Great Upheavals Are Coming
It is sometimes confusing for non-scientists to credit science for postulating theory precisely because non-scientists do not understand that a scientific theory is often better than facts. It is a postulate which is testable. It is a tried and true position, much better than a hypothesis. A theory is the same as fact and facts change as do theories when a better theory comes along, or when a new tested and peer reviewed theory comes along.
"Science, to put its warrant as concisely as possible, is the organized systematic enterprise that gathers knowledge about the world and condenses the knowledge into testable laws and principles. The diagnostic features of science that distinguish it from pseudoscience are first, repeatability: The same phenomenon is sought again, preferably by independent investigation, and the interpretation given to it is confirmed or discarded by means of novel analysis and experimentation. Second, economy: Scientists attempt to abstract the information into the form that is both simplest and aesthetically most pleasing--the combination called elegance--while yielding the largest amount of information with the least amount of effort. Third, mensuration: If something can be properly measured, using universally accepted scales, generalizations about it are rendered unambiguous. Fourth, heuristics: The best science stimulates further discovery, often in unpredictable new directions; and the new knowledge provides an additional test of the original principles that led to its discovery. Fifth and finally, consilience: The explanations of different phenomena most likely to survive are those that can be connected and proved consistent with one another." - E.O.Wilson in his article, "Scientists, Scholars, Knaves and Fools" - Scientific American.
The Singularity
"Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended." (1993 - Vernor Vinge)
"Technological singularity refers to the hypothetical future emergence of greater-than-human intelligence through technological means, very probably resulting in explosive superintelligence. Since the capabilities of such intelligence would be difficult for an unaided human mind to comprehend, the occurrence of a technological singularity is seen as an intellectual event horizon, beyond which the future becomes difficult to understand or predict. Proponents of the singularity typically state an "intelligence explosion" is a key factor of the Singularity where superintelligences design successive generations of increasingly powerful minds."
- (Wikipedia)"The term was coined by science writer (Department of Mathematical Sciences - San Diego State University) Vernor Vinge, who argues that artificial intelligence, human biological enhancement or brain-computer interfaces could be possible causes of the singularity. The concept is popularized by futurists like Ray Kurzweil and it is expected by proponents to occur sometime in the 21st century, although estimates do vary." (IBID)
Not to be confused with the astronomical term, this terminology was popularized by computer scientist, writer and inventor futurist Ray Kurzweil in The Singularity is Near (2005) and Vernor Vinge in his acclaimed science fiction novel True Names (1981) and retired San Diego State University (SDSU) Professor of Mathematics and computer scientist. In the "singularity" there is a hypothetical future where humans are augmented by machines and enter a period of transhumanism.
As described by Nick Bostrom, a professor of philosophy at Oxford University (UK), "Transhumanism is a loosely defined movement that has developed gradually over the past two decades. It promotes an interdisciplinary approach to understanding and evaluating the opportunities for enhancing the human condition and the human organism opened up by the advancement of technology. Attention is given to both present technologies, like genetic engineering and information technology, and anticipated future ones, such as molecular nanotechnology and artificial intelligence."
On the bank at the end
Of what was there before us
Gazing over to the other side
On what we can become
Veiled in the mist of naïve speculation
We are busy here preparing
Rafts to carry us across
Before the light goes out leaving us
In the eternal night of could-have-been
Nick Bostrom
"The Singularity will offer us mastery over our biology and our life span..." (Ray Kurzweil)
Ray suggests in the near future we will master our biology and it will be possible to live forever. He says, in this not too distant idealized future world our capability "to create virtual worlds will make the digital and analog worlds indistinguishable." Sounds like the Matrix. While improvements will be made, the concept itself, I believe is too farfetched and an impractical expectation. Incidentally, Kurzwel is not a trained scientist; his background is in computers. I won't waste any more time on this, but if interested, you can search for more on the InterNUT. He has his cult following, but most credible scientists disagree with him.
Some expect a distopian future and the debate goes on. Even biological improvements are not ideal if there is not enough improvement in the quality of life.
Science is considered to be only 400 years old. Before it became science it was philosophy. And this is indeed an exciting time. Fifty years after the acceptance of radio and discovery of amplitude modulation, soon to somewhat co-exist with other more improved forms of modulation, but preceding any thought of solid state electronics, I discovered radio and became a ham operator. That was actually slightly above the cusp because radio really came into it's own during WWII. Most science is perfected during war. And it was the most exciting time of my life to be involved with radio and computers.
Science now includes disciplines not even imagined when I was a youngster building radios and computers out of tubes and wires on breadboards. Today the telescopes can see beyond the glare and blinding light from our sun. We can see in ranges beyond just the visible range we at one time thought was the only frequencies which mattered. Today we can calculate space and time. In this lifetime we perfected methodology for calculating the speed of expansion of our universe and the age. We have telescopes that are millions of miles apart connected by lasers which measure the beginnings of the universe and we know it all began (in this universe) 13.7 billion years ago.
We have new science, which is rapidly becoming old science, i.e. astronomy, biomedicine, genomics, and physiological psychology, among others. And incredibly we still have charlatans who are pushing silly pseudosciences and some who still believe in the supernatural and a flat earth.
Science illiteracy is a major problem. Believing in the unbelievable is also a sad commentary for Homo sapiens sapiens; supposedly wise, but so gullible about those things we fervently wish to believe though have no scientific basis in fact.
Survival is evolutionary because it contributes to reproduction and fitness doesn't determine evolution but natural selection rather is the result of how successful organisms are at passing on their genes.
"...fitness leads to the important prediction that natural selection favoring a particular type should result in a larger proportion of that type in future populations. This prediction has been repeatedly tested and confirmed." (David Barash, Natural Selections, 2008)
Natural selection doesn't create. It is a negative process. Those not fit fail over time in preference to those more fit for reproduction.
Perhaps the most important research in this new century are the new super colliders, including the latest one at CERN, the Hadron Collider and for the last couple of decades, the climate variation measurements and preserving ice cores taken in Antarctica, which reinforces more urgency to the community of climate scientists about a need to understand the trends and how much climate change has been caused by human activity.
Every scientific paper and report has to go through the critical scrutiny of other experts: peer review. Scientific authors are required to take reviewers' comments and criticisms seriously, and to fix any mistakes that may have been found. It's a foundational ethic of scientific work: no claim can be considered valid not even potentially valid -- until it has passed peer review." (Naomi Oreskes and Erick M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt - 2012)
And, how little time we have left.....
Attributions have been provided where
required.
All copying (if any) are in compliance with the Fair Use
Doctrine of Copyright
law as per
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, Copyright Law.
Permalink: http://inyourface.info/ArT/Eta/Upheavals.shtml
Today is Friday May 18, 2012
Hank Roth (on the Internet since 1982)