(title shamelessly stolen from Dr. Steel (http://www.last.fm/music/Dr.+Steel/_/The+Singularity).)
writing (k) me
-----
There's been a lot of talk over the past twenty years or so about the singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity). It's an exciting prospect, and new technology (http://reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome) seems to inch ever-closer to the tortoise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradox#Achilles_and_the_tortoise) it's chasing. Predictions for the arrival of the singularity range from the ever-optimistic (or not (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181852/)) "ten years hence" to "perhaps within the next millenium." I don't want to make a prediction myself, but I'd like to address some of the issues surrounding the topic.
First: Whose singularity? Different authors paint different pictures of what constitutes the technological singularity. The general definition is lain out by the Wikipedia article I linked to above -- roughly "the point in time at which technology is capable of designing its own successors." But that's more problematic than it sounds. If we include genetic engineering and other biotechnologies, it's already easily there... although the argument might be made that we're simply hijacking Nature. Perhaps we mean only "mechanical" technology? But then what about wet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetware) networks or similar solutions? While these are still largely the domain of science fiction, they're a not-so-improbable potential means of addressing some of the problems that have plagued fuzzy logic systems for decades. Or perhaps we simply mean "design" more selectively... that is, the chaotic randomness of genetic evolution 'doesn't count' for the intentional process of design. I'll address that more directly in a moment.
But another issue first. Wrapped up in the idea of the singularity is "improvement." The child machines are supposed to be better than their parents. But "better" is a hugely qualifiable term. Are they 'better' if they're basically the same but their components are higher-grade materials, and they've been engineered with logical efficiency improvements taking advantage of this (smaller size, better heat control, less waste)? But many people might say there's no real 'invention' there. Are they 'better' if they sacrifice some elements of design to specialize themselves to an environment more? Again, there are obvious criticisms this position would need to surmount.
The issue here is two-fold. The first, more obvious aspect is that of the black swan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory). Many technological improvements are largely of the category I described as 'logical efficiency improvements,' which occur as ideas and technologies filter through the memetic environment -- a better grasp of some physical process yields minor refinements to some area of thermodynamics, perhaps, which results in a compound with better heat distribution properties, which results in smaller, faster computer processors. This process could span many decades. But what really jumps industries forward are ideas which borrow something from a completely unrelated field, or come up with something almost completely original: the black swan. Many of these discoveries or applications are memorialized due to the unlikely story of their origin, with penicillin being one very well-known example. The origin of analog computing, with Babbage's reworking of the Jacquard loom (although exactly where the black swan was there -- with Babbage, Jacquard, or Bouchon -- is a matter of some debate), is another. These are unpredictable moments of confusion and inspiration, when someone looks at something and sees something else entirely.
And these, I would argue, are very often a result of humans being very bad at logical thought. Despite the many analogies to the contrary, our mind doesn't work much like a computer... at least, like no computer any sane technician would make. It's very easy for us to cross-reference material and we frequently bring up completely the wrong information for a given context. We temporarily forget things and are forced to make do without... at the dinner table, a request for 'ketchup' becomes "Hey, pass me that thing. The red bottle. Next to the salt." We interpret songs according to mondegreens. We look at an abstract shape in a good mood and see a rainbow; in a bad mood, we see a frown. This is an important attribute of the process of invention, these accidents of context.
Making a mechanical device that operated this way would require a substantial degradation of its abilities as a machine. We don't want a calculator to tell us that the square root of 269 is 13, even if it then laughs at the mistake and tells us a story about some other time it made a mistake that ended up being pretty funny if you think about it. We have strangers on the subway for shit like that. Machines are built to be useful. Logical. Precise. A device that can not only utilize new information to improve on itself to a point but continually improve on its design by making novel discoveries of its own is far removed from current technology. And the occurrence of a technological singularity seems to entirely depend on such a thing.
Of course, as suggested above, if we permit cybernetic, mechasymbiotic, or biological definitions... we're just riding the wave of a three-and-a-half billion year old singularity already.
I hope you copy and pasted that from somewhere
all that writing and no one will read it
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 20, 2009, 08:15:07 AM
I hope you copy and pasted that from somewhere
all that writing and no one will read it
You and Nigel (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21110.msg713759#msg713759) always seem to forget something important (http://www.bartleby.com/113/1027.html).
Quote from: Arafelis on June 20, 2009, 08:37:12 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 20, 2009, 08:15:07 AM
I hope you copy and pasted that from somewhere
all that writing and no one will read it
You and Nigel (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21110.msg713759#msg713759) always seem to forget something important (http://www.bartleby.com/113/1027.html).
Oh wow, he can quote Emily Dickenson! So can a 5th grader.
Quote from: Kai on June 20, 2009, 02:46:43 PM
Quote from: Arafelis on June 20, 2009, 08:37:12 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 20, 2009, 08:15:07 AM
I hope you copy and pasted that from somewhere
all that writing and no one will read it
You and Nigel (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21110.msg713759#msg713759) always seem to forget something important (http://www.bartleby.com/113/1027.html).
Oh wow, he can quote Emily Dickenson! So can a 5th grader.
Give me a Furby, USD$50 and 72 hours, and ... so could a furby.
Quote from: Kai on June 20, 2009, 02:46:43 PM
Oh wow, he can quote Emily Dickenson! So can a 5th grader.
That's not a quote, Kai. A quote is when you repeat something someone said, and often give attribution to it. What I provided was a referential link. For instance, the button you clicked
quoted my reply. I
linked to the poem. :lulz:
it is so great we have a pompous little ass too corect our every mistake what a bunch of bumbling anti intellectualists we would be without his great nowlege :genius:
Quote from: Arafelis on June 20, 2009, 09:33:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on June 20, 2009, 02:46:43 PM
Oh wow, he can quote Emily Dickenson! So can a 5th grader.
That's not a quote, Kai. A quote is when you repeat something someone said, and often give attribution to it. What I provided was a referential link. For instance, the button you clicked quoted my reply. I linked to the poem. :lulz:
I'm sorry, what was that? Oh right, I don't take lectures from pretentious kids with BA's in philosophy.
Does the singularity scare the shit out of anyone else? I mean, I quite like the way I'm integrated with technology right now, thanks. I have my laptop, which I never turn off, but the point is, I COULD turn it off, if I wanted to. I mean, call me a heathen, but I like taking a break from technology every now and again.
Quote from: The Borderline Simpleton on June 20, 2009, 10:14:40 PM
Does the singularity scare the shit out of anyone else?
It's pretty scary shit if you think about it. In one way or another, it means the end of humanity as we know it. Quibbling over definitions aside, the moment we make something smarter than ourselves, we're obsolete. At that point our choices are to integrate ourselves with it -- people often imagine Gibson-esque cyborgs, but the reality will probably be a lot stranger -- or be replaced by it.
QuoteI mean, call me a heathen, but I like taking a break from technology every now and again.
I find that unlikely. ;) Have a cell phone? If so, I'll bet you don't switch it off too often. And that's just something from the past couple decades. Only about a century ago, probably hardly anyone in your geographical region had electric lights or flashlights. Do you have glasses or fillings in your teeth? How about
clothing?
People often don't stop to think about what "technology" really means, but there was a period in human history (increasingly far back for each) at which these things did not exist. As we go into the future, "old" technology that's nonetheless constantly being streamlined and improved will be continually reduced in apparent significance, until we think of owning paper books only as antiques (with the Kindle's successors replacing them) or carrying physical money as an unnecessary inconvenience (as our debit and credit accounts are linked to the multimedia devices that are for some reason still being called 'phones'). And that's just the predictable, obvious stuff... things that have already started. I wouldn't expect to live to something approximating the singularity I describe, but I do expect to see the computer peripheral cerebral implants that were developed to aid quadraplegiacs being refined and installed in non-disabled people well before I die (assuming it's of old age, of course).
If you want a dystopian account of how this could all go horribly wrong, read Feed (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0763622591).
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."
Can't have it both ways, dude.
LMNO, are you really trying to lecture him?
That's stupid. It's like trying to fell a tree -- a big one, mind you, think "sequoia" here -- by headbutting it.
Give up. He's stupid. He's going to remain stupid. All the most meticulous logical arguments will fall apart in front of him. No one on earth can fix him because he doesn't fucking listen. For example, I foresee a post about how he meant our clothing is going to strangle us in our sleep or some similarly fucktarded explanation of how YOU WERE MISINTERPRETING HIS VAST SUPERPOWERED SPACE-BRAIN'S WORDS OF INFINITE WISDOM. He's not worth the thinking it takes to acknowledge he typed shit. Please, for your own sake, stop trying to fix him.
Unless, of course, you're just publicly giggling at him, in which case I ask you to ignore this entire post.
Oh, don't you worry -- I just like mocking him and his obvious gaffes.
But perhaps I should not mock him too hard. 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.
Ah, alright. I just wanted to make sure you weren't wasting valuable brain-time on lectures he's going to ignore. Also, I wouldn't call him an Aspie. I know plenty of Asperger's types who aren't THAT hideously stupid.
No, my diagnosis is "pompous know-it-all high-school graduate".
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.
I WANNA BE A BIONIC MONKEY!
\
:joshua:
This is crap.
I want my fucking 5 minutes back.
:kingmeh:
Quote from: Kai on June 20, 2009, 10:12:38 PM
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.
QuoteWait. 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.
QuoteAll 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.
QuoteYOU WERE MISINTERPRETING HIS VAST SUPERPOWERED SPACE-BRAIN'S WORDS OF INFINITE WISDOM.
I'll just let this stand.
QuoteFrom 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity), and I wouldn't be particularly bothered if I discovered I were an Aspie. But I do not fit most of the characteristics.
QuoteNo, 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 (http://www.rickross.com/reference/kabbalah/kabbalah150.html)." And the further, trivially verifiable (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=20275.msg682306#msg682306) statement, "non-collegiate."
QuoteI want my fucking 5 minutes back.
Post your phone number and I'll call to wake you up five minutes early tomorrow.
I promise.
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 22, 2009, 04:07:04 PM
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.
QuoteBut, 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.
Quote
No more homo sapiens.
WISHFUL THINKIGN
:argh!:
Quote from: Kai on June 21, 2009, 12:44:31 PM
If you want a dystopian account of how this could all go horribly wrong, read Feed (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0763622591).
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 :)
Quote from: Erin Gardien on June 22, 2009, 04:05:54 PMAlso, 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).
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 22, 2009, 04:07:04 PMThe first issue I have with The Singularity is the singular nature of its most vocal proponents.
multi-larity? polylarity? high-larity? :)
QuoteI 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.
QuoteSomething 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 :cn:. 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.
QuoteIt 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.
Quotebut 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.
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?
Quote from: Arafelis on June 23, 2009, 09:35:53 AM
QuoteSomething 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 :cn:. 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.
:lulz: You just keep telling yourself that.
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.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 23, 2009, 08:43:51 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 22, 2009, 04:07:04 PMThe 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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 :lulz:
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.
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
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 23, 2009, 08:56:56 PM
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
QED
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 23, 2009, 11:12:39 AM
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?
Often. My responses to tangents rapidly decrease in substance.
Quotehile 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,
I have not said anything about philosophical terminology, nor do I often use it. Again, this attributes something to me that isn't actually the case. Nor does precision require lots of technical terms, run-on sentences, or specific obscure definitions; heavy use of these is the opposite of clear. I use such sparingly, unless the conversation has already engaged topics with jargon.
I haven't read the OP, but I am pretty sure it could be, you know, re-written.
Or words to that effect.
Sub-thread over. Cain's sig won. :lulz:
I am unsure whether or not this has already been touched on. I imagine most of the past few pages have been a threadjack, so I skipped. However, this article (http://paul2ed.com/do-you-believe-in-the-kurzweilian-technological-singularity/) may be interesting and on-topic. Tl;dr version: the singularity already happened, just not the way we thought, and so nobody noticed.
Quote from: Enki-][ on June 24, 2009, 05:32:38 PM
I am unsure whether or not this has already been touched on. I imagine most of the past few pages have been a threadjack, so I skipped. However, this article (http://paul2ed.com/do-you-believe-in-the-kurzweilian-technological-singularity/) may be interesting and on-topic. Tl;dr version: the singularity already happened, just not the way we thought, and so nobody noticed.
(http://paul2ed.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/petite-asian.gif)
I dunno if the article makes a very good case... but I think its more reasonable to discuss from this angle than humans growing gills or turning into batteries ;-)
I agree.
I also think the image is illustrative. Who would have expected a hot petite asian girl making facial expressions to be the optimal illustration of a discussion of the singularity? That in of itself is illustrative of a singularity, since it cannot be predicted to be illustrative, and is therefore illustrative. That or he picked an image at random.
Quote from: Enki-][ on June 24, 2009, 09:05:40 PM
...since it cannot be predicted to be illustrative, and is therefore illustrative. That or he picked an image at random.
Write a mini-paper that ends with this sentence so they can put it in Intermittens.
Quote from: Arafelis on June 25, 2009, 01:43:46 AM
Quote from: Enki-][ on June 24, 2009, 09:05:40 PM
...since it cannot be predicted to be illustrative, and is therefore illustrative. That or he picked an image at random.
Write a mini-paper that ends with this sentence so they can put it in Intermittens.
Quote
I believe we are part of the Universe. Mass collaboration will bring a new culture of mass collaboration on track to experience the hard take off in the 2012 presidential race. I think the Ron Paul presidential campaign and the Campaign for Liberty are perfect examples of the unimagionable centralized planning, businesses, marketing, and funding online communities do for free. Google Wave will replace bloated corporate structures, and likewise bloated government beuarocracies. Communities will fund the creation open source hardware and electricity. Using the Singularity, communities, cities, states, nations, will design the circuits which run our world. I do believe we are on track to experience the hard take off in the next few years as people really begin to imagine new ways of using the Internet. Imagine business like Walmart or Target being bought by online communities, coordinated buyouts by shareholders with an agenda. I've always heard the singularity defined as the point at which technological advancements occur so quickly no one can imagine the outcome. Take a look at what has happened over the last few years. If super-intelligence is an intelligence greater than one human, any online community would bring super-human intelligence to new levels. I also think the image is illustrative. Who would have expected a hot petite asian girl making facial expressions to be the optimal illustration of a discussion of the singularity? That in of itself is illustrative of a singularity, since it cannot be predicted to be illustrative, and is therefore illustrative. That or he picked an image at random.
Incoherent enough?
Quote from: Enki-][ on June 25, 2009, 02:15:57 AM
Quote from: Arafelis on June 25, 2009, 01:43:46 AM
Quote from: Enki-][ on June 24, 2009, 09:05:40 PM
...since it cannot be predicted to be illustrative, and is therefore illustrative. That or he picked an image at random.
Write a mini-paper that ends with this sentence so they can put it in Intermittens.
Quote
I believe we are part of the Universe. Mass collaboration will bring a new culture of mass collaboration on track to experience the hard take off in the 2012 presidential race. I think the Ron Paul presidential campaign and the Campaign for Liberty are perfect examples of the unimagionable centralized planning, businesses, marketing, and funding online communities do for free. Google Wave will replace bloated corporate structures, and likewise bloated government beuarocracies. Communities will fund the creation open source hardware and electricity. Using the Singularity, communities, cities, states, nations, will design the circuits which run our world. I do believe we are on track to experience the hard take off in the next few years as people really begin to imagine new ways of using the Internet. Imagine business like Walmart or Target being bought by online communities, coordinated buyouts by shareholders with an agenda. I've always heard the singularity defined as the point at which technological advancements occur so quickly no one can imagine the outcome. Take a look at what has happened over the last few years. If super-intelligence is an intelligence greater than one human, any online community would bring super-human intelligence to new levels. I also think the image is illustrative. Who would have expected a hot petite asian girl making facial expressions to be the optimal illustration of a discussion of the singularity? That in of itself is illustrative of a singularity, since it cannot be predicted to be illustrative, and is therefore illustrative. That or he picked an image at random.
Incoherent enough?
It's crap.
Seal of approval then, I guess.
Quote from: Enki-][ on June 25, 2009, 05:31:45 AM
Seal of approval then, I guess.
No. You and Arafailus deserve each other. Piss off.
Ok, I skipped past two pages of people chiding this guy... for, Well, I dont know. A long post? Doesnt matter, its not relevant to my interests. I just wanted to say, that I'm ALL FOR the technological singularity, feel that its inevitable (barring global cataclysm), and will GLADLY accept my cerebral implant.
Ok, I think I see everyones point, but I kind of like his writing style.