Comments on: The “Rapture” and the “Singularity” Have Much in Common

By: Transhumanism: A Secular Religion? « Metabiological

Transhumanism: A Secular Religion? « Metabiological — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 04:50:46 +0000

[...] secular, transhumanism trackback Over at FirstThings, which I am loath to dignify with a link but here it is, there is a post up counting down a short list. Inspired by the recent failed doomsday prediction [...]

By: Christopher Clark

Christopher Clark — Sun, 29 May 2011 16:50:53 +0000

Is a totally programmed A.I. a prerequisite to the Singularity? I for one don’t think so. I believe that in the future we will have the ability to map the brain so thoroughly that the result will be artificial intelligence. This is different from actually programming from the ground up. The digitized version of a human brain would initially, at least, have limitations and advantages that purely programmed artificial intelligence would not possess. These limitations may include biases, prejudices, and fears based in the material plane that would no longer have any practical application. The advantages may include a moral code that is based on a life lived in our society. These limitations may be quickly overcome by access all of the worlds amassed knowledge in the blink of an eye. It’s amazing to think of how quickly it, and others like it, could change the world.

Thank you,
Christopher W. Clark
http://johngalt4u2.blogspot.com/

By: JohnE

JohnE — Tue, 24 May 2011 18:22:03 +0000

Wesley, the transhumanist community noticed this a long while back.

In rebuttal, folks working towards The Singularity are going to produce a lot of cool technology.

Rapture-fanatics are going to produce a few websites and take a lot of sucker’s money.

By: gMoj

gMoj — Mon, 23 May 2011 21:38:06 +0000

The main difference is that a rapture requires some kind of intervention from above… a superhuman force to reach down and set a new era in motion. The singularity is more grass-roots, so to speak, originating from the ground up through our own collective initiative and innovation. The rapture will require an act of God to happen and so will probably never happen. The singularity will require an act of God to keep from happening and so will in all likelihood be inevitable. These are big differences.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 23 May 2011 18:01:24 +0000

@Artaban7

“That’s precisely the problem–secularists’ dismissal of human immorality. ”

Zing!

By: Artaban7

Artaban7 — Sun, 22 May 2011 21:53:55 +0000

“How many secularists do you know of believe that human immorality is inevitable? Very few.”–Jeremy

That’s precisely the problem–secularists’ dismissal of human immorality.

I suspect what you meant to say is “immortality” not “immorality”.

By: Bear Morin

Bear Morin — Sun, 22 May 2011 21:38:48 +0000

Surely the notions of singularity and the rapture are both worthy of a good chuckle. What the??##%* — My mouse just attacked me, everything’s getting darker, darker dar…

By: Jon Rowe

Jon Rowe — Sun, 22 May 2011 16:20:37 +0000

Dblade: I agree with your comments to me and Boonton in the sense that futurists can be laughably ignorant in non-IT areas like 1970s predictions and nuclear flying cars.

What I’d like you and others to appreciate is: ignore the non-It stuff where the future breakthroughs are utterly unpredictable and instead focus on the predictability of IT advances as they relate to Moore’s Law. So much futurism gets it wrong; but that 1993 At & T commercial got it right.

Re technology and magic, that’s a discussion for another day. I understand the new Thor movie (which I have yet to see; but, as a comic book geek I certainly will) contains a line derived from one of Arthur C. Clarke’s rules that is if you don’t understand the scientific basis of advanced technology it appears to be magic.

By: Dblade

Dblade — Sun, 22 May 2011 15:43:12 +0000

Boonton:

The problem is that not everything that seems plausible is. If you read SF heavily, pick up some from the 1970s. At the time a lot of it was very plausible, extrapolated from current ideas and trends. Now, most are so dated they seem ridiculous, and it’s the most implausible ones that endure.

Jon:

I’m not arguing against disruptive effects at all. I would like to say its never one sided: ebooks also may hurt the little guy and benefit the big one by giving the aggregators power via a “long tail” approach to profit.

It’s just technology becomes like magic in kurzweil’s eyes. It will always get better, and never plateau, or be limited. There’s a difference between realistically looking at future tech and wondering how it will change us, and a blind faith in us having the equivalent of flying nuclear cars in our ranch house garages.

By: JAD

JAD — Sun, 22 May 2011 15:12:43 +0000

I agree that computer technology is going to keep advancing. But, will some one explain to me how to make a computer conscious and then self conscious. Maybe we need to back up even further and ask, what is consciousness? David Chalmers described this as the hard problem. At present no one has a clue how to solve that problem. Therefore, all bets are off.