Had in an interesting experience last week...

[RAMA]

sojourner wrote:

---

Like a true evangelist.

Hoping to convince logically with the vast and ever-growing information at hand, no strong arming, no torture, no bible thumping. He's already part-way there. I got another response from him yesterday.

RAMA

[RAMA]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Yes, your pattern was to respond to criticism by mentioning still more emerging technologies and then claiming the EXISTENCE of those technologies supported your assertion that the singularity was both inevitable and destined to unfold the way you expected it to. You did the same thing -- on Page 10 of that thread -- when I pointed out to you that you had not satisfactorially addressed the fact that exponential growth has the same pattern as a logistic curve before it begins to approach the point of diminishing returns; your reply to that criticism was essentially "Look at this article about this cool new technology!"

You may FEEL that the singularity is coming and you may FEEL that all these new technologies are just pieces of a larger puzzle. But to people who actually understand how technology develops and what the process entails, they don't fit so neatly into that picture. You fall into "technology of the gaps" thinking because you don't actually know how that technology works or what it can do and you simply assume it can do what you want it to do because The Singularity is Coming, dammit!"

Nah, Ive been over this already, while there is a lot of speculation (obviously because it's about the future) involved it is based on things happening now, its not just feeling, its based on data, something lacking in most previous futurism. I also think you're misunderstanding the posting of technological advances...they are not there simply because they are cool (but certainly they are that too) as I said in the last post...it's not just one isolated development leading to a Singularity it is much more.

RAMA

[Crazy Eddie]

RAMA wrote:

---

Nah, Ive been over this already, while there is a lot of speculation (obviously because it's about the future) involved it is based on things happening now, its not just feeling, its based on data, something lacking in most previous futurism.

Futurism has ALWAYS been based on data. The reason futurism has always been so hit and miss is because futurists limit their data sets to what is TECHNICALLY possible and ignore the social/political/economic realities that shape how technology really develops. They look at what is POSSIBLE and assume that it is both feasible and profitable when it may actually be neither. It's the same mistake made by science fiction writers trying to predict what space exploration would look like in the 21st century; they looked at the technology, the state of the art, the capabilities of the rockets and the relative cost and ran from there. They never looked at America's relative lack of public support for space exploration, the incestuous relationship between defense contracts and space projects, the lack of a robust industrial infrastructure, the lack of widespread participation in the technological development that could sustain temporary failure by one or more contractors. In short, they failed to notice that the technology was the ONLY thing that was in place for it to happen and nothing else was.

It's the same mistake YOU continue to make: just because something is possible doesn't make it feasible or profitable. And the reverse also needs to be considered: some things that are currently impossible may wind up jumping the curve just because somebody out there realizes there's a market for them and figures out how to make it happen.

I also think you're misunderstanding the posting of technological advances...they are not there simply because they are cool (but certainly they are that too) as I said in the last post...it's not just one isolated development leading to a Singularity it is much more.

And you have never demonstrated -- or, it seems, even ATTEMPTED to demonstrate -- that any of those technologies fit into a progression towards the singularity. A number of them explicitly don't.

[gturner]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Futurism has ALWAYS been based on data.

You wouldn't happen to have the 2014 Sports Almanac on hand, would you?

[RAMA]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

Futurism has ALWAYS been based on data. The reason futurism has always been so hit and miss is because futurists limit their data sets to what is TECHNICALLY possible and ignore the social/political/economic realities that shape how technology really develops. They look at what is POSSIBLE and assume that it is both feasible and profitable when it may actually be neither. It's the same mistake made by science fiction writers trying to predict what space exploration would look like in the 21st century; they looked at the technology, the state of the art, the capabilities of the rockets and the relative cost and ran from there. They never looked at America's relative lack of public support for space exploration, the incestuous relationship between defense contracts and space projects, the lack of a robust industrial infrastructure, the lack of widespread participation in the technological development that could sustain temporary failure by one or more contractors. In short, they failed to notice that the technology was the ONLY thing that was in place for it to happen and nothing else was.

It's the same mistake YOU continue to make: just because something is possible doesn't make it feasible or profitable. And the reverse also needs to be considered: some things that are currently impossible may wind up jumping the curve just because somebody out there realizes there's a market for them and figures out how to make it happen.

And you have never demonstrated -- or, it seems, even ATTEMPTED to demonstrate -- that any of those technologies fit into a progression towards the singularity. A number of them explicitly don't.

They certainly do, Ive even given the context...but I'm basically ticking off the milestones one by one...so far it's all proceeding apace...even in some cases, possibly faster than expected.

RAMA

[Crazy Eddie]

RAMA wrote:

---

They certainly do, Ive even given the context...

You gave HYPERLINKS. Not the same thing.

but I'm basically ticking off the milestones one by one...

You're listing inventions and CLAIMING they're milestones without explaining how or why. It's one thing to claim these things are part of a pattern, but it's really obvious that you don't UNDERSTAND that supposed pattern well enough to support that claim rationally.