and moths
Thats what I saw when I read your post.
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c259/ElVampireSquid/Automerisiodraudtiana.jpg)
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c259/ElVampireSquid/Adeloneivaiajason.jpg)
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c259/ElVampireSquid/CopaxaDenhezi.jpg)
(lol sry threadjack)
Nah, this thread was over a page ago. Take it away. :)
gosh i wonder what else ... habitats .. moss lavender butterflies?
I like moths!
Bestest threadjack evar. :mittens:
I'd like to resurrect this thread's discussion. It seems pretty clear that the world's on the verge of a lot of technological change. The technology industry has been able to keep proprietary is now becoming open source; Really useful and impactful technology has started to trickle down to common availability, and it seems crucial to me that there's a high opportunity for gaining an edge over most by implementing the newest ideas and devices before others.
Thoughts? Am I off my nut on this one? I think not.
Quote from: Felix on April 19, 2008, 11:16:46 PM
I'd like to resurrect this thread's discussion. It seems pretty clear that the world's on the verge of a lot of technological change. The technology industry has been able to keep proprietary is now becoming open source; Really useful and impactful technology has started to trickle down to common availability, and it seems crucial to me that there's a high opportunity for gaining an edge over most by implementing the newest ideas and devices before others.
Thoughts? Am I off my nut on this one? I think not.
Innovation being the driving force of society (or one of them) is supposed to be what this country (USA) is about. It isn't, though, currently. The American Dream of having our best and brightest get to the top through "working smarter" has long since died out and the new means for attaining power is the overly simplistic idea of making generating capital and nothing more. If the rush of innovation in technology really does end up benefiting the innovators themselves (and not their managers/CEOs), we might see a resurrection of the American Dream.
Heheheh. The new money is information, material, and human lives. The CEOs of the world are going to get tired of trading money sooner than later. Money's on the way out one way or the other.
The American Dream? The Amurrican Sham, more like it.
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 19, 2008, 11:56:05 PM
Heheheh. The new money is information, material, and human lives. The CEOs of the world are going to get tired of trading money sooner than later. Money's on the way out one way or the other.
The American Dream? The Amurrican Sham, more like it.
Yet still, they flock around it, like Moths to a candle!
Hey, Sig
http://www.rdmag.com/News/2010/05/Information-Technology-Artificial-Intelligence-Probabilistic-Programming-Building-Better-Machine-Learning-Systems/
probabilistic programming, inference algorithm
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 11, 2008, 07:14:59 PM
I think technology will pick up where the surrealists could not follow in their main goal. Technology will transform the mind and all that resembles it. It's already done so when compared with how we used to live.
Technology seems to dictate a huge amount of our culture and lifestyle. More than I thought when I had this forum in mind. Name one activity or aspect of life that is not altered or caused by modern technology.
And of course I mean YOUR life, not S'wada in Djambouti.
When I am visiting my parents, pooping. My father has an outhouse and this was what I grew up with. Now I have a toilet, although that's been around since the Victorian era so I don't know if it really counts as modern.
Quote from: Sigmatic on February 13, 2008, 09:36:46 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 13, 2008, 08:24:52 PM
I know several people who don't have computers. Their lives are actually pretty similar to mine, other than that. I mean, of course computers have changed a lot about the way people communicate, and at this point they're pretty ubiquitous, but fundamentally, life itself remains relatively unchanged by them.
Cars, on the other hand, really make a huge difference. Not just in individual lives, but in society.
I'm talking about changes that pervade more deeply than what you buy or what you do for a living. We have a different mindset than previous generations because what we are is made of bits and pieces of society's memes that just didn't exist in previous ages. We're made of different information, and a lot more of it. Most of the information inside our heads is garbage like television and advertisements, but there's also a lot more useful information in our heads these days too.
As for cars, it's true. They have changed everything from where we can go, what we can import and export, to the very air we breathe. Asthma was not a big deal to us before cars, and neither was the environment. There are literally more cars in america than there are people, and you cannot meaningfully live in our society without depending on them. They're a quintessential example of technology changing our lives.
Quote from: Nigel on February 13, 2008, 05:48:28 PMThe mechanization and offshoring of all manufacture is tanking our economy. If manufactured goods were still made the long slow way by hand, they would cost a great deal more because they would require more labor by more laborers. I don't think I need to go on, it's an old principle that most people are familiar with.
When it comes down to it, what's tanking our economy is bad business and worse politics, and has nothing to do with manufacturing and only a very little amount to do with offshore manufacturing itself.
Cars are bad. I think they are the most destructive technology to come along in the last 200 years. They are responsible for a great deal of pollution as well as stratifying communities, funding repressive regimes, the ecological repercussions of roads, and a fair amount of direct human death to to drunk or reckless driving.
Not to mention that the Freeway System pretty much killed the economic activity of every small town that wasn't 10 minutes or less from the freeway.
You guys make Gary Numan cry.
Also, imagine the last century if it didn't feature civilian automobiles.
Kinda sucks.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 27, 2010, 05:38:27 PM
You guys make Gary Numan cry.
Also, imagine the last century if it didn't feature civilian automobiles.
Kinda sucks.
It's really hard to do. Civilian automobiles changed life really dramatically.
Quote from: Superfreakanomics
Decades earlier, when horses were less plentiful in cities, there was a smooth-functioning market for
manure, with farmers buying it to truck off (via horse, of course) to their fields. But as the urban equine
population exploded, there was a massive glut. In vacant lots, horse manure was piled as high as sixty feet. It
lined city streets like banks of snow. In the summertime, it stank to the heavens; when the rains came, a soupy
stream of horse manure flooded the crosswalks and seeped into people's basements. Today, when you admire
old New York brownstones and their elegant stoops, rising from street level to the second-story parlor, keep in
mind that this was a design necessity, allowing a homeowner to rise above the sea of horse manure.
All of this dung was terrifically unhealthy. It was a breeding ground for billions of flies that spread a host of
deadly diseases. Rats and other vermin swarmed the mountains of manure to pick out undigested oats and
other horse feed—crops that were becoming more costly for human consumption thanks to higher horse
demand.
For a long time, there was a happy middle ground where cars, horses and trains co-existed. Then the freeways came.
There were horses on city streets until the 1950s?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on May 28, 2010, 05:37:17 AM
There were horses on city streets until the 1950s?
I think in most cities horses kind of went out of common use by the early 30's. But things didn't really get fucked up until the 50's, when the freeways supplanted public transportation.
Quote from: Nigel on February 11, 2008, 08:31:43 PM
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 11, 2008, 07:14:59 PM
Name one activity or aspect of life that is not altered or caused by modern technology.
Sex, excretion, and other elementary bodily functions.
Sez you.
Oh, it's this thread again. :|
Well, yeah. Sex toys are pretty high tech these days, and some people rely on technology to poop at all.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 21, 2010, 09:46:17 PM
Oh, it's this thread again. :|
Well, yeah. Sex toys are pretty high tech these days, and some people rely on technology to poop at all.
Technology doesn't make me poop.
It makes me poop
better.
HORRORSHOW.