God & the Singularity: Blogger wants your opinion.

The author of The Speculist blog is looking for opinions on God and the (Technological) Singularity. He has a short (15 question) poll.



The Speculist author is both a person of faith and a member of the futurist/transhumanist community - a rare phenomenon.

I'd like to see DU'ers with an interest in science and/or religion take part in this poll; it would help open up a needed dialogue between scientific/futurist types and those of faith.

Here's a link for those still confused about The Technological Singularity.

I gave him mine.

*

What is this Singularity supposed to be, what more does it mean to say "Technological" Singularity?

Basically a technological singularity is the point beyond which it becomes impossible to predict human technological development. Both Kurzweil and Vinge see that singularity as being the liberation of human consciousness from our meat brains. Also, both see this as imminent (10-25 years IIRC). IMHO, what started out as an interesting bit of science fiction speculation and philosophy on the nature of consciousness has morphed into an odd sort of improvisational millenarian cult. Cult being used in the sociological sense here, rather than the religious one although there are religious overtones to the belief systems of singularians.

Normally, a 'singularity' involves something decreasing to zero, so that some concepts become meaningless. I might look more at their ideas if I didn't think they were trying to be trendy rather than serious.

Event horizon is more apt a term if you want to use the black hole metaphor.

Certainly Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil are serious about this idea. And so are the people who follow it with almost religious zeal.

Personally I think it's a lot like string theory. Nice idea, but it certainly isn't science. At least string theory has the possibility of becoming science, assuming anyone figures out how to test the hypotheses (I know, some think they can) and those hypotheses lead to predictable results.

But the idea of the technological singularity is just attractive nonsense. And everytime we think we're close to creating artificial brains we find out the task is a heck of a lot harder than we thought. This highlights the basic problem I have with Vinge and Kurzweil's ideas -- there's nothing to guarantee that we'll continue along the exponential curve we've been traveling and the rate and degree of technological development won't plateau.

Not that I would mind terribly if Kurzweil and Vinge were correct. As someone whose consciousness inhabits a failing meat body I'd love to be able to transfer myself to a more robust platform. Of course, at this point I'd settle for nanotechnology to repair my lymphathic system.

of chemistry doubles every 30 years. I don't think we are close to the end.

Once we get a UFT, sure it will me that there are no more unknowables, but it will also uncover a wealth of new things to explore.