Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 19, 2024, 11:57 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The technological singularity - inevitable?
#11
RE: The technological singularity - inevitable?
(December 12, 2009 at 10:04 pm)Pippy Wrote: I am familiar with Kuirzweil.

You say he is trying to live to singularity? What a sad, and probably frightened old man.

He's actually very lively and passionate, and hardly that old.

Quote:Just to represent the other side of the argument, I will show you mine.

I like being human, and will take no further steps towards cybernetic integration. Would you accept (or pay for) a microchip that monitors blood pressure? Would you accept a microchip that adds "telepathy"? I would do none of these things. I don't want to integrate more with tech, I see tech as already killing me. I want much less tech. You talked to Rabbit about how our lives are so improved by tech, and I think you are looking through a bit of tunnel vision. To say there not no negatives would be a misnomer, and I think there are far more negatives to modern tech than positives.

If i had a problem with blood pressure and this would improve my life and lower the chances of risk then yes, gladly - telepathy aint possible so no.

Tech is already killing you? How so? If it weren't for tech the life expectancy of humans would still be around 40, we'd still be hunters fighting each day just to have enough food to get by. I don't know about you but survival sounds like a really shit full time job to me.

Quote:I will defend my right to make my own choices, and I choose to be as human as possible, and not a cyborg. I also wouldn't accept farmed body parts, wear a RFID with financial uses (or any use) or and kind of tech modification to my own living organism.

That's your choice.

Quote: I might consider wearing glasses, but I wouldn't get a pacemaker. I know some people don't understand, and think that to say I don't want wireless computer devices in my body is like saying I won't wear glasses.

I hardly believe anyone would reach that conclusion.

Quote: There is a perceived flaw that anything that came before me is OK, and anything new is scary, that would be legitimate future-phobia... But I am saying that there is a difference between the selective breeding of wheat, and the genetic manipulation. I would support selective breeding, but not the manipulation.

Not even if the wheat is demonstrably better for you, contained more nutrients and energy, was cheaper and had no negative effects? It's your choice of course, but it's a non-issue for me.

Quote:So just to show you that there are people who think Kuirzweil is full of crazy talk, here I am. I would not amend my human person in any technological way. I would defend myself from such invasions, and if it were forced upon me I would asses the possibility of ceasing my pseudo-life (if the computer would let me). If you think you will end up some superman if you have little computers live for you, good luck. I think you are missing what it is to be human, and ignoring glaring risks of such choices.

Thanks,
-Pip

I don't think for a second that we would come out as supermen, we would just have a new way to make our lives longer and healthier, when our bodies fail or when an accident takes our leg it doesn't have to effect our lifestyles at all.

'Being human' has nothing to do with whether my body has mechanical parts or not, whether or not my brain is totally organic or even whether or not my mind is in my brain or body at all - it is an identity formed from our births into a species of intelligent primates intellectually alone on a pale blue dot is a dark little corner of the cosmos - that's all 'being human' is, it's a group identity.
.
Reply
#12
Taking whisfull thinking for The Future
(December 12, 2009 at 9:28 pm)theVOID Wrote:
(December 12, 2009 at 5:08 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: You sound like some fundie theVOID. A pitty, we might have had some discussion. I suggest you smoke some more pot first to clear up the haze and anger.

If you say something that blatantly stupid you should be prepared for a harsh response.

Fundie? Haha, you sound like someone who doesn't have a scrap of good argument left in him, as evidenced by your lackluster response.
I see you deal a lot in ad hominem on AF, what about some arguments?

“By 2009, computers will disappear. Displays will be written directly onto our retinas by devices in our eyeglasses and contact lenses.” Ray Kurzweil

Don't know about you, but sitting here, end of 2009, behind my desktop, typing away with the old mechanical devices I have learned to appreciate as my fingers, it seems someone has been a little too enthousiastic about the future, again. So, Ray is behind schedule already with his disappearing computers.

And what's religious about this singularity idea? For some poorly understood reasons most religions require for a devine being. In this case, according to the singularity guys, the divine beings are we, we will become gods with extravagant if not omniscient and allmighty powers. Check! The universe will be at our feet and we will boldly go where no man has gone before. Don't hesitate because of the mind-boggling gaps of space between our sun and even the most proximate stars. There is Moore's law that will supply us not only with extra cheap memory in our head but also unlimited unlimited intelligence and yet unknown energy supplies and eternal means of transportation. Hell, we are in heaven then? Check! Since as a religion heaven is just what we needed to mesmerize our followers. Something to fight wars for. And oh, not totally unimportant, the promise of immortality. Check! What else? Let's see, a one-dimensional doctrine to gulp down the throats of ignoramuses. Well, that's being provided with verve by singularity entrepreneurs like Kurzweil. Next, not really necessary, but handy on the job, some convincing sounding prophets to do the marketing job and a church to preach in. Kurzweil cum suis and internet. Check! We're done. You're done. Your new religion is available on the internet right now. And you are buying into it big time.

(December 6, 2009 at 7:47 pm)theVOID Wrote: Plotting development and extrapolating is not perfect but it is the single best method we have for making statements about potential events in the future, a far superior way of making statements, compared to your "lalala i know better all by myself" approach.

Well I''m not making far reaching predictions here. I am criticizing the jumping to conclusions that the singularity guys do. The best way to predict the future is using reason, not equating to sheer extrapolation of one specific trend. The singularity shit is just another pseudo science that tries to impress with sloppy reasoning that ignoramuses gulp down, like expanding Moore's law to the intelligence department when there really is very little advancement on artificial intelligence to incorporate in the statistics. Like presenting trends in in a double logaritmic view (see here for a more detailed explanation of this from a guy some of us here probably know fairly well from another confrontation between science and pseudo-crap). Like making extrapolations without any assessment on the underlying causes. The arguments you provide like 'gadgets are already helping us out' really are pathetic and make it hard not to laugh. With that you can speculate the singularity from stone age tools.

Can we predict the future? To a certain degree, sure. With the precision Kurzweil does, don't think so. One could argue that within the next thirty to fifty years there will be a huge job crisis on earth thanks to advances in technology. Can we ignore such a profound societal instability alltogether in the singularity scenario? That's when exponential speculation (aka bs) kicks in, not magical exponential technological advancements.

While in cognitive psychology there are camps on both sides of the line drawn by the possibility of artificial intelligence, the guys from the Singuylarity department are taking hundreds of pills a day to await nothing less than superintelligence in 2045. Not 2050 but 2045.

Well, I'm not arguing that artificial intelligence is impossible and I'm not arguing that enhancements of the body will have far reaching consequences. But I am arguing that we cannot know the nature of these changes (such as the sudden change predicted by Kurzweil) and their impact on society in advance. This is all speculation, as you already put it yourself "nobody is saying this is going to happen, or even that it is likely, but it is an interesting thing to contemplate".
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#13
RE: The technological singularity - inevitable?
(December 12, 2009 at 10:17 pm)Tiberius Wrote: My geneticist friend reckons that with current scientific advances, within 50 years we'll be able to "reset" our bodies back to our mid-twenties through gene therapy, letting us live for as long as we want naturally and eventually allowing us to decide when to die (unless we get hit by a bus of course...)

It's interesting to speculate about.

How would this affect geritric diseases I wonder. Some just take a long time to materialise, could we have relativly young looking people who will suffer from dementia, Oh I just remebered Sarah Palin forget I said anything.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#14
RE: The technological singularity - inevitable?
Technological singularity? It's hard to say how the future will turn out.

I myself study artificial intelligence and I am attempting to create a general purpose human level artificial intelligence desktop program. I do think that humanity's future is intertwined with its technology. I won't predict when or how our technology will advance, and I won't predict how we will develop with these technologies.

I do think that at some undetermined point in the future we will have developed strong a.g.i., brain-computer interfaces, and cybernetics. I just can't tell when.
Reply
#15
RE: The technological singularity - inevitable?
(December 13, 2009 at 3:33 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: How would this affect geritric diseases I wonder. Some just take a long time to materialise, could we have relativly young looking people who will suffer from dementia, Oh I just remebered Sarah Palin forget I said anything.

She doesn't suffer from dementia... she suffers from stupid. Sadly... you can't heal stupid. Undecided
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#16
RE: The technological singularity - inevitable?
Void,

Telepathy would be easy to accomplish if two bions were equiped with blue-tooth enabled tranceivers, which they would have to have to connect to the vinculum. I like the idea of a singularity and have always thought it would be great to merge with technology. Yes, when the Borg show up I would be the first to volunteer for assimilation. I would gladly sever ties with my left hand. I am not that attached to it, unless you count bone, blood, skin, muscle, tendons, and nerve endings. Ok, so I AM attached but not emotionally. I would just hope that bionics would approximate that same or better ranges of movement and sensations that I enjoy now.

Rhizo
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)