The technological singularity - inevitable?

[theVOID]

This is a thread to discuss the Technological Singularity - the idea that technology and human development is intertwined, it will start with us using machines to heal ourselves through replacement limbs and organs or nanobots living inside us and lead to our merger with machines. It posits machines will become intelligent and self-replicating some time after our medical merger with them and eventually lead to the point where humanity is so intertwined with machines that there will be no distinction between the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

The most well known proponent of this hypothesis is Ray Kuirzweil, a futurist who spends his time analyzing and speculating on the future of technology. He believes that technological growth will continue to accelerate as it is currently, we will eventually get to a point where human life expectancy, due to technology, increases more than one year for every year of development, leading to the exponential development of humanity along with technology and our inevitable immortality.

It also posits that after the man-machine merger, we will traverse the universe using any and all material available to create more computational power in the quest to solve the universe.

Ray Kurzweil is currently attempting to live to the age of the singularity with strict diet and supplement intake intake as well as a rigorous fitness routine, good luck i say.

It's an interesting theory, and i certainly believe some of it is inevitable, such as mechanical organs and artificial intelligence (of some kind). It also raises the idea that within our lifetimes we may live forever due to this man-machine convergence which is in it's self worthy of a topic.

[littlegrimlin1]

I think it is an awesome idea. If the brain is ever replaced by computing mechanisms, I think it would be a dull world though.... but they wouldn't know it

[Purple Rabbit]

Ok, there are some elements in it that sound probable. But considering it is all in the future which up till now has very poorly been anticipated by mankind so far, why make it into a religion? Like if there's no god why not become gods ourselves. Is this the Platonic mental virus going haywire again? As long as our immunity against that virus which has brought us nationalism, fascism, communism, theistic fundamentalism and much more is still low, I prefer my two feet on the ground above futuristic flatulence and remain very suspicious of certain signs of fanatism that generally precede war and destruction.

[theVOID]

Ok, there are some elements in it that sound probable. But considering it is all in the future which up till now has very poorly been anticipated by mankind so far, why make it into a religion? Like if there's no god why not become gods ourselves. Is this the Platonic mental virus going haywire again? As long as our immunity against that virus which has brought us nationalism, fascism, communism, theistic fundamentalism and much more is still low, I prefer my two feet on the ground above futuristic flatulence and remain very suspicious of certain signs of fanatism that generally precede war and destruction.

How on earth is a futurists theory a religion?

The future has been poorly anticipated because there hadn't been nearly enough time spent plotting technological growth, now we can see a number of probable paths depending on certain failures and achievements. This is the path concerned with one particular event, the merger of man and machine.

Nobody is saying this is going to happen, or even that it is likely, but it is an interesting thing to contemplate, a situation that could fundamentally change the entire meaning of our lives and the future of our species as well as what it means to be human, and the realization of this scenario is in no way impossible, in fact it is in part inevitable.

As for your assertion that speculating the future is in any way linked to poisonous ideologies, fascism and fanaticism, frankly you're talking shit.

[Purple Rabbit]

Ok, there are some elements in it that sound probable. But considering it is all in the future which up till now has very poorly been anticipated by mankind so far, why make it into a religion? Like if there's no god why not become gods ourselves. Is this the Platonic mental virus going haywire again? As long as our immunity against that virus which has brought us nationalism, fascism, communism, theistic fundamentalism and much more is still low, I prefer my two feet on the ground above futuristic flatulence and remain very suspicious of certain signs of fanatism that generally precede war and destruction.

How on earth is a futurists theory a religion?

Like the dogma that goes with it and fries the brain likke that of Kurzweil.

The future has been poorly anticipated because there hadn't been nearly enough time spent plotting technological growth, now we can see a number of probable paths depending on certain failures and achievements.

Bullshit, extrapolating some 60.000 years of history of our species, the world will probably be dominated by warfare. There "hadn't been nearly enough time spent plotting technological growth". Don't kid yourself that the gadgets will help us out. That is a modern but not very realistic thought. Do you think that the majority of the world that has no access to this will simply stand by. That's naive. The only plotting of growth that you do that way is in the gadget design room. The real world is somewhere out there you know.

Nobody is saying this is going to happen, or even that it is likely,

Could have fooled some innocent bystanders...

..but it is an interesting thing to contemplate,

like in a RPG??

a situation that could fundamentally change the entire meaning of our lives and the future of our species as well as what it means to be human, and the realization of this scenario is in no way impossible,

Some 25 years back that is what we all thought....about the nuclear arms race.

in fact it is in part inevitable.

Yeah, and you know which part.

As for your assertion that speculating the future is in any way linked to poisonous ideologies, fascism and fanaticism, frankly you're talking shit.

Was the Third Reich not speculating about the future? Pol Pot? All these grand designs, these plans that solve all peoples problems in one stroke once and for all, they all ended in the same way. This is just the next detergent washing whiter than white. But please do speculate. I love it.

[theVOID]

Ok, there are some elements in it that sound probable. But considering it is all in the future which up till now has very poorly been anticipated by mankind so far, why make it into a religion? Like if there's no god why not become gods ourselves. Is this the Platonic mental virus going haywire again? As long as our immunity against that virus which has brought us nationalism, fascism, communism, theistic fundamentalism and much more is still low, I prefer my two feet on the ground above futuristic flatulence and remain very suspicious of certain signs of fanatism that generally precede war and destruction.

How on earth is a futurists theory a religion?

Like the dogma that goes with it and fries the brain likke that of Kurzweil.

Dogma????? DOGMA??? What fucking dogma???? There is no doctrine! There is no authority!

The future has been poorly anticipated because there hadn't been nearly enough time spent plotting technological growth, now we can see a number of probable paths depending on certain failures and achievements.

Bullshit, extrapolating some 60.000 years of history of our species, the world will probably be dominated by warfare. There "hadn't been nearly enough time spent plotting technological growth". Don't kid yourself that the gadgets will help us out. That is a modern but not very realistic thought. Do you think that the majority of the world that has no access to this will simply stand by. That's naive. The only plotting of growth that you do that way is in the gadget design room. The real world is somewhere out there you know.

Looks like we have a technophobe on these forums.

1) In case you hadn't noticed, the reason you have such an easy life is because of technological development, the continuation of which is being discussed here. Technology is going to grow and it is going to play a big part in the future of our species, far more so than it does now. You can ignore that fact all you like, but just remember how much of a hypocrite you are when the time comes and you are on a death bed, your life assisted by a machine.

2) Nobody is seriously speculating 60,000 years into the future, so there goes your strawman. The realistic start of convergence is 2050, artificial limbs and organs should be fairly mainstream by then all things going as assumed, the technological singularity relies completely on the possibility of sentient machines, something that does not seem entirely improbable and has in fact been predicted by many great minds.

3) Gadgets are already helping us out, the computer you used for your brainless little response being case and point.

4) By the time of the first mechanical organs you can most likely expect a world where the 3rd world is significantly more technological, as is the current trend, having access to western medical standards, internet, information, technology (albeit a generation or so behind the west) especially considering most of the parts will likely be made in Asia and Africa.

5) The people who aren't getting these parts have absolutely no right to complain what other adults chose to do with their time and resources, they have no right to complain when someone takes a mechanical heart to replace their own failing heart. If they don't want mechanical assistance then they don't have to have it. If they want it and can't afford it then how is that any different from the current situation?

6) The rich already get the latest technology first, they can already afford the best treatment, compare that to the 3rd world where they are struggling for basic antibiotics. It's a tragedy but also a reality. This is an underline human problem, something technology can only help. In fact it is technology and the earlier industrialization of certain nations that lead to the massive gap to begin with, if anything only technology and information can bridge it, but again this is an ideological problem and has absolutely nothing to do with the singularity or it's validity.

7) As the price of replacement parts comes down they will become more widely used. If they are effective enough they will become standard procedure and available for all, much like pacemakers are used now for even mid-low income patients. If you have a comprehensive healthcare plan in your country then income is irrelevant.

8) 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.

Nobody is saying this is going to happen, or even that it is likely,

Could have fooled some innocent bystanders...

My first post made it clear that i was speculating.

..but it is an interesting thing to contemplate,

like in a RPG??

Oh, so whenever an issue is contemplated, likely or not, it is role playing? You're a joke.

a situation that could fundamentally change the entire meaning of our lives and the future of our species as well as what it means to be human, and the realization of this scenario is in no way impossible,

Some 25 years back that is what we all thought....about the nuclear arms race.

Except we aren't talking about another cold war, we are talking about the integration of machines into society as technology progresses and the possible implications of such a thing. The integration is inevitable in one way or another and something that we are going to have to deal with whether you like it or not.

in fact it is in part inevitable.

Yeah, and you know which part.

Sorry, i couldn't pick up on that through all your pretentious bullshit.

As for your assertion that speculating the future is in any way linked to poisonous ideologies, fascism and fanaticism, frankly you're talking shit.

Was the Third Reich not speculating about the future? Pol Pot? All these grand designs, these plans that solve all peoples problems in one stroke once and for all, they all ended in the same way. This is just the next detergent washing whiter than white. But please do speculate. I love it.

Wow, just WOW, that is the single most retarded piece of thinking i have ever encountered. So now contemplating the future makes you a murderous dictator? So by thinking about the future of climate change we are killing Jews right? By thinking about where human rights are going in the future we are starting totalitarian dictatorships? Am i evil for thinking about what i want out of my life? How many gas chambers are going to be built because Sydney Australia has a 100 year plan?

You're a joke if you can really justify that line of reasoning.

[Purple Rabbit]

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.

[theVOID]

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.

[Pippy]

I am familiar with Kuirzweil.

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

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.

Feel free to call me a technophobe, or someone in fear of the future, but I will disagree.

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. 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. 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.

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

[Tiberius]

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.