Question For Religious People

[checkymcfold 0]

Couldn't say.

ha.

Technological singularityNothing to do with evolution. Just about the AI talk and the like.

i'll buy it, but it seems more like "the way shit would go, obviously" than something that deserves its own special name.it's also not quite what i meant with respect to technology. i was more talking about a sort of exponential increase in situations where we're able to create situations that fly in the face of the way darwinian evolution is supposed to function. like, being smarter than everyone else in the sense of being able to do extremely complex math equations as opposed to algebra II doesn't have any value in terms of survival skills EXCEPT in a world where smart people are better taken care of medically because we want them to build the best toaster ever. hence, characteristics and mutations that wouldn't have value in the strictly "biologically evolutionary" sense take on the value of being such, and the mechanism of evolution as a tool of survival is changed thereby.

[Spademan 94]

i'll buy it, but it seems more like "the way shit would go, obviously" than something that deserves its own special name.it's also not quite what i meant with respect to technology. i was more talking about a sort of exponential increase in situations where we're able to create situations that fly in the face of the way darwinian evolution is supposed to function. like, being smarter than everyone else in the sense of being able to do extremely complex math equations as opposed to algebra II doesn't have any value in terms of survival skills EXCEPT in a world where smart people are better taken care of medically because we want them to build the best toaster ever. hence, characteristics and mutations that wouldn't have value in the strictly "biologically evolutionary" sense take on the value of being such, and the mechanism of evolution as a tool of survival is changed thereby.

Ya, I just meant the the current tone of the thread generally now. AI and the rest within our lifetime and all. Didn't mean that you in particular were discussing the concept in particular.I think the idea behind calling it "the singularity" as to the people by whom it is posited, is that with an exponential growth in technology, the new technology of which causing even faster growth, that at some time there will be a tipping point, where things change so rapidly that it is a whole order of difference than the days or years before.I haven't looked into it enough to come down on one side or the other when it comes to the possibility of such a thing, was just reminded of it by the thread and find it an interesting thing to consider.

[checkymcfold 0]

Ya, I just meant the the current tone of the thread generally now. AI and the rest within our lifetime and all. Didn't mean that you in particular were discussing the concept in particular.I think the idea behind calling it "the singularity" as to the people by whom it is posited, is that with an exponential growth in technology, the new technology of which causing even faster growth, that at some time there will be a tipping point, where things change so rapidly that it is a whole order of difference than the days or years before.I haven't looked into it enough to come down on one side or the other when it comes to the possibility of such a thing, was just reminded of it by the thread and find it an interesting thing to consider.

i think that "tipping point" would be the moment at which computer programs become smart enough to write themselves in such a way that they're improving their intelligence. i mean, at that point, you could basically leave a robot dude on for like a night and wake up to a robot army that would eat you alive while calculating the mass of jesus christ himself.

[Spademan 94]

i think that "tipping point" would be the moment at which computer programs become smart enough to write themselves in such a way that they're improving their intelligence. i mean, at that point, you could basically leave a robot dude on for like a night and wake up to a robot army that would eat you alive while calculating the mass of jesus christ himself.

Ha.I'm inclined to agree.Others think nanotechnology would be the main catalyst in a variety of possible ways. Hive mind being one of them.

[timwakefield 68]

Y'all been reading your Raymond Kurzweil it seems.

[Spademan 94]

Y'all been reading your Raymond Kurzweil it seems.

Not anything exclusively his.I've only ever read general, combined reservoirs of information on the subject, like wiki and similar pages.Although wiki-ing him just now, I run his book "The Singularity Is Near" and there is chapter Two: A Theory of Technology Evolution, which falls right into the discussion about technology, evolution and the various possible meanings of the world "evolve".

[vbnautilus 48]

Not anything exclusively his.I've only ever read general, combined reservoirs of information on the subject, like wiki and similar pages.Although wiki-ing him just now, I run his book "The Singularity Is Near" and there is chapter Two: A Theory of Technology Evolution, which falls right into the discussion about technology, evolution and the various possible meanings of the world "evolve".

I recently read one of Vernor Vinge's books (Rainbows End) and found it surprisingly good. Apparently he's big into the singularity but I've only read a tad of what he has to say about it.

[Spademan 94]

I recently read one of Vernor Vinge's books (Rainbows End) and found it surprisingly good. Apparently he's big into the singularity but I've only read a tad of what he has to say about it.

"The novel introduces us to Robert Gu, a man slowly recovering from Alzheimer's disease thanks to advances in medical technology. As his faculties return, Robert (who always has been slightly technophobic) must adapt to a very different world, where almost every object is networked and mediated-reality technology is commonplace."I'll have to check it out.

[navybuttons 15]

I run his book "The Singularity Is Near" and there is chapter Two: A Theory of Technology Evolution, which falls right into the discussion about technology, evolution and the various possible meanings of the world "evolve".

i'm about 3/4 of the way through. i had to re-read the brain engineering section today after the exchange between vb and i. apparently i didn't pay close enough attention the first time. i definitely had a broader scope of "evolve" before i started the book. but the evolution of evolution was a little monkey wrench.

[rjkdb8 1]

And you are incorrect...I have never made that assertion to this fake account.

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...p;#entry2672596

[HollywoodAFD 0]

LMAO... you don't even realize what you just did.... that is TOO funny.

[rjkdb8 1]

LMAO... you don't even realize what you just did.... that is TOO funny.

What? You and Jackie are the same person, no? I searched for my handle and Crow's name because I remember that you had accused us of being the same person in the past.

[speedz99 145]

Stop taking your meds?

[navybuttons 15]

here's a pretty strong speech by kurzweil. it's a 22 min speech that will gives a pretty good overview of "the singularity is near"ding!

[vbnautilus 48]

here's a pretty strong speech by kurzweil. it's a 22 min speech that will gives a pretty good overview of "the singularity is near"ding!

Great talk. I love these TED talks. However, I still disagree about the "completed reverse engineering of the human brain by 2020" prediction. The examples he gave were greatly exaggerated. As for auditory cortex, we still don't even really know how the cells in A1 are functionally organized. The cellular architecture of the cerebellum is well-mapped, but we really have very little idea of what it actually does. To make it worse, these are low-hanging fruit and don't require solution of the hard problems. I'm willing to put some money on the 2020 claim. Or maybe that's a bad idea, since if I lose I'll be out of a job.

[timwakefield 68]

"The Singularity Is Near"

Yeah I've read a parts of it - that's where I got my prediction that computers will have more computing power than the human brain in about 40 years. Kurzweil describes that event as 'the singularity.'

[God 0]

is it possible that "evolution" and "god" are just two different names for the same thing?please show work.

does My name look like "evolution?"yeah...case closed

[chrozzo 19]

does My name look like "evolution?"yeah...case closed

uuuuuhhhhhhhhwhat?

[chrozzo 19]

uuuuuhhhhhhhhwhat?

really

[The Walrus 0]

I know this is a bit of an old thread , and i didn´t read all that was said here so if i´m copying anyones work don´t slap me .I know for a fact that evolution and god ( the christian god ) are very compatible and here in holland there are plenthy of christian scientists who can't deny the facts of evolution , and also have a strong believe in the existence of the christian god. Now it would be too much work to go really deep into this , but basically what they believe is that god first created the earth and after that he created man ( there might have been a huge time-span between those ). If you look into the first bible book genesis it states that god created earth , divided the waters and created the light etc. etc. in the first 5 days , and on the 6th day he created man. Now i think we shouldn't think of those days like days as we know them now , god lives in eternity , a concept that is very unhumanand impossible for us to grasp, so the timespaces in between all creation might have been let's say a century , or let's say a millionyears. In this interpretation of the bible and god , the creation doesn't conflict that much at all with the popular believe of evolution. Some people tend to read the bible too literally and can't understand that there are nuances in what is written in the bible , i believethat those people are dogmatic and were raised a certain way , which keeps them from examining , or even wanting to examine , the truth.What i don't believe is that the basic theory of evolution by darwin is 100 % correct , i think it's a wildly overrated theory and often conceived as"complete". Anyway i wanted to write a whole lot more but there are people waiting for me now :(Hope i said enough to bring the discussion back to life. ~Love

[loogie 115]

I believe in theistic evolution.

fypI'm comfortable with this idea.

[The Walrus 0]

No no , i never said i believe in that stuff. I'm just sharing different opinions on this matter , i myself am still searching and therefore considder myself agnostic. "but basically what they believe"This was the quote that i started with , not "what i believe".Don't get me wrong , i do agree on certain points , otherwise i wouldn't have posted it , but i don't believe in the whole theistic evolution "theory".

[phlegm 6]

Hey walrus, r u from thje part of holland that is perpetually high, or the part that sells women in windows?

[timwakefield 68]

What i don't believe is that the basic theory of evolution by darwin is 100 % correct , i think it's a wildly overrated theory and often conceived as"complete".

Why do you say that? Of course he wasn't 100% correct, but he was pretty revolutionary and pretty damn right about a lot of things, such as how life takes different forms. He nailed that one.

[The Walrus 0]

"Hey walrus, r u from thje part of holland that is perpetually high, or the part that sells women in windows?"Try to stay away from the forums when ur drunk. To respond to your question i'm from the part where people arestarting to degenerate back to monkeys, due to incest. And to the question why i made that last remark.Because it was part of Darwins believe that everything in nature has come about through accidental, unguided purposelessness.Which is an essential part of his theory and one i can't agree with. The chances that a one cell organism evolves into human beingsas we know them today is so utterly small , that i simply can't believe that the entire process was by chance. I agree with Theistic Evolution on that matter , that there was ( maybe still is ) a divine creature like the christian god , whom "guided"the process , which makes alot more sense than everything happening by chance. But to be totally honest with you i didn't read the entire "Origin of Species" , so i guess i should do that to get a more educated view.