/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2322676]

Hey guys. I'm not a sciencefag. I'm a philosophyfag who has a passing interest in science, more so in its societal and existential implications than its nuts and bolts functioning. So I come to you with a question: Do you actually believe that a technological singularity will occur within our lifetimes, and if so how far reaching do you believe the effects will be?

I'm particularly interested in how quickly brain-computer interface is going to advance.

[Anonymous No.2322702]

[Anonymous No.2322723]

>>2322676
I hope so. Watch videos about transhumanists. Although right now it's only a dream, I read a chart somewhere (Cant rememberr the name) that showed that the full emulation of the human brain hopefully will occur around 2050. In this case we should be able to upload our minds to supercomputers and create virtual worlds in which we can interact.

Obviously the only problems with all of this is that there's always someone who is in control, and if everyone uploaded their minds, whoever is control would be able to make a army of controlled people.

There are some kinks, but the benefits outweigh the cons.

[Anonymous No.2322748]

I do not, think technological singularity will occur within our lifetimes

[Anonymous No.2322752]

>>2322723
Thanks for the response. Are you referring to the infamous Kurzweil chart?

Any other opinions?

[Anonymous No.2322756]

I said I wanted a latte, not a frappuccino!

[Anonymous No.2322763]

>>2322748
If not a singularity, do you think the pace of technological advancement will increase, decrease, or remain stable?

[Anonymous No.2322766]

The only think Philosophy students will ever get right is my pizza toppings.
And even then only 60% of the time.

[Anonymous No.2322783]

>>2322766
Thusly why I'm double-majoring in biology, pre-med track.

[Anonymous No.2322825]

Depends on your definition of the singularity. I've heard so many different bullshit definitions from different Philosophers that I'm convinced that they all use a different one, and all of their discussions on the issue are meaningless.

The most useful definition for it that I heard was "The point in time where technological advancement can no longer be predicted by people in the present". So in 1945, there were no accurate predictions of some of today's common technologies, such as the explosion of digital devices or the field of genetics, meaning that we are past the 1945 singularity. I think that in 50 years something similar will have occurred. Naturally, I cannot accurately guess how.

Brain computer interface? I'm sure it will happen eventually, but by the time it comes around it won't be surprising or even a big deal.

[Samefag !SHjzCSZsqE No.2322837]

>>2322783
>Premed
>Philosophy
>worthless sitting around thinking
>worthless memorization

[Anonymous No.2322843]

A botnet.... of people!

[Anonymous No.2322849]

>>2322825
>I've heard so many different bullshit definitions from different Philosophers that I'm convinced that they all use a different one, and all of their discussions on the issue are meaningless.
>all of their discussions on the issue are meaningless.
Shame you learn this at the end of a philosophy course rather than at the end.

[Anonymous No.2322855]

>>2322825
>I've heard so many different bullshit definitions from different Philosophers that I'm convinced that they all use a different one, and all of their discussions on the issue are meaningless.
>all of their discussions on the issue are meaningless.
Shame you learn this at the end of a philosophy course rather than at the beginning.

[Anonymous No.2322868]

No, I don't believe it will happen, within our lifetimes or otherwise. The idea is based on the fallacious assumption that increasing intelligence leads to increasing powers of technology without limit. We are limited not just by how clever we are, but also by physical law. Removing the first obstacle will do nothing about the second.

[Anonymous No.2322871]

>>2322837

> thinking
> worthless

[Anonymous No.2322881]

>>2322871
Thinking is only as worthwhile as the content being thought.

[Anonymous No.2322883]

>>2322871
Look where it has gotten us. All angsty about our existences and what not.

[Anonymous No.2322901]

Although I think within our lifetimes, the rate of technological advancement will increase. There's a lot left for us to learn which we can learn in the near future.

[Anonymous No.2322916]

>>2322783

SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCC
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.2322935]

>>2322916
I believe her name is Veronica Varona. This is the only other thing I have from her.

[Anonymous No.2322951]

What is the future of psychology? Will it be replaced by biological neuroscience?

[Anonymous No.2322962]

>>2322951
Neurology and psychiatry are blending into one field. So probably, yeah.

[Anonymous No.2322966]

Really though, isn't it impossible to actually predict the coming synergy of scientific fields without first knowing exactly what discoveries will be made and without even knowing the foundational limits of each field?


The answer is yes, it's impossible. It's impossible to build predictive models of future scientific discoveries based on past scientific discoveries. The singularity as we like to think about it serves more as a secular eschaton for people who need something definitive to believe in.

We could be decades away from hitting foundational, technological limitations, or we could be millenia away. But the only definitive thing is WE CAN'T. KNOW.