XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.atheism   
   From: quibbler247@yahoo.com   
      
   In article <1142765537.070980.141460@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,   
   joseph@humanisation.org says...   
   > Now, I've had a little think about Mr.Kurzweil's prognostications and   
   > I'm not as   
   > imprerssed as I was initially.   
      
   I'm not sure how impressed you were initially, so that doesn't   
   necessarily help.   
      
      
      
   > What's he saying?   
      
      
   He's saying a lot of things actually, and it's difficult to condense that   
   down to a sentence or two.   
      
      
      
   > That advancing   
   > technology and artificial-intelligence will quite soon, and quite   
   > suddenly, push us into a post-human phase.   
      
   Well, it's not that soon by human standards.  It's still decades away   
   according to even his estimates.  Furthermore, the post-human possibility   
   is just one of many.  One can't really predict what such rapidly   
   advancing technology will yield.  However, the rate of progress in nano,   
   electro, bio and info industries appears to be modelled logistically.   
   The inflection point of this curve will eventually be reached and that   
   will represent the period of most rapid change.  As I'm sure you know,   
   that is the singular point and it could be the equivalent of centuries of   
   technological progress by previous standards.   
      
      
   > Okay, it has an aura of   
   > plausibility.  It's an advance on the kind of thing Alvin   
   > Toffler was saying twentyfive years ago   
      
   Toffler's predictions were about like predicting that the tides would   
   come in.  He didn't really understand the dynamics.  He just compiled   
   databases of buzzwords from newspapers, counted them up and then   
   blabbered about trends.  He wrote a number of books with tons of vague   
   predictions.   
      
      
   > when he spoke of the Knowledge   
   > Revolution.   
      
      
   He was hardly the first person to observe this and many other people have   
   provided much greater insight into the phenomena.   
      
      
      
   > Now, he was right, ol' Alvin, and i never thought he would   
   > be.   
      
   Why didn't you think that.  He was only stating what was obvious to most   
   people in any high tech industry at the time?   
      
      
   > We here on this Usenet are proof of how right he was.   
      
   Not really.  Usenet clearly preceded Toffler.   
      
      
      
   > But he was   
   > also grieviously wrong - because he underestimated greatly the ongoing   
   > complexity of human existence.   
      
   Toffler purposely didn't worry about that, because he was just talking   
   about general trends.  He didn't really explore the underlying mechanics   
   of "why" or even "how".  He was trying to figure out the "what" side of   
   the equation.  As to the issue of human existence, the idea of   
   transhumanism is precisely to deal with the complex set of limitations   
   which make it difficult for humans to incorporate new technology.  IA or   
   intelligence amplification, for example, is an integral part of the   
   agenda, because, without it, humans might easily be overwhelmed by   
   advancing technology.   
      
      
   > Life can be "transformed" endlessly -   
   > but we still have to get on with the business of living with each   
   > other.   
      
   That's already accounted for extensively by many extropian analyses.   
   Maybe you should do some research on it.   
      
      
      
   > I suspect Mr.Kurzweil has performed the same kind of finesse. By   
      
   Kurzweil and other transhumanists don't ignore complex sociological,   
   psychological and political factors, though clearly much remains to be   
   done.   
      
      
   > focusing on change we diminish continuity. A more profound analysis   
      
      
   Everyone claims a "more profound" analysis than all the work that they   
   haven't even read by Kurzweil and the rest of the transhumanist   
   community.   
      
      
      
   > of   
   > our human future must take into account not merely change but also our   
   > ongoing and, indeed, enduring needs.   
      
   But our needs and therefore our values may not be anything like what they   
   are today when we approach singularity.  Technology may address all our   
   most pressing problems today.  In any event, we may not be human any more   
   in the sense that an unaugmented human may seem the way that a chimpanzee   
   seems to us now.   
      
      
   > It suggests, in fact, that what is holding us back   
   > is the lack of such a vision as Humanisation,   
      
      
   Clearly we will need many visions if we are to survive and function in a   
   high tech future.  I agree that there are many primitive institutions and   
   misunderstandings that hold humans back today.  However, as the humans   
   augment their intellects, most will finally have the capacity to cast off   
   memes like religion and pursue greater cooperation.  If we could hand out   
   smart pills then the majority of the human population could become   
   secular over-night.   
      
      
   --   
         Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)   
   "It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the   
   threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'   
   disease, and many others, but I think a case can be   
   made that faith is one of the world's great evils,   
   comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to   
   eradicate."  -- Richard Dawkins   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)