David Brin's latest novel, and a TED talk

[sojourner]

^You're missing the point. The singularity is about as certain as the rapture. In other words, it's not. There is no guarantee that technology will advance at an accelerated rate especially in all areas. You need to temper your optimism with some realism. Things don't always work out.

 

[Kegg]

The real fantasy here is linear thinking in technology which is demonstrably false.

First I heard of this. Care for a demonstration?

There's a lot of information to cover, and I'd refer you to detailed books on the subject. Here's a history of accelerating change by John Smart, which has links to books and sites, which supply graphs and mathematical evidence on the subject.

Ah, but what I asked was proof for the statement: 'The real fantasy here is linear thinking in technology which is demonstratably false' - that is, a disproof of alternatives to accelerationism, one that makes it clear that these alternatives are as credible as geocentrism or Flat Earthers. It is not enough for John Smart to have a credible narrative; his must be the only credible narrative.

However, from one of your own links (the wiki) I see:

Both Theodore Modis and Jonathan Huebner have argued—each from different perspectives—that the rate of technological innovation has not only ceased to rise, but is actually now declining. The validity of their conclusions has been criticized by John Smart.

From the wiki articles regarding both men:

Theodore Modis (born 1943) is a strategic business analyst, futurist, physicist, and international consultant.
He went to Columbia University, New York, where he received a Masters in Electrical Engineering and a Ph.D. in physics. Dr Modis carried out research in particle physics experiments at Brookhaven National Laboratories and CERN, before moving to work at Digital Equipment Corporation for more than a decade as the head of a management science consultants group.

Jonathan Huebner is a physicist working at the Pentagon's Naval Air Warfare Center, in China Lake, California.

These men are, presumably, not fantasists.

 

[RAMA]

First I heard of this. Care for a demonstration?

There's a lot of information to cover, and I'd refer you to detailed books on the subject. Here's a history of accelerating change by John Smart, which has links to books and sites, which supply graphs and mathematical evidence on the subject.

Ah, but what I asked was proof for the statement: 'The real fantasy here is linear thinking in technology which is demonstratably false' - that is, a disproof of alternatives to accelerationism, one that makes it clear that these alternatives are as credible as geocentrism or Flat Earthers. It is not enough for John Smart to have a credible narrative; his must be the only credible narrative.

However, from one of your own links (the wiki) I see:
From the wiki articles regarding both men:

Theodore Modis (born 1943) is a strategic business analyst, futurist, physicist, and international consultant.
He went to Columbia University, New York, where he received a Masters in Electrical Engineering and a Ph.D. in physics. Dr Modis carried out research in particle physics experiments at Brookhaven National Laboratories and CERN, before moving to work at Digital Equipment Corporation for more than a decade as the head of a management science consultants group.

Jonathan Huebner is a physicist working at the Pentagon's Naval Air Warfare Center, in China Lake, California.

These men are, presumably, not fantasists.

Let me be clearer then...I believe there is enough evidence to show that linear technological progression, in info technologies, as well as others that are being discovered all the time (biotech, nanotech, etc) is no longer an acceptable way to perceive there growth. It is a bias based on human limitations, as pointed out in the Smart history. Accelerated growth is a fact, the conclusions to be drawn from this is speculation, as are any future events, but it is being supported by more evidence all the time, to the point where I think a Singularity is likely.

This is true, there are criticisms, and I agree the conclusions can go in a number of directions, but acceptance of accelerated change is only building, its not going anywhere soon. The criticisms I have seen have been rebutted (in my opinion successfully) on many occasions by those who are proponents of it.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

^You're missing the point. The singularity is about as certain as the rapture. In other words, it's not. There is no guarantee that technology will advance at an accelerated rate especially in all areas. You need to temper your optimism with some realism. Things don't always work out.

See my answer above

 

[sojourner]

^Well, good luck to you then. See you in 20 years when things haven't changed as much as you think.

 

[RAMA]

^Well, good luck to you then. See you in 20 years when things haven't changed as much as you think.

I see things changing even now in day to day life...its one of several things that came together the last few years that led me to believe that it will be possible, even probable. The frequency of change I see from technology sites compared with 5 or 10 years ago is astounding...I think it's the people who can't get past their own one dimensional thinking (through no fault of their own...don't blame them for seeing things in a limited way, based on our linear perception) who will be shocked in 20-30 years.

 

[RAMA]

From the revamped David Brin site, info on the new book as well as 2 more TED talks on the singularity:

http://www.davidbrin.com/

 

[sojourner]

The frequency of change I see from technology sites compared with 5 or 10 years ago is astounding...

Then you haven't been watching technology long enough.

I remember being astounded by my first 50MB harddrive. Then again by my 500MB drive, and my 2GB, 200GB, 1TB drives over the past 20+ years. In 1995 I could get on the internet and surf websites using Windows 95 and netscape. Not all that different from how I surf the web today.

Just because you woke up one day and said "Gee, things have changed a lot in the last 5 years" doesn't indicate a trend. It's just you becoming aware of something that has existed all along.

 

[RAMA]

The frequency of change I see from technology sites compared with 5 or 10 years ago is astounding...

Then you haven't been watching technology long enough.

I remember being astounded by my first 50MB harddrive. Then again by my 500MB drive, and my 2GB, 200GB, 1TB drives over the past 20+ years. In 1995 I could get on the internet and surf websites using Windows 95 and netscape. Not all that different from how I surf the web today.

Just because you woke up one day and said "Gee, things have changed a lot in the last 5 years" doesn't indicate a trend. It's just you becoming aware of something that has existed all along.

But as I have said, the tech builds on itself, I'm not discounting past change (itself part of accelerated change of course) but the effect that has on current and future technology is the key for growth.

Yes, I've been following technology for a long time, I've been interested since the 80s (well I was a teenager..) and read futurists in the 90s, and was part of a futurist organization at that time as well, and while I was aware of accelerated tech in general, to me the outcomes were all negative till the last few years...I now see alternatives, as well as the fact that stuff I only saw predicted is actually coming true.

RAMA

 

[sojourner]

Science is not a religion.

 

[xortex]

You can't tell that to the devil I would imagine which is what all this science is ultimately creating - an evil God. Hence the expression the world is going to Hell. The Bible says clearly that everything is evil and controlled by the Devil so his win is our loss.

 

[Set Harth]

Personally, I like to get all my predictions of the future from people who see the Jedi as the villains of SW and think Yoda's a Sith.

It's more fun that way.

 

[sojourner]

You can't tell that to the devil I would imagine which is what all this science is ultimately creating - an evil God. Hence the expression the world is going to Hell. The Bible says clearly that everything is evil and controlled by the Devil so his win is our loss.

You're a poor imitation of Think.

 

[RAMA]

You can't tell that to the devil I would imagine which is what all this science is ultimately creating - an evil God. Hence the expression the world is going to Hell. The Bible says clearly that everything is evil and controlled by the Devil so his win is our loss.

Well since men created God(s) as well, then he must be evil too.

 

[Klaus]

Science is not a religion.

Correct... science proves things.

 

[RAMA]

Science is not a religion.

Correct... science proves things.

Science is the way we try to prove things.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Science is not a religion.

Exactly

Human beings have a funny way of couching things in religious, "spiritual" terms to describe things....therefore you see people describing something difficult to comprehend, like the Singluarity and it's implications in such terms, which doesn't mean that it is spiritual. Sometimes words just aren't adequate...which strangely enough leads me to more Brin thoughts on the subject: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/brin20110629 And an introduction to the whole topic he wrote: http://lifeboat.com/ex/singularities.and.nightmares

As well as a story he brashly sets AFTER the singularity: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0056A23TA/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=contbrin-20

RAMA

 

[xortex]

You can't tell that to the devil I would imagine which is what all this science is ultimately creating - an evil God. Hence the expression the world is going to Hell. The Bible says clearly that everything is evil and controlled by the Devil so his win is our loss.

Well since men created God(s) as well, then he must be evil too.

Why do you say that man is evil? Most people say he's innately good, except only nobody knows what good is or God for that matter. Is he just mr. go do, go make? Telepathy would be bad enough but could you imagine a world where people's mind's became reality. That was the basis for Micheal Chriton's novel 'Sphere' though he referred to it as the power but it was an unconscious power rising to the surface quite literally. The next step in our evolution - transcendance.

 

[RAMA]

You can't tell that to the devil I would imagine which is what all this science is ultimately creating - an evil God. Hence the expression the world is going to Hell. The Bible says clearly that everything is evil and controlled by the Devil so his win is our loss.

Well since men created God(s) as well, then he must be evil too.

Why do you say that man is evil? Most people say he's innately good, except only nobody knows what good is or God for that matter. Is he just mr. go do, go make? Telepathy would be bad enough but could you imagine a world where people's mind's became reality. That was the basis for Micheal Chriton's novel 'Sphere' though he referred to it as the power but it was an unconscious power rising to the surface quite literally. The next step in our evolution - transcendance.

I don't think man is inherently evil, religion has a tendency to look at things in absolutes, which I normally do not. Human beings have an equal capacity to do what society considers good or evil, modified by brain chemistry, usually by environment, and very often by opportunity.

Well Chrichton was always a bit of an alarmist, but always something to think about.

 

[RAMA]

^You're missing the point. The singularity is about as certain as the rapture. In other words, it's not. There is no guarantee that technology will advance at an accelerated rate especially in all areas. You need to temper your optimism with some realism. Things don't always work out.

Here's one of the big articles that popularized the Singularity, there's some good basic explanation of S curves and so on. It's a real layman's article.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2048299-3,00.html