The Self-Actualizing Operating System
October 11, 2005 5:44 AM Subscribe
The amorality of Web 2.0. Partially inspired by a Wired profile, that asks "Could it be that the Internet - or what O'Reilly calls Web 2.0 - is really the -successor to the human potential movement?" And of course, it's not a bubble if one calls it a bubble.
I'm not blind to the limitations and the flaws of the blogosphere - its superficiality, its emphasis on opinion over reporting, its echolalia, its tendency to reinforce rather than challenge ideological extremism and segregation.
Frankly this could apply equally well to your average blog as to your average Judy Miller article in the New York Times, although those are very different things. Perhaps it is that the "blog phenomenon" is introucing most people to the idea of questioning what they read, and that having adopted this new point of view they notice how much professional journalism can resemble pure, facts-light op-ed sometimes. Does anyone really believe, for instance, that the Fox News Channel genuinely is "fair and balanced"? They have professional journalists, though, don't they?
I'm not going to say that Wikipedia is the greatest thing since sliced bread -- and if I were correcting college papers I'd probably be pretty merciless to someone who quoted it as a principal source -- but let's face it, North Americans have come to consider certain pieces of news to be "important" for no other reason than that the news networks are telling them it's important. If there's a force or movement that can help inject a bit of skepticism into the process I think that can only help. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being skeptical of "web 2.0" either.
posted by clevershark at 6:10 AM on October 11, 2005
Frankly this could apply equally well to your average blog as to your average Judy Miller article in the New York Times, although those are very different things. Perhaps it is that the "blog phenomenon" is introucing most people to the idea of questioning what they read, and that having adopted this new point of view they notice how much professional journalism can resemble pure, facts-light op-ed sometimes. Does anyone really believe, for instance, that the Fox News Channel genuinely is "fair and balanced"? They have professional journalists, though, don't they?
I'm not going to say that Wikipedia is the greatest thing since sliced bread -- and if I were correcting college papers I'd probably be pretty merciless to someone who quoted it as a principal source -- but let's face it, North Americans have come to consider certain pieces of news to be "important" for no other reason than that the news networks are telling them it's important. If there's a force or movement that can help inject a bit of skepticism into the process I think that can only help. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being skeptical of "web 2.0" either.
posted by clevershark at 6:10 AM on October 11, 2005
The vast majority of people still don't understand the internet, and we are huge steps away from needing to worry about the supplanting of culture by "internet culture."
A friend of mine who teaches an intro-level university class at our resident big-10 U was recently grading papers when she came across an error in attribution. The error? A student used a quote, then cited it as having come from "Google, page 3".
Most people still don't get it.
posted by voltairemodern at 6:22 AM on October 11, 2005
A friend of mine who teaches an intro-level university class at our resident big-10 U was recently grading papers when she came across an error in attribution. The error? A student used a quote, then cited it as having come from "Google, page 3".
Most people still don't get it.
posted by voltairemodern at 6:22 AM on October 11, 2005
he's missing the forest (web 2.0) for the tree (wikipedia) ...
posted by pyramid termite at 6:59 AM on October 11, 2005
posted by pyramid termite at 6:59 AM on October 11, 2005
Pyramid, more to the point, I think the 'forest' is the resonance of human consciousness in the context of a transcendent internet.
By all accounts, there will be a computer with the processing capacity of a human brain by 2013. Consider the wide ranging effects that the internet has now on human discourse and activities, and you can see that Web 2.0 is just a paltry name for something far bigger that is coming; that is, a universal paradigm shift in the human condition. Nanotechnology, near infinite computational capacities, and AI are whats at stake.
Nick Carr fails utterly when he gets hung up on poor grammar. He fails to recognize that the Wikipedia is *not* the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia is a small part of a much larger trend that is only in it's infancy.
posted by kuatto at 7:22 AM on October 11, 2005
By all accounts, there will be a computer with the processing capacity of a human brain by 2013. Consider the wide ranging effects that the internet has now on human discourse and activities, and you can see that Web 2.0 is just a paltry name for something far bigger that is coming; that is, a universal paradigm shift in the human condition. Nanotechnology, near infinite computational capacities, and AI are whats at stake.
Nick Carr fails utterly when he gets hung up on poor grammar. He fails to recognize that the Wikipedia is *not* the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia is a small part of a much larger trend that is only in it's infancy.
posted by kuatto at 7:22 AM on October 11, 2005
voltairemodern writes "A student used a quote, then cited it as having come from 'Google, page 3'."
"If it wasn't for my horse, I never would have spent that year in college."
posted by clevershark at 7:25 AM on October 11, 2005
"If it wasn't for my horse, I never would have spent that year in college."
posted by clevershark at 7:25 AM on October 11, 2005
And of course, wikipedia is not web-2.0. Really nothing other then the general coolness of wikis caused wikipedia to come into existence now, rather then during the dot-com boom... although its creation at the time of its creation probably had a lot to do with it being a non-profit.
It's almost hilarious, this is the same Utopian Bullshit I used to read in wired when I was a high school student. It was entertaining then, when I thought This Was Something Different.
You could almost argue that the preponderance of blogs, and the popularity of the internet has made it much less useful. Certainly if you find your info through google...
posted by delmoi at 7:26 AM on October 11, 2005
By all accounts, there will be a computer with the processing capacity of a human brain by 2013. Consider the wide ranging effects that the internet has now on human discourse and activities, and you can see that Web 2.0 is just a paltry name for something far bigger that is coming; that is, a universal paradigm shift in the human condition. Nanotechnology, near infinite computational capacities, and AI are whats at stake.
By "all" accounts? I could see some massive cluster achieving something like that, but it won't seem anything like a human, or be able to do what we do until we get a lot of programming issues worked out.
All that stuff is at stake, and the internet may play a part in it. But "Web 2.0" doesn't have anything more to do with it then Windows or Java or Flash or whatever. Hell, it's not even a real technology, just an arbitrary classification that someone came up with to sell books.
If there's one thing the 'blogsphere' is good at it's hyping itself to ridiculous levels.
posted by delmoi at 7:30 AM on October 11, 2005
This is kind of strawman-ish, no? He sets up a position which somebody is supposed to have ('By necessity, we have to look at the Internet as a moral force, not as a simple collection of inanimate hardware and software. No decent person wants to worship an amoral conglomeration of technology."), then goes on to attack this idea which he himself has posited.
I've never heard anybody else say that the Internet is 'a moral force', any more than the alphabet, the printing press or gunpowder are 'moral forces'.
There are a series of logical leaps which he seems to pull out of his ass just to appear contrarian.
posted by signal at 7:32 AM on October 11, 2005
I've never heard anybody else say that the Internet is 'a moral force', any more than the alphabet, the printing press or gunpowder are 'moral forces'.
There are a series of logical leaps which he seems to pull out of his ass just to appear contrarian.
posted by signal at 7:32 AM on October 11, 2005
but let's face it, North Americans have come to consider certain pieces of news to be "important" for no other reason than that the news networks are telling them it's important.
C'mon clevershart. "News" is a product like anything else, it is tailored to attract viewers. We fool ourselves to ever think it anything else.
posted by three blind mice at 7:35 AM on October 11, 2005
C'mon clevershart. "News" is a product like anything else, it is tailored to attract viewers. We fool ourselves to ever think it anything else.
posted by three blind mice at 7:35 AM on October 11, 2005
clevershark, that is.
posted by three blind mice at 7:36 AM on October 11, 2005
posted by three blind mice at 7:36 AM on October 11, 2005
voltairmodern, I guess it never occurred to you or your friend that such an attribution might have been a joke?
kuatto: By all accounts, there will be a computer with the processing capacity of a human brain by 2013.
Heh... I think not, but I have no more proof than you do. It certainly isn't true 'by all accounts' though...
Anyway, the web is a real phenomena to be sure, but all these folk who think they have a handle on what that means are just hacks hoping to con a pay check out of people who don't trust their own senses.
posted by Chuckles at 7:38 AM on October 11, 2005
kuatto: By all accounts, there will be a computer with the processing capacity of a human brain by 2013.
Heh... I think not, but I have no more proof than you do. It certainly isn't true 'by all accounts' though...
Anyway, the web is a real phenomena to be sure, but all these folk who think they have a handle on what that means are just hacks hoping to con a pay check out of people who don't trust their own senses.
posted by Chuckles at 7:38 AM on October 11, 2005
Actually, pyramid and kuatto, I think some of his concerns are well founded. The author's point in discussing Wikipedia was that, as the product of any number of individual human brains, it will inevitably be a crystallization of their knowledge as well as their misinformation--their skill as well as their ineptitude. Unless some sort of error correcting process is invoked at some step of the development of knowledge bases like Wikipedia (say, required peer review of articles to weed out factual and grammatical errors), errors in content and style will creep into every entry. In this way, Wikipedia stands as a perfect synecdoche for the internet as the dreamers envision it: free-flowing information without censorship. The problems will be the same as those encountered by Wikipedia, unless we can figure out a way to prevent them. The internet, unfortunately, won't correct itself; we need to do that work.
posted by voltairemodern at 7:40 AM on October 11, 2005
posted by voltairemodern at 7:40 AM on October 11, 2005
In one of my courses, I've had a student list a reference as simply "Google".
And, no, it wasn't a joke.
posted by signal at 7:40 AM on October 11, 2005
And, no, it wasn't a joke.
posted by signal at 7:40 AM on October 11, 2005
I guess it never occurred to you or your friend that such an attribution might have been a joke?
If only the students were that smart...
posted by voltairemodern at 7:43 AM on October 11, 2005
If only the students were that smart...
posted by voltairemodern at 7:43 AM on October 11, 2005
If there's one thing the 'blogsphere' is good at it's hyping itself to ridiculous levels.
I agree.
Choice quote from the second link:
I agree.
Choice quote from the second link:
"These core webheads want their bubble days back so bad, they want to feel that important again, be back in that media spotlight again, be bathed in the money of suckers again."posted by ericb at 7:44 AM on October 11, 2005
The evolution of the internet, and of knowledge, is hyper-exponential. No one disputes the enormous changes that have taken place in the last 15 years or so, in regards to the internet, medical technology, etc. Consider for a moment, those changes in the context of a hyper-exponential growth; We are on the cusp of the information age. It's only been since about 1960 since these changes have really taken off, and look how far we have come. The entire world has radically changed in it's character and dynamics and the rate of change is only increasing.
As for the AI by 2013, this is a year bandied about by Kurzweil and others. Of course I was not referring to an AI with the consciousness of a human, rather an AI bootstrapping process process of sorts. It is, after all, the evolution of the tools that speeds up progress the most. Imagine the rate at which new software tools will be coming out when they write themselves.
Voltairemodern, you are correct in the context of correct grammar (as an aside my grammar sucks), the wikipedia has a long way to go. But my argument is essentially that grammar is not relevant to the fact that: a global resonance of human intelligence producing anything is simply unprecedented. These self organizing attributes that characterize the global information flow will have far reaching effects as they organize and coalesce in and around every human created system.
posted by kuatto at 8:32 AM on October 11, 2005
As for the AI by 2013, this is a year bandied about by Kurzweil and others. Of course I was not referring to an AI with the consciousness of a human, rather an AI bootstrapping process process of sorts. It is, after all, the evolution of the tools that speeds up progress the most. Imagine the rate at which new software tools will be coming out when they write themselves.
Voltairemodern, you are correct in the context of correct grammar (as an aside my grammar sucks), the wikipedia has a long way to go. But my argument is essentially that grammar is not relevant to the fact that: a global resonance of human intelligence producing anything is simply unprecedented. These self organizing attributes that characterize the global information flow will have far reaching effects as they organize and coalesce in and around every human created system.
posted by kuatto at 8:32 AM on October 11, 2005
Dude, It wasn't even smart or funny when I referenced a semi web quack in an paper (self link, of course). It just doesn't take smarts to make an unfunny Beavis and Butthead joke...
(I say 'semi web quack' because he isn't widely cited and he isn't working in the field. Personally, I found Mr. Sweetser's work very helpful and I am most appreciative. In general, I am not able to say anything useful about his theories beyond 'looks cool'.)
It may well be possible that some student somewhere might seriously cite google out of a misunderstanding of what a search engine or usenet archive is, but it really says nothing about what people 'get' about "the internets".
I dunno... Just look one post over to see how much mindless blather people spew about this stuff. The linked web comic did a pretty good job of illustrating the point actually.
posted by Chuckles at 8:56 AM on October 11, 2005
(I say 'semi web quack' because he isn't widely cited and he isn't working in the field. Personally, I found Mr. Sweetser's work very helpful and I am most appreciative. In general, I am not able to say anything useful about his theories beyond 'looks cool'.)
It may well be possible that some student somewhere might seriously cite google out of a misunderstanding of what a search engine or usenet archive is, but it really says nothing about what people 'get' about "the internets".
I dunno... Just look one post over to see how much mindless blather people spew about this stuff. The linked web comic did a pretty good job of illustrating the point actually.
posted by Chuckles at 8:56 AM on October 11, 2005
As for the AI by 2013, this is a year bandied about by Kurzweil and others.
Minor correction: that is around the time (201X, 202X) that raw processing power is calculated to equal roughly human brain calculating power. That doesn't mean we will know the correct algorithms to produce intelligence out of that processing power, so general AI may take quite a while more.
Ah, here is a (rather dated: 1999) link where Kurzweil gives dates for processing power and software development:
By 2019 a $1,000 computer will at least match the processing power of the human brain. By 2029 the software for intelligence will have been largely mastered, and the average personal computer will be equivalent to 1,000 brains.
Perhaps one can calculate the processing power of the brain. One can calculate the rough amount of expected computing power in the near future. What is harder to calculate is when the software will be ready. I highly question the prediction of 2029 for the software development. AI will come, but the timeline is currently unknowable.
posted by Bort at 9:03 AM on October 11, 2005
Minor correction: that is around the time (201X, 202X) that raw processing power is calculated to equal roughly human brain calculating power. That doesn't mean we will know the correct algorithms to produce intelligence out of that processing power, so general AI may take quite a while more.
Ah, here is a (rather dated: 1999) link where Kurzweil gives dates for processing power and software development:
By 2019 a $1,000 computer will at least match the processing power of the human brain. By 2029 the software for intelligence will have been largely mastered, and the average personal computer will be equivalent to 1,000 brains.
Perhaps one can calculate the processing power of the brain. One can calculate the rough amount of expected computing power in the near future. What is harder to calculate is when the software will be ready. I highly question the prediction of 2029 for the software development. AI will come, but the timeline is currently unknowable.
posted by Bort at 9:03 AM on October 11, 2005
signal writes "I've had a student list a reference as simply 'Google'."
That wouldn't be as bad as adding "page 3" IMHO...
posted by clevershark at 9:06 AM on October 11, 2005
That wouldn't be as bad as adding "page 3" IMHO...
posted by clevershark at 9:06 AM on October 11, 2005
three blind mice writes "'News' is a product like anything else, it is tailored to attract viewers. We fool ourselves to ever think it anything else."
Clearly I agree, but I just don't think that most people see things that clearly...
posted by clevershark at 9:07 AM on October 11, 2005
Clearly I agree, but I just don't think that most people see things that clearly...
posted by clevershark at 9:07 AM on October 11, 2005
kuatto: a global resonance of human intelligence producing anything is simply unprecedented.
That is ridiculous. Every human creation from the dawn of the species has been produced by "a global resonance of human intelligence".
If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
- Newton
posted by Chuckles at 9:08 AM on October 11, 2005
That is ridiculous. Every human creation from the dawn of the species has been produced by "a global resonance of human intelligence".
If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
- Newton
posted by Chuckles at 9:08 AM on October 11, 2005
Chuckles:That is ridiculous. Every human creation from the dawn of the species has been produced by "a global resonance of human intelligence".
At the speed of light? and on a global scale? I think not. This is different.
Bort, what kind of computer could the DOD buy in 2019?
posted by kuatto at 9:16 AM on October 11, 2005
At the speed of light? and on a global scale? I think not. This is different.
Bort, what kind of computer could the DOD buy in 2019?
posted by kuatto at 9:16 AM on October 11, 2005
It's something of a red herring to ask when a computer will "equal a human brain" - rather like wondering when a car will be able to walk.
Computers think in different ways to humans. In many ways, they've been more powerful for a long time - arithmetic problems, or chess, or interplanetary trajectory predictions, for example.
There are a few things we do that they don't do, not due to inferiority, but simply because they have different design goals.
Our design goal, broadly, is to (collectively) survive and reproduce - and try to have fun on the way; while the primary design goal of computers is merely to help their manufacturers or owners make money.
If we (humans) were to start constructing machines whose design goal was to survive, reproduce, and have fun at the expense of humans, we (humans) would rapidly hit severe problems.
But why would anyone be so stupid as to do that?
posted by cleardawn at 9:24 AM on October 11, 2005
Computers think in different ways to humans. In many ways, they've been more powerful for a long time - arithmetic problems, or chess, or interplanetary trajectory predictions, for example.
There are a few things we do that they don't do, not due to inferiority, but simply because they have different design goals.
Our design goal, broadly, is to (collectively) survive and reproduce - and try to have fun on the way; while the primary design goal of computers is merely to help their manufacturers or owners make money.
If we (humans) were to start constructing machines whose design goal was to survive, reproduce, and have fun at the expense of humans, we (humans) would rapidly hit severe problems.
But why would anyone be so stupid as to do that?
posted by cleardawn at 9:24 AM on October 11, 2005
clevershark writes 'That wouldn't be as bad as adding "page 3" IMHO...'
Oh, I concur, just adding another data point.
posted by signal at 9:28 AM on October 11, 2005
Oh, I concur, just adding another data point.
posted by signal at 9:28 AM on October 11, 2005
Telephones were different too, so was the printing press. Even monks huddled around candles were different from what went before. The development of number systems, the development of witting systems, the development of language...
As I said upthread "Anyway, the web is a real phenomena to be sure,".
Here is a quote from the Washington Monthly link next door:
posted by Chuckles at 9:31 AM on October 11, 2005
As I said upthread "Anyway, the web is a real phenomena to be sure,".
Here is a quote from the Washington Monthly link next door:
If I can offer a crude analogy, however, this seems sort of like predicting what will happen if you throw a baseball toward a box of ping pong balls a few hundred feet away. Even if the wind is swirling, you can make a pretty reasonable prediction that the ball is going to hit the box, but it's virtually impossible to tell what happens after that. Maybe they aren't ping pong balls after all, but hard boiled eggs. Or blobs of plastic explosive. And even if they are ping pong balls, we still don't know enough about them to predict how they're going to scatter once they're hit.And I would add... Even if you know they are made of plastic explosives, if you are the author of that quote you don't know that said plastique wouldn't explode because it isn't volatile. So, along with the fact that it is hard to predict from a state of perfect knowledge, we aren't in a state of perfect knowledge...
posted by Chuckles at 9:31 AM on October 11, 2005
It could be argued that multinational corporations are machines designed to survive, reproduce, and have fun at the expense of humans.
And so far, they are certainly winning. Approximately 40,000 humans died from lack of money today, as they do every day. No large multinational company ceased to exist; they very rarely do.
posted by cleardawn at 9:32 AM on October 11, 2005
And so far, they are certainly winning. Approximately 40,000 humans died from lack of money today, as they do every day. No large multinational company ceased to exist; they very rarely do.
posted by cleardawn at 9:32 AM on October 11, 2005
Bort, what kind of computer could the DOD buy in 2019?
Likely one powerful enough to be intelligent, if it had the proper software. But I don't think its likely that we'll have developed sufficient algorithms by then.
posted by Bort at 9:34 AM on October 11, 2005
Likely one powerful enough to be intelligent, if it had the proper software. But I don't think its likely that we'll have developed sufficient algorithms by then.
posted by Bort at 9:34 AM on October 11, 2005
Human intelligence would be a very good idea.
(apologies to Mohandas Gandhi).
posted by cleardawn at 9:46 AM on October 11, 2005
(apologies to Mohandas Gandhi).
posted by cleardawn at 9:46 AM on October 11, 2005
kuatto, can you tell me what "Global Resonance of Human Intelligence" means?
Are you talking about emergence?
posted by gsb at 9:57 AM on October 11, 2005
Are you talking about emergence?
posted by gsb at 9:57 AM on October 11, 2005
bort: Perhaps one can calculate the processing power of the brain.
I can't really tell how you mean that. Anyway, I think it deserves some emphasis. As far as I know, we just don't have any way of measuring it at all.
Here is google's opinion on the subject.
posted by Chuckles at 10:04 AM on October 11, 2005
I can't really tell how you mean that. Anyway, I think it deserves some emphasis. As far as I know, we just don't have any way of measuring it at all.
Here is google's opinion on the subject.
posted by Chuckles at 10:04 AM on October 11, 2005
So, this Web 2.0 ? We pray to it?
Does it want goats? Virgins? What?
posted by penciltopper at 10:07 AM on October 11, 2005
Does it want goats? Virgins? What?
posted by penciltopper at 10:07 AM on October 11, 2005
It is an emergence of sorts, I guess I'm referring to the electronic age that the human race is entering. The synthesis and dissemination of knowledge is increasing exponentially. These new web tools are just the first characteristics of a new semiotic/informational resonance chamber that we will all live in.
Oreilly, when he talks about collective intelligence as a resource, he is talking about tapping into a "Global Resonance of Human Intelligence". The internet is a substrate, an informational medium, a proxy for the human cerebrum, that allows this level of global organization.
The fact that someone gave this process a version number (web 2.whatever) suggests a continuum or larger process. We should not let poor grammar on the Wikipedia make us lose sight of this larger process.
posted by kuatto at 11:03 AM on October 11, 2005
Oreilly, when he talks about collective intelligence as a resource, he is talking about tapping into a "Global Resonance of Human Intelligence". The internet is a substrate, an informational medium, a proxy for the human cerebrum, that allows this level of global organization.
The fact that someone gave this process a version number (web 2.whatever) suggests a continuum or larger process. We should not let poor grammar on the Wikipedia make us lose sight of this larger process.
posted by kuatto at 11:03 AM on October 11, 2005
The entire world has radically changed in it's character
Hyperbolically incorrect on two fronts.
First, and most simply, the majority of the planets people are not interacting with the world wide web at all. Many live for all intents like their parents did. No radical web-induced changes have occured for billions in India, China, Africa, Indonesia.
Second, and perhaps more interestingly, to suggest the very "character of the world" is changing is to suggest that human nature itself is capable of changing. How has the interweb radically changed anything that matters? Really, where to start.... Are crime, greed, corruption reduced? There are fewer wars? Through access to better information we've become better at picking political leaders? Has the war on drugs been either ditched or successfully prosecuted? Are there fewer children being forced into prostitution? It's helped us sort out the perennial abortion debate? People no longer have to work? Ok, have to stop somewhere...
The character of the world originates with human nature. The web is just a tool like a shovel. Ok, it's a shiny new atomic-powered shovel but it doesn't decide what to shovel and when or where to shovel it. That comes from people and they aren't changing.
posted by scheptech at 12:14 PM on October 11, 2005
Hyperbolically incorrect on two fronts.
First, and most simply, the majority of the planets people are not interacting with the world wide web at all. Many live for all intents like their parents did. No radical web-induced changes have occured for billions in India, China, Africa, Indonesia.
Second, and perhaps more interestingly, to suggest the very "character of the world" is changing is to suggest that human nature itself is capable of changing. How has the interweb radically changed anything that matters? Really, where to start.... Are crime, greed, corruption reduced? There are fewer wars? Through access to better information we've become better at picking political leaders? Has the war on drugs been either ditched or successfully prosecuted? Are there fewer children being forced into prostitution? It's helped us sort out the perennial abortion debate? People no longer have to work? Ok, have to stop somewhere...
The character of the world originates with human nature. The web is just a tool like a shovel. Ok, it's a shiny new atomic-powered shovel but it doesn't decide what to shovel and when or where to shovel it. That comes from people and they aren't changing.
posted by scheptech at 12:14 PM on October 11, 2005
kuatto, the real problem isn't just going to be grammatical errors, it's going to be the factual errors and (more importantly) lies that are inserted into the knowledge base. Wikipedia suffers from this (how many fake entries have you seen? are you sure you can always pick out the truths?) and the author is suggesting that any future developments in the direction of...what, emergent intelligence? an AI that teaches itself by reading the internet?...will suffer from this shortcoming as well.
posted by voltairemodern at 1:34 PM on October 11, 2005
posted by voltairemodern at 1:34 PM on October 11, 2005
Ok, it's a shiny new atomic-powered shovel but it doesn't decide what to shovel and when or where to shovel it.
I agree. I recommend Tom Standage's The Victorian Internet:
I agree. I recommend Tom Standage's The Victorian Internet:
"One worldwide web, spreading news, messages and information faster and more freely than ever before. Fortunes made in trading start-up company stocks, and lost in the next market crash. A global community, linked by rapidly evolving electronic wizardry managed by highly paid electronic magicians. Incompatible systems, online romances, and vociferous debates about government control and the impact of the new technology." * The Internet in the 1990s? Nope. The telegraph in the 1870s.posted by ericb at 1:35 PM on October 11, 2005
Also:
"News of the first transatlantic cable in 1858 led to predictions of world peace and an end to old prejudices and hostilities. Soon enough, however, Standage reports, criminal guile, government misinformation and that old human sport of romance found their way onto the wires." *posted by ericb at 1:38 PM on October 11, 2005
clevershark: -- but let's face it, North Americans have come to consider certain pieces of news to be "important" for no other reason than that the news networks are telling them it's important. If there's a force or movement that can help inject a bit of skepticism into the process I think that can only help.
The problem is that most of this "skepticism" expressed in weblogs consists of:
a) Irrational extrapolations of quotes in the MSM taken out of context. See Power's priavteers planting pretense on platforms of pedestrians.
b) Parroting published pundits.
c) Pilloring published pundits.
d) Pointing to an piece and saying, "I told you so."
In other words, there is not much actual skepticism going on.
But, time to shovel some bullshit:
kuatto: The evolution of the internet, and of knowledge, is hyper-exponential.
The first I've ever heard of something like "hyper-exponential." Is that exponential with a generous dash of media hype added to it?
But if there is one thing to be said about evolution, it is that exponential growth isn't sustained for long before other parts of the ecosystem evolve to take advantage of the abundance, forcing an equilibirum. I'd stake my bets ot the last 3 billion years of evolutionary history over the last 15 years of hype.
The primary reason why I wouldn't bet on a singularity, is that singularity authors tend to ignore the fact that technological innovation exists in an "ecosystem" with other phenomina. lisp allows you to create programs that write other programs, and is about 30 years old. However, there doesn't seem to be much of a demand for meta-programming at this point it time, and the industry standardized on other programming paradigms (that have been relatively unchanged since their introduction 30 years ago.)
No one disputes the enormous changes that have taken place in the last 15 years or so, in regards to the internet, medical technology, etc.... The entire world has radically changed in it's character and dynamics and the rate of change is only increasing.
Well, I would. 15 years ago, the writing was on the wall regarding the coming antibiotic crisis. Quite a few nasty bacterial species are evolving faster than we can discover new anti-bacterial drugs. Some areas medical technology is moving forward (although we are no closer no a general cure for cancer) and in some cases the technologies are becoming less effective.
In terms of the internet, there is abundant evidence that the internet just continues the same old power paradigms that have been going on since the telegraph and telephone. Although optimists early on believed that "no one knows you are a dog" on the internet, in fact, race, class, and gender matter, and traditional political dynamics are imported to the internet. Heck, even the current trend of "globalization" and "outsourcing" of IT labor has its roots in the triangular trade of England, Spain and Portugal. Gold may have been the bright shiny thing that started it all, but cheap agricultural labor was the engine under it.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:24 PM on October 11, 2005
The problem is that most of this "skepticism" expressed in weblogs consists of:
a) Irrational extrapolations of quotes in the MSM taken out of context. See Power's priavteers planting pretense on platforms of pedestrians.
b) Parroting published pundits.
c) Pilloring published pundits.
d) Pointing to an piece and saying, "I told you so."
In other words, there is not much actual skepticism going on.
But, time to shovel some bullshit:
kuatto: The evolution of the internet, and of knowledge, is hyper-exponential.
The first I've ever heard of something like "hyper-exponential." Is that exponential with a generous dash of media hype added to it?
But if there is one thing to be said about evolution, it is that exponential growth isn't sustained for long before other parts of the ecosystem evolve to take advantage of the abundance, forcing an equilibirum. I'd stake my bets ot the last 3 billion years of evolutionary history over the last 15 years of hype.
The primary reason why I wouldn't bet on a singularity, is that singularity authors tend to ignore the fact that technological innovation exists in an "ecosystem" with other phenomina. lisp allows you to create programs that write other programs, and is about 30 years old. However, there doesn't seem to be much of a demand for meta-programming at this point it time, and the industry standardized on other programming paradigms (that have been relatively unchanged since their introduction 30 years ago.)
No one disputes the enormous changes that have taken place in the last 15 years or so, in regards to the internet, medical technology, etc.... The entire world has radically changed in it's character and dynamics and the rate of change is only increasing.
Well, I would. 15 years ago, the writing was on the wall regarding the coming antibiotic crisis. Quite a few nasty bacterial species are evolving faster than we can discover new anti-bacterial drugs. Some areas medical technology is moving forward (although we are no closer no a general cure for cancer) and in some cases the technologies are becoming less effective.
In terms of the internet, there is abundant evidence that the internet just continues the same old power paradigms that have been going on since the telegraph and telephone. Although optimists early on believed that "no one knows you are a dog" on the internet, in fact, race, class, and gender matter, and traditional political dynamics are imported to the internet. Heck, even the current trend of "globalization" and "outsourcing" of IT labor has its roots in the triangular trade of England, Spain and Portugal. Gold may have been the bright shiny thing that started it all, but cheap agricultural labor was the engine under it.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:24 PM on October 11, 2005
KirkJobSluder, Hyper-anything means 'over' or 'above'. All I'm saying is that this process is actually happening at a rate faster then as a purely exponential function. If you plot these trends on log log graph paper, some actually exhibit a slight upward curve, hence hyper-exponential.
The last 3 billion years have happened at an exponential rate. Initial cells to multiple cells to cambrian explosion, to monkeys all successively.
Ignore the internet for a moment, what of the last hundred years of progress compared to the previous thousand? Surely, you can see that this rapid increase in technology and information is a gathering trend? Or is it, that now since we have broached the 21'st century, we're all going to take a load off and just relax? Are you saying that this trend is halting? Antibiotics are failing us, so will we soon be flinging our own crap and living in trees?
I agree that the internet is the natural extension of older technologies, but the doubling time for practically everything is decreasing (except oil production perhaps), and there seems to be no practical limit to computational power for decades to come (especially considering Quantum or Biological computation).
And don't feed me that shit about third world countries not being affected, everybody on this earth has at least a clue that something is going on
Scheptic: No radical web-induced changes have occurred for billions in India, China, Africa, Indonesia.
What about Globalization? I *hope* the people in the countryside of China are hearing the stories of the new cities that are being built. I hope they are aware that millions of their sons and daughters are finding work in factories at the urban cores. In the heart of globalization is information, technology, and communication.
And no, I am not suggesting human character has changed, far from it. ericb is right on the money there.
posted by kuatto at 5:25 PM on October 11, 2005
The last 3 billion years have happened at an exponential rate. Initial cells to multiple cells to cambrian explosion, to monkeys all successively.
Ignore the internet for a moment, what of the last hundred years of progress compared to the previous thousand? Surely, you can see that this rapid increase in technology and information is a gathering trend? Or is it, that now since we have broached the 21'st century, we're all going to take a load off and just relax? Are you saying that this trend is halting? Antibiotics are failing us, so will we soon be flinging our own crap and living in trees?
I agree that the internet is the natural extension of older technologies, but the doubling time for practically everything is decreasing (except oil production perhaps), and there seems to be no practical limit to computational power for decades to come (especially considering Quantum or Biological computation).
And don't feed me that shit about third world countries not being affected, everybody on this earth has at least a clue that something is going on
Scheptic: No radical web-induced changes have occurred for billions in India, China, Africa, Indonesia.
What about Globalization? I *hope* the people in the countryside of China are hearing the stories of the new cities that are being built. I hope they are aware that millions of their sons and daughters are finding work in factories at the urban cores. In the heart of globalization is information, technology, and communication.
And no, I am not suggesting human character has changed, far from it. ericb is right on the money there.
posted by kuatto at 5:25 PM on October 11, 2005
Err, that should have been:
The last 3 billion years of evolution have happened at an exponential rate. Initial cells to multiple cells to cambrian explosion, to monkeys each occuring more rapidly. Why would evolution slow us down?
posted by kuatto at 5:27 PM on October 11, 2005
The last 3 billion years of evolution have happened at an exponential rate. Initial cells to multiple cells to cambrian explosion, to monkeys each occuring more rapidly. Why would evolution slow us down?
posted by kuatto at 5:27 PM on October 11, 2005
This web 2.0, it vibrates?
posted by clevershark at 6:02 PM on October 11, 2005
posted by clevershark at 6:02 PM on October 11, 2005
All that said, I find the wikipedia and blogs to be interesting and useful links into information about subjects I'm researching. I don't treat them as authoritative, only as good suggestions of references to check out further using my own good judgement. ("eat the meat, spit out the bones").
And, sometimes the "associative memory" of the blogosphere connects subjects that I, or any of the automated robotic linking servies, would never have connected. There's an element of serendipity.
I don't consider an academic paper less authoritative if I located it via Google than via Medline. You have to start somewhere.... just don't END there.
posted by ticula at 6:02 PM on October 11, 2005
And, sometimes the "associative memory" of the blogosphere connects subjects that I, or any of the automated robotic linking servies, would never have connected. There's an element of serendipity.
I don't consider an academic paper less authoritative if I located it via Google than via Medline. You have to start somewhere.... just don't END there.
posted by ticula at 6:02 PM on October 11, 2005
kuatto: Hyper-anything means 'over' or 'above'. All I'm saying is that this process is actually happening at a rate faster then as a purely exponential function. If you plot these trends on log log graph paper, some actually exhibit a slight upward curve, hence hyper-exponential.
Ahh, ok.
The last 3 billion years have happened at an exponential rate. Initial cells to multiple cells to cambrian explosion, to monkeys all successively.
Except that this is an entirely arbitrary measurement of, well, something. It also reveals a basic but widespread misunderstanding of evolution. You can't really claim that monkeys are more "highly evolved" than something like H. pylori, which has spent millions of years evolving to manipulate the immune system if its host organisms. A lot of the problem is that science documentaries are fond of throwing around terms like "living fossil" and ignoring the problem that even cyanobacterium have not existed in stasis since the precambrian.
The notion that you can plot evolution on a graph with bacteria at one end and primates at the other end and claim anything like "hyper-exponential" something (I'm still confused as to what that something might be) is pseduoscience and not science.
Ignore the internet for a moment, what of the last hundred years of progress compared to the previous thousand?
Well, issues about mechanization and labor go back to the 17th century. So the answer appears to be, "just about everything."
Surely, you can see that this rapid increase in technology and information is a gathering trend?
Measured how? Are we really more saturated with "technology" today than we were 10,000 years ago? Or have we just replaced extremely general technologies such as the sharp pointed stick with dozens of more specailized technologies?
Before you go off on the sharp pointed stick not being a valid comparison, may I point out that the neolithic saw a radical expansion of human beings into every terrestrial ecosystem on the planet with the exception of the Antartic coast.
Are you saying that this trend is halting? Antibiotics are failing us, so will we soon be flinging our own crap and living in trees?
I'm pointing out that we shouldn't take it for granted that something like innovation in information technology will continue at the same pace as it did over the last 15 years, because there are plenty of examples where innovation did not continue in a "hyper-exponential" growth curve. For example, the agricultural revolution (perhaps the only true technological revolution in human history) led to the independent development cultures over huge geographic areas on five continents. However, innovation in argiculture remained relatively static over long periods of time because variations on the sharp pointed stick were sufficient to feed cosmopolitan cities. Air transportation experienced rapid growth and then hit a point where it was cheaper to just add more planes to the fleet than make larger planes. Automotive technology also hit an economic sweet spot in speed and efficiency and remained relatively unchanged over decades.
With some of these technologies, the push-back has been external. In the first half of the 20th century, vaccines and antibiotics were even more revolutionary than the claims for the internet: smallpox, cholera, typhoid, TB, syphillis, polio, whooping cough, and measles are no longer huge killers in North America. However, infectious diseases are starting to evolve around our best tools to fight them, and fewer new tools are showing up.
I agree that the internet is the natural extension of older technologies, but the doubling time for practically everything is decreasing (except oil production perhaps), and there seems to be no practical limit to computational power for decades to come (especially considering Quantum or Biological computation).
Well, I can think of a practical limit: the market. The overwhelming success of the Roman Empire led to a relative lack of technological innovation late in its history. It wasn't that everyone became anti-technology, but that their military and agricultural superiority didn't provide any incentive to change.
Already I'm starting to see more resistance to innovation for the sake of innovation, coming from people who used to be early adopters.
But here is one of the problems with calling this a "revolution." Revolutions don't happen because you can do more of something, or do it faster, but because you can do it differently. The revolution of the late neolithic happened because the city is a fundamentally different way of life from the hamlet. The industrial revolution happened because specialized workers on an assembly line is fundamentally different from craftspeople constructing a trade item. Giving people access to more media faster is not a revolution given the analogies to libraries, and before the library, the coffee shop.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:49 PM on October 11, 2005
Ahh, ok.
The last 3 billion years have happened at an exponential rate. Initial cells to multiple cells to cambrian explosion, to monkeys all successively.
Except that this is an entirely arbitrary measurement of, well, something. It also reveals a basic but widespread misunderstanding of evolution. You can't really claim that monkeys are more "highly evolved" than something like H. pylori, which has spent millions of years evolving to manipulate the immune system if its host organisms. A lot of the problem is that science documentaries are fond of throwing around terms like "living fossil" and ignoring the problem that even cyanobacterium have not existed in stasis since the precambrian.
The notion that you can plot evolution on a graph with bacteria at one end and primates at the other end and claim anything like "hyper-exponential" something (I'm still confused as to what that something might be) is pseduoscience and not science.
Ignore the internet for a moment, what of the last hundred years of progress compared to the previous thousand?
Well, issues about mechanization and labor go back to the 17th century. So the answer appears to be, "just about everything."
Surely, you can see that this rapid increase in technology and information is a gathering trend?
Measured how? Are we really more saturated with "technology" today than we were 10,000 years ago? Or have we just replaced extremely general technologies such as the sharp pointed stick with dozens of more specailized technologies?
Before you go off on the sharp pointed stick not being a valid comparison, may I point out that the neolithic saw a radical expansion of human beings into every terrestrial ecosystem on the planet with the exception of the Antartic coast.
Are you saying that this trend is halting? Antibiotics are failing us, so will we soon be flinging our own crap and living in trees?
I'm pointing out that we shouldn't take it for granted that something like innovation in information technology will continue at the same pace as it did over the last 15 years, because there are plenty of examples where innovation did not continue in a "hyper-exponential" growth curve. For example, the agricultural revolution (perhaps the only true technological revolution in human history) led to the independent development cultures over huge geographic areas on five continents. However, innovation in argiculture remained relatively static over long periods of time because variations on the sharp pointed stick were sufficient to feed cosmopolitan cities. Air transportation experienced rapid growth and then hit a point where it was cheaper to just add more planes to the fleet than make larger planes. Automotive technology also hit an economic sweet spot in speed and efficiency and remained relatively unchanged over decades.
With some of these technologies, the push-back has been external. In the first half of the 20th century, vaccines and antibiotics were even more revolutionary than the claims for the internet: smallpox, cholera, typhoid, TB, syphillis, polio, whooping cough, and measles are no longer huge killers in North America. However, infectious diseases are starting to evolve around our best tools to fight them, and fewer new tools are showing up.
I agree that the internet is the natural extension of older technologies, but the doubling time for practically everything is decreasing (except oil production perhaps), and there seems to be no practical limit to computational power for decades to come (especially considering Quantum or Biological computation).
Well, I can think of a practical limit: the market. The overwhelming success of the Roman Empire led to a relative lack of technological innovation late in its history. It wasn't that everyone became anti-technology, but that their military and agricultural superiority didn't provide any incentive to change.
Already I'm starting to see more resistance to innovation for the sake of innovation, coming from people who used to be early adopters.
But here is one of the problems with calling this a "revolution." Revolutions don't happen because you can do more of something, or do it faster, but because you can do it differently. The revolution of the late neolithic happened because the city is a fundamentally different way of life from the hamlet. The industrial revolution happened because specialized workers on an assembly line is fundamentally different from craftspeople constructing a trade item. Giving people access to more media faster is not a revolution given the analogies to libraries, and before the library, the coffee shop.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:49 PM on October 11, 2005
Measured how? Are we really more saturated with "technology" today than we were 10,000 years ago? Or have we just replaced extremely general technologies such as the sharp pointed stick with dozens of more specialized technologies?
Well, I sympathize with your overall point, on the other hand I believe you can say technology is moving faster. Perhaps the best argument is the idea that with a few exceptions no single generation was able to perceive the effect that technology was having on their daily lives until civilization - maybe even the industrial revolution.
For another example, I just watched a lecture by Warren Thorngate which dealt with the number of papers published on psychology since the definition of the subject - not surprisingly the pace of publishing has been accelerating exponentially. The same can be said for the number of articles published on most any single subject, and for all subjects combined as well.
posted by Chuckles at 10:52 PM on October 11, 2005
Well, I sympathize with your overall point, on the other hand I believe you can say technology is moving faster. Perhaps the best argument is the idea that with a few exceptions no single generation was able to perceive the effect that technology was having on their daily lives until civilization - maybe even the industrial revolution.
For another example, I just watched a lecture by Warren Thorngate which dealt with the number of papers published on psychology since the definition of the subject - not surprisingly the pace of publishing has been accelerating exponentially. The same can be said for the number of articles published on most any single subject, and for all subjects combined as well.
posted by Chuckles at 10:52 PM on October 11, 2005
kuatto, your enthusiasm is quite nice, perhaps contagious. But I find some of your comments are not very solid.
You mention this idea of exponential increases in information dissemination and knowledge. It's already been pointed out that the quality of this information may be suspect, and that there may be an increase but there's also an increase in noise.
I just wonder what metric you use for this "exponential" increase?
Second, you say:
The internet is a substrate, an informational medium, a proxy for the human cerebrum, that allows this level of global organization.
The fact that someone gave this process a version number (web 2.whatever) suggests a continuum or larger process. We should not let poor grammar on the Wikipedia make us lose sight of this larger process.
Well, the internet is a poor substrate acting as a proxy for the cerebrum. As a personal "outboard brain" it has potential, but even then it encounters problems, because the infrastructure you talk of is maintained by individuals or large private conglomerates who may decide to erase, hide or neglect their resources. For example, the old idea of cool URIs don't change is failing; I see it daily, and a lot of my colleagues do, too. Of course, hard drive space and archiving is becoming very cheap, and we could all cache this data, but that has its own problems.
As far as poor grammar on Wikipedia. I think the original link and subsequent commentary is not just about that. It's about quality of information. For example, a lot of people are connected to the internet, but not every person who has a dearth of good quality information is connected to this large amorphous entity called the online "collective intelligence." One could get some facts, but when it comes to measured opinion the idea falls on its sword because there's no guarantee the best opinions have been put forward. And when I mean 'best opinion' I'm talking about experienced individuals who have done good work in their pertinent fields. That's measurable.
You also say:
All I'm saying is that this process is actually happening at a rate faster then as a purely exponential function. If you plot these trends on log log graph paper, some actually exhibit a slight upward curve, hence hyper-exponential.
Hyper-exponential is explicable, and it's a fuzzy term. It just means there's more than one process going on that may require deconvolution of the data.
The last 3 billion years have happened at an exponential rate. Initial cells to multiple cells to cambrian explosion, to monkeys all successively.
You use rate terms a lot, and at this point I became a little bit irritated. Basically, I know some Thermodynamics and Kinetics, I use it for my work. When I encounter colleagues who use these terms in a "fuzzy way" I think it diminishes the eons of great work that have been done to characterize these processes with real numbers and rates. Plus, two other things. a) within your own statement you mention the Cambrian explosion, or an idea about Punctuated Equilibrium. That was not just a bump in the road. b) Nowhere within your invocation of evolutionary concepts do you mention Selection Pressure, I think that's very important.
Finally, you say:
Scheptic: No radical web-induced changes have occurred for billions in India, China, Africa, Indonesia.
What about Globalization? I *hope* the people in the countryside of China are hearing the stories of the new cities that are being built. I hope they are aware that millions of their sons and daughters are finding work in factories at the urban cores. In the heart of globalization is information, technology, and communication.
This old chesnut needs to be cracked wide open. Globalisation has been going on for Centuries. What people call Globalisation these days is basically the idea of "flexible labour markets" and the unleashing of currency speculation and mobility. Of course, I'm generalising, but that's the tone of the conversation.
You talk about the people in the Chinese countryside hearing about all those cities being built, you must have meant this stuff, right?
posted by gsb at 1:09 AM on October 12, 2005
You mention this idea of exponential increases in information dissemination and knowledge. It's already been pointed out that the quality of this information may be suspect, and that there may be an increase but there's also an increase in noise.
I just wonder what metric you use for this "exponential" increase?
Second, you say:
The internet is a substrate, an informational medium, a proxy for the human cerebrum, that allows this level of global organization.
The fact that someone gave this process a version number (web 2.whatever) suggests a continuum or larger process. We should not let poor grammar on the Wikipedia make us lose sight of this larger process.
Well, the internet is a poor substrate acting as a proxy for the cerebrum. As a personal "outboard brain" it has potential, but even then it encounters problems, because the infrastructure you talk of is maintained by individuals or large private conglomerates who may decide to erase, hide or neglect their resources. For example, the old idea of cool URIs don't change is failing; I see it daily, and a lot of my colleagues do, too. Of course, hard drive space and archiving is becoming very cheap, and we could all cache this data, but that has its own problems.
As far as poor grammar on Wikipedia. I think the original link and subsequent commentary is not just about that. It's about quality of information. For example, a lot of people are connected to the internet, but not every person who has a dearth of good quality information is connected to this large amorphous entity called the online "collective intelligence." One could get some facts, but when it comes to measured opinion the idea falls on its sword because there's no guarantee the best opinions have been put forward. And when I mean 'best opinion' I'm talking about experienced individuals who have done good work in their pertinent fields. That's measurable.
You also say:
All I'm saying is that this process is actually happening at a rate faster then as a purely exponential function. If you plot these trends on log log graph paper, some actually exhibit a slight upward curve, hence hyper-exponential.
Hyper-exponential is explicable, and it's a fuzzy term. It just means there's more than one process going on that may require deconvolution of the data.
The last 3 billion years have happened at an exponential rate. Initial cells to multiple cells to cambrian explosion, to monkeys all successively.
You use rate terms a lot, and at this point I became a little bit irritated. Basically, I know some Thermodynamics and Kinetics, I use it for my work. When I encounter colleagues who use these terms in a "fuzzy way" I think it diminishes the eons of great work that have been done to characterize these processes with real numbers and rates. Plus, two other things. a) within your own statement you mention the Cambrian explosion, or an idea about Punctuated Equilibrium. That was not just a bump in the road. b) Nowhere within your invocation of evolutionary concepts do you mention Selection Pressure, I think that's very important.
Finally, you say:
Scheptic: No radical web-induced changes have occurred for billions in India, China, Africa, Indonesia.
What about Globalization? I *hope* the people in the countryside of China are hearing the stories of the new cities that are being built. I hope they are aware that millions of their sons and daughters are finding work in factories at the urban cores. In the heart of globalization is information, technology, and communication.
This old chesnut needs to be cracked wide open. Globalisation has been going on for Centuries. What people call Globalisation these days is basically the idea of "flexible labour markets" and the unleashing of currency speculation and mobility. Of course, I'm generalising, but that's the tone of the conversation.
You talk about the people in the Chinese countryside hearing about all those cities being built, you must have meant this stuff, right?
posted by gsb at 1:09 AM on October 12, 2005
Chuckles: Well, I sympathize with your overall point, on the other hand I believe you can say technology is moving faster. Perhaps the best argument is the idea that with a few exceptions no single generation was able to perceive the effect that technology was having on their daily lives until civilization - maybe even the industrial revolution.
Nobody within the industrial revolution called saw themselves as in the middle of a revolution. The talk about a revolution started with historians looking back over the previous 300 years. Some innovations attributed to the industrial revolution actually date back to the late middle ages.
Technology is adopted because it has an effect on the daily lives of the people using it. The sharp pointed stick has an obvious payback in terms of digging roots or killing animals. It's rather foolish to think that no one noticed that the mill down the pike wasn't buying or selling anything of value. Technologies that are not perceived to have an effect on daily life are stillborn and don't get very far. (Witness, the multiple attempts to build steamships before the first viable steamship line.)
For another example, I just watched a lecture by Warren Thorngate which dealt with the number of papers published on psychology since the definition of the subject - not surprisingly the pace of publishing has been accelerating exponentially. The same can be said for the number of articles published on most any single subject, and for all subjects combined as well.
Are the number of papers published in a field an accurate representation of actual innovation in a field? Or just a barometer of how many people are working in that field? I tend towards the latter given how few papers I read that actually manage to innovate, vs. how many papers I read that just apply an innovation to a dataset resulting in fairly expected results.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:00 AM on October 12, 2005
Nobody within the industrial revolution called saw themselves as in the middle of a revolution. The talk about a revolution started with historians looking back over the previous 300 years. Some innovations attributed to the industrial revolution actually date back to the late middle ages.
Technology is adopted because it has an effect on the daily lives of the people using it. The sharp pointed stick has an obvious payback in terms of digging roots or killing animals. It's rather foolish to think that no one noticed that the mill down the pike wasn't buying or selling anything of value. Technologies that are not perceived to have an effect on daily life are stillborn and don't get very far. (Witness, the multiple attempts to build steamships before the first viable steamship line.)
For another example, I just watched a lecture by Warren Thorngate which dealt with the number of papers published on psychology since the definition of the subject - not surprisingly the pace of publishing has been accelerating exponentially. The same can be said for the number of articles published on most any single subject, and for all subjects combined as well.
Are the number of papers published in a field an accurate representation of actual innovation in a field? Or just a barometer of how many people are working in that field? I tend towards the latter given how few papers I read that actually manage to innovate, vs. how many papers I read that just apply an innovation to a dataset resulting in fairly expected results.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:00 AM on October 12, 2005
gsb: Well, the internet is a poor substrate acting as a proxy for the cerebrum. As a personal "outboard brain" it has potential, but even then it encounters problems, because the infrastructure you talk of is maintained by individuals or large private conglomerates who may decide to erase, hide or neglect their resources. For example, the old idea of cool URIs don't change is failing; I see it daily, and a lot of my colleagues do, too. Of course, hard drive space and archiving is becoming very cheap, and we could all cache this data, but that has its own problems.
Well, there is that. However, one could argue that the human mind has never been entirely contained within a skull, but also includes tools, sensory input, and social networks. There is also the problem in that more information !-> more intelligence. Give me a dataset of a dozen, I can state the obvious. Give me a dataset of 100, I can state something suble. Give me a dataset of 1,000, and my statements become increasingly trivial.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:39 AM on October 12, 2005
Well, there is that. However, one could argue that the human mind has never been entirely contained within a skull, but also includes tools, sensory input, and social networks. There is also the problem in that more information !-> more intelligence. Give me a dataset of a dozen, I can state the obvious. Give me a dataset of 100, I can state something suble. Give me a dataset of 1,000, and my statements become increasingly trivial.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:39 AM on October 12, 2005
Give me am infinite dataset, and I begin to hear the whisper of the wind through the trees.
Metaphysics aside, here is a graph that exhibits hyperexponential characteristics:
Moore's law
Note the scale on the left and the slight upward curve. This is a "bigger then" or hyper-exponential rate of growth.
KirkJobSluder:
Firstly, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that humans are more evolved then a bacterium. Metaphysically, perhaps we are in the same boat, but just in terms of our specialized physical structures like the cornea and cerebellum, we have more physical diversity and complexity. We are more highly evolved.
Secondly, I don't think comparisons of our current technological innovations to that of the late Roman Empire is fair. It also does not refute my point that given Quantum or Biological computation, the upper limit on computation is nearly unimaginable.
This is *not* about getting people their media faster. I cannot stress that enough.
Also, regardless of any specific field, the overall output of scientific papers per year is doubling every 15 years
gsb:
I might have to disagree with you on the Globalization point, I do not believe it is just "flexible labor markets". Even if it is just currency speculation and market forces, these too are influenced heavily by information and communication, which we are both increasing at fantastic rate. Therefore, globalization is influenced by this overall accelerating change.
I'm sorry you disagree with my use of technical terms.
Have a look at this timeline. Prokaryotic to Eukaryotic to fish ??? That's an astonishingly rapid leap don't you think? If evolution was linear it would be astonishing, but it's not linear. In the time it took to evolve a cell nucleus, the entire biodiversity of the earth appeared.
posted by kuatto at 11:37 AM on October 12, 2005
Metaphysics aside, here is a graph that exhibits hyperexponential characteristics:
Moore's law
Note the scale on the left and the slight upward curve. This is a "bigger then" or hyper-exponential rate of growth.
KirkJobSluder:
Firstly, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that humans are more evolved then a bacterium. Metaphysically, perhaps we are in the same boat, but just in terms of our specialized physical structures like the cornea and cerebellum, we have more physical diversity and complexity. We are more highly evolved.
Secondly, I don't think comparisons of our current technological innovations to that of the late Roman Empire is fair. It also does not refute my point that given Quantum or Biological computation, the upper limit on computation is nearly unimaginable.
This is *not* about getting people their media faster. I cannot stress that enough.
Also, regardless of any specific field, the overall output of scientific papers per year is doubling every 15 years
gsb:
I might have to disagree with you on the Globalization point, I do not believe it is just "flexible labor markets". Even if it is just currency speculation and market forces, these too are influenced heavily by information and communication, which we are both increasing at fantastic rate. Therefore, globalization is influenced by this overall accelerating change.
I'm sorry you disagree with my use of technical terms.
Have a look at this timeline. Prokaryotic to Eukaryotic to fish ??? That's an astonishingly rapid leap don't you think? If evolution was linear it would be astonishing, but it's not linear. In the time it took to evolve a cell nucleus, the entire biodiversity of the earth appeared.
posted by kuatto at 11:37 AM on October 12, 2005
kuatto: Give me am infinite dataset, and I begin to hear the whisper of the wind through the trees.
Not really. At some point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and you really don't get much bang from each additional data point. In qualitative research, this is called "theoretical saturation," you just end up seeing more of the same thing. In quantitative research, adding more data points just results in trivial reductions in error.
Firstly, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that humans are more evolved then a bacterium. Metaphysically, perhaps we are in the same boat, but just in terms of our specialized physical structures like the cornea and cerebellum, we have more physical diversity and complexity. We are more highly evolved.
You know, just about every time I hear that word dropped in these kinds of discussions, what it really means is "I don't know what I'm saying, so I'm going to throw in some mystical mumbo-jumbo to confuse the issue."
You can't talk about "specialized physical structures" without begging the question of "specialized for what." The cephalopod eye is just as specialized to meet an environmental niche as the human eye. There is a heck of a lot of baffling complexity and physical diversity going on in microscopic organisms.
"We are more highly evolved," is nothing more than late-Victorian pseudo-scientific wishful thinking. Certainly you can invoke such religious concepts, but if you try to pass them off as science, expect to get your ass metaphysically kicked by resident biologists.
Secondly, I don't think comparisons of our current technological innovations to that of the late Roman Empire is fair.
Why not? There is about 10,000 years of data in existance regarding the relationship between technology and culture. Why the sudden exception made that information technology is radically different, when the evidence so far suggests more of the same.
It also does not refute my point that given Quantum or Biological computation, the upper limit on computation is nearly unimaginable.
But this can be said for any technology. If you had a bigger X, the upper limit on Y becomes nearly unimaginable to a previous generation. Of course, you do realize that Moore never intended his law to be a predictor of long-term trends?
This is *not* about getting people their media faster. I cannot stress that enough.
Certainly. This is about an emerging geek religion that is, so far more benevolent than scientology, but just as wacky as new age utopianism in its tendency to play fast and loose with facts.
Also, regardless of any specific field, the overall output of scientific papers per year is doubling every 15 years
But again, how many of those papers involve new theoretical developments in the field, vs. reports of standardized applications of existing theory? It's like trying to measure innovation by counting the number of transistor radios that come off an assembly line, when the radio I buy at K-mart today is not radically different from the radio I bought in the 1970s.
Have a look at this timeline. Prokaryotic to Eukaryotic to fish ??? That's an astonishingly rapid leap don't you think? If evolution was linear it would be astonishing, but it's not linear. In the time it took to evolve a cell nucleus, the entire biodiversity of the earth appeared.
How are you defining "evolution" such that you can plot it onto a nice trend line?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:30 PM on October 12, 2005
Not really. At some point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and you really don't get much bang from each additional data point. In qualitative research, this is called "theoretical saturation," you just end up seeing more of the same thing. In quantitative research, adding more data points just results in trivial reductions in error.
Firstly, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that humans are more evolved then a bacterium. Metaphysically, perhaps we are in the same boat, but just in terms of our specialized physical structures like the cornea and cerebellum, we have more physical diversity and complexity. We are more highly evolved.
You know, just about every time I hear that word dropped in these kinds of discussions, what it really means is "I don't know what I'm saying, so I'm going to throw in some mystical mumbo-jumbo to confuse the issue."
You can't talk about "specialized physical structures" without begging the question of "specialized for what." The cephalopod eye is just as specialized to meet an environmental niche as the human eye. There is a heck of a lot of baffling complexity and physical diversity going on in microscopic organisms.
"We are more highly evolved," is nothing more than late-Victorian pseudo-scientific wishful thinking. Certainly you can invoke such religious concepts, but if you try to pass them off as science, expect to get your ass metaphysically kicked by resident biologists.
Secondly, I don't think comparisons of our current technological innovations to that of the late Roman Empire is fair.
Why not? There is about 10,000 years of data in existance regarding the relationship between technology and culture. Why the sudden exception made that information technology is radically different, when the evidence so far suggests more of the same.
It also does not refute my point that given Quantum or Biological computation, the upper limit on computation is nearly unimaginable.
But this can be said for any technology. If you had a bigger X, the upper limit on Y becomes nearly unimaginable to a previous generation. Of course, you do realize that Moore never intended his law to be a predictor of long-term trends?
This is *not* about getting people their media faster. I cannot stress that enough.
Certainly. This is about an emerging geek religion that is, so far more benevolent than scientology, but just as wacky as new age utopianism in its tendency to play fast and loose with facts.
Also, regardless of any specific field, the overall output of scientific papers per year is doubling every 15 years
But again, how many of those papers involve new theoretical developments in the field, vs. reports of standardized applications of existing theory? It's like trying to measure innovation by counting the number of transistor radios that come off an assembly line, when the radio I buy at K-mart today is not radically different from the radio I bought in the 1970s.
Have a look at this timeline. Prokaryotic to Eukaryotic to fish ??? That's an astonishingly rapid leap don't you think? If evolution was linear it would be astonishing, but it's not linear. In the time it took to evolve a cell nucleus, the entire biodiversity of the earth appeared.
How are you defining "evolution" such that you can plot it onto a nice trend line?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:30 PM on October 12, 2005
kuatto, I did say:
What people call Globalisation these days is basically the idea of "flexible labour markets" and the unleashing of currency speculation and mobility. Of course, I'm generalising, but that's the tone of the conversation.
Of course the idea of Globalisation is far more complex and involves many factors, but the factors I talked about are accelerants.
You also say:
I'm sorry you disagree with my use of technical terms.
No, I don't disagree with your use of them. I think you're abusing them, and I'm not trying to be harsh. Basically, one can diminish the definition of term by not applying it properly.
For example, you give an evolutionary timeline:
Have a look at this timeline. Prokaryotic to Eukaryotic to fish ??? That's an astonishingly rapid leap don't you think? If evolution was linear it would be astonishing, but it's not linear. In the time it took to evolve a cell nucleus, the entire biodiversity of the earth appeared.
I said, a little earlier -- with my emphasis:
Plus, two other things. a) within your own statement you mention the Cambrian explosion, or an idea about Punctuated Equilibrium. That was not just a bump in the road. b) Nowhere within your invocation of evolutionary concepts do you mention Selection Pressure, I think that's very important.
No one said evolution was linear, no one is disputing rapid changes in the gene pool. So I guess my question is, how does this relate to your beliefs regarding the Internet, and its "hyper-exponential" growth. Do you think comparing evolution to Internet and Communication growth and emergence is a sound idea?
and what KirkJobSluder said about the trend line
posted by gsb at 12:51 PM on October 12, 2005
What people call Globalisation these days is basically the idea of "flexible labour markets" and the unleashing of currency speculation and mobility. Of course, I'm generalising, but that's the tone of the conversation.
Of course the idea of Globalisation is far more complex and involves many factors, but the factors I talked about are accelerants.
You also say:
I'm sorry you disagree with my use of technical terms.
No, I don't disagree with your use of them. I think you're abusing them, and I'm not trying to be harsh. Basically, one can diminish the definition of term by not applying it properly.
For example, you give an evolutionary timeline:
Have a look at this timeline. Prokaryotic to Eukaryotic to fish ??? That's an astonishingly rapid leap don't you think? If evolution was linear it would be astonishing, but it's not linear. In the time it took to evolve a cell nucleus, the entire biodiversity of the earth appeared.
I said, a little earlier -- with my emphasis:
Plus, two other things. a) within your own statement you mention the Cambrian explosion, or an idea about Punctuated Equilibrium. That was not just a bump in the road. b) Nowhere within your invocation of evolutionary concepts do you mention Selection Pressure, I think that's very important.
No one said evolution was linear, no one is disputing rapid changes in the gene pool. So I guess my question is, how does this relate to your beliefs regarding the Internet, and its "hyper-exponential" growth. Do you think comparing evolution to Internet and Communication growth and emergence is a sound idea?
and what KirkJobSluder said about the trend line
posted by gsb at 12:51 PM on October 12, 2005
One of the problems with the so-called "Cambrian Explosion" is there remains quite a few questions as to whether it really was such a radical explosion. It now appears to be probable that all of the basic body plans were well established before the Cambrian, and that the "Explosion" involved parallel adaptation within those body plans to create forms that are easier to fossilize.
The problem with putting evolution on a trend line is that when you get down to it, evolution is nearly impossible to measure directly. What evolution says is simply that natural selection will favor organisms that maximize reproductive success for a given niche. In that respect, H. pylori is a highly evolved organism being endemic throughout human populations, with a high degree of specialization for manipulating the human immune system to create favorable microenvironments. In fact, there is some indication that humans and H. pylori have co-evolved with rising rates of stomach and esophogheal disorders in populations where high antibiotic use has resulted in reduced H. pylori.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:22 PM on October 12, 2005
The problem with putting evolution on a trend line is that when you get down to it, evolution is nearly impossible to measure directly. What evolution says is simply that natural selection will favor organisms that maximize reproductive success for a given niche. In that respect, H. pylori is a highly evolved organism being endemic throughout human populations, with a high degree of specialization for manipulating the human immune system to create favorable microenvironments. In fact, there is some indication that humans and H. pylori have co-evolved with rising rates of stomach and esophogheal disorders in populations where high antibiotic use has resulted in reduced H. pylori.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:22 PM on October 12, 2005
Darn, meant to hit preview. The bottom line is that most evolutionary biologists talk about "highly evolved" in terms of specialization to fit a particular niche, not in terms of some human-centric standard of cognitive ability.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:24 PM on October 12, 2005
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:24 PM on October 12, 2005
KirkJobSluder:
Not really. At some point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and you really don't get much bang from each additional data point.
You are seem to be insinuating that this process is occurring for the benefit of some scientist or statistician. I am saying that, like the wind and the scope of human endeavors, this process is purely existential.
I am afraid it is you who is dabbling in metaphysical nonsense when you go on insisting that a bacterium and a human are equal. I am not a biologist, but a bacterium that lives in my gut is not equal to me. The fact that I have an eye, and a bacterium does not, speaks to my awareness of a larger world. Therefore, in terms of epistemological capabilities vis-a-vis informational resonance and the explosion of human created technologies, I am more evolved then a bacterium.
This is about an emerging geek religion
Ummmmm,,,How about this, lets just wait 15 years and find out.
gsb:
I never mentioned Punctuated Equilibrium anywhere.
To answer your question, I don't think it's topically relevant to compare the two (which some get hung up on). Both describe guided changes over time, that occur at increasing rates. Thats all I was saying.
My original point for those who care:
Web 2.0 is just an arbitrary mile marker in a process that is much larger. When you focus on the poor grammar of the Wikipedia and say, "See, web 2.0 suks", you are missing the point completely.
The point is: Web 2.0 is irrelevant to the discussion of grammar on the wikipedia and is irrelevent in general.
posted by kuatto at 1:48 PM on October 12, 2005
Not really. At some point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and you really don't get much bang from each additional data point.
You are seem to be insinuating that this process is occurring for the benefit of some scientist or statistician. I am saying that, like the wind and the scope of human endeavors, this process is purely existential.
I am afraid it is you who is dabbling in metaphysical nonsense when you go on insisting that a bacterium and a human are equal. I am not a biologist, but a bacterium that lives in my gut is not equal to me. The fact that I have an eye, and a bacterium does not, speaks to my awareness of a larger world. Therefore, in terms of epistemological capabilities vis-a-vis informational resonance and the explosion of human created technologies, I am more evolved then a bacterium.
This is about an emerging geek religion
Ummmmm,,,How about this, lets just wait 15 years and find out.
gsb:
I never mentioned Punctuated Equilibrium anywhere.
To answer your question, I don't think it's topically relevant to compare the two (which some get hung up on). Both describe guided changes over time, that occur at increasing rates. Thats all I was saying.
My original point for those who care:
Web 2.0 is just an arbitrary mile marker in a process that is much larger. When you focus on the poor grammar of the Wikipedia and say, "See, web 2.0 suks", you are missing the point completely.
The point is: Web 2.0 is irrelevant to the discussion of grammar on the wikipedia and is irrelevent in general.
posted by kuatto at 1:48 PM on October 12, 2005
kuatto: You are seem to be insinuating that this process is occurring for the benefit of some scientist or statistician. I am saying that, like the wind and the scope of human endeavors, this process is purely existential.
No, I'm pointing out that statistics proposes a lot of very strong theories that describe the relationship between how much data we have, and what we can know about that data. A consequence of those theories is that you get diminishing returns from massive datasets. If you want to claim that more data leads to more intelligence, you have to wrestle with the problem of diminishing returns.
I am afraid it is you who is dabbling in metaphysical nonsense when you go on insisting that a bacterium and a human are equal.
Which is good, because I never said they were equal. What I said is that evolutionary biology does not provide a criteria by which you can say that humans are "more highly evolved" than a bacterium. If you make this claim, you are engaging in metaphysical nonsense rather than evolutionary theory.
I am not a biologist…
And that is abundantly obvious the way you misuse evolution to support your claims.
Therefore, in terms of epistemological capabilities vis-a-vis informational resonance and the explosion of human created technologies, I am more evolved then a bacterium.
Evolutionary biology has little to do with such metaphysical nonsense such as "epistemological capabilities vis-a-vis informational resonance…". If you want to invoke some neo-Victorian religious "ascent of man" walla walla, be my guest. Just practice some truth in advertising and label it a new age belief.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:05 PM on October 12, 2005
No, I'm pointing out that statistics proposes a lot of very strong theories that describe the relationship between how much data we have, and what we can know about that data. A consequence of those theories is that you get diminishing returns from massive datasets. If you want to claim that more data leads to more intelligence, you have to wrestle with the problem of diminishing returns.
I am afraid it is you who is dabbling in metaphysical nonsense when you go on insisting that a bacterium and a human are equal.
Which is good, because I never said they were equal. What I said is that evolutionary biology does not provide a criteria by which you can say that humans are "more highly evolved" than a bacterium. If you make this claim, you are engaging in metaphysical nonsense rather than evolutionary theory.
I am not a biologist…
And that is abundantly obvious the way you misuse evolution to support your claims.
Therefore, in terms of epistemological capabilities vis-a-vis informational resonance and the explosion of human created technologies, I am more evolved then a bacterium.
Evolutionary biology has little to do with such metaphysical nonsense such as "epistemological capabilities vis-a-vis informational resonance…". If you want to invoke some neo-Victorian religious "ascent of man" walla walla, be my guest. Just practice some truth in advertising and label it a new age belief.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:05 PM on October 12, 2005
kuatto: To answer your question, I don't think it's topically relevant to compare the two (which some get hung up on). Both describe guided changes over time, that occur at increasing rates. Thats all I was saying.
Ohh, I missed this, and this tips your hand as to how much this is a religion. "Guided changes over time" -> intelligent design?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:11 PM on October 12, 2005
Ohh, I missed this, and this tips your hand as to how much this is a religion. "Guided changes over time" -> intelligent design?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:11 PM on October 12, 2005
Guided changes over time, in my mind, implies evolutionary pressures to survive, and human will respectively.
"epistemological capabilities vis-a-vis informational resonance…"....neo-Victorian religious...walla walla
Let me retranslate so you can understand:
Bacteria do not use Computers.
Humans use Computers.
I did not know this was a "New Age" belief.
For the record, this is most likely a decent of man. hehe
posted by kuatto at 2:25 PM on October 12, 2005
"epistemological capabilities vis-a-vis informational resonance…"....neo-Victorian religious...walla walla
Let me retranslate so you can understand:
Bacteria do not use Computers.
Humans use Computers.
I did not know this was a "New Age" belief.
For the record, this is most likely a decent of man. hehe
posted by kuatto at 2:25 PM on October 12, 2005
kuatto: Guided changes over time, in my mind, implies evolutionary pressures to survive, and human will respectively.
What does human will have to do with the "Cambrian Explosion," or anything else in regards to evolution? This is more mystical walla walla.
Let me retranslate so you can understand:
Bacteria do not use Computers.
Humans use Computers.
Let me retranslate so you can understand:
Evolution does not give a flying fuck with a Krispy Kreme donut about what species uses computers.
The only barometer that matters in evolution is reproductive success. Talking about "epistemelogical capabilities" has nothing to do with evolution. Talking about "informational resonance" has nothing to do with evolution.
The only way you properly say "I am more evolved then a bacterium" is to say that you have better reproductive success than a bacterium.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:12 PM on October 12, 2005
What does human will have to do with the "Cambrian Explosion," or anything else in regards to evolution? This is more mystical walla walla.
Let me retranslate so you can understand:
Bacteria do not use Computers.
Humans use Computers.
Let me retranslate so you can understand:
Evolution does not give a flying fuck with a Krispy Kreme donut about what species uses computers.
The only barometer that matters in evolution is reproductive success. Talking about "epistemelogical capabilities" has nothing to do with evolution. Talking about "informational resonance" has nothing to do with evolution.
The only way you properly say "I am more evolved then a bacterium" is to say that you have better reproductive success than a bacterium.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:12 PM on October 12, 2005
Yes, yes, but the developement of human cognition allowed for reproductive success. Is this wrong to say? Should I instead say that reproductive success allows for reproductive success? A little redundent don't you think?
Our tool making abilities, as an extension of our need to survive and reproduce, do seperate us from a species that does not share those same attributes.
So when I am talking about humans using computers in the context of evolution, I am refering to those abilities that arose within us as a means of survival and reproduction.
Snow Monkeys bathe for pleasure, humans type away, arguing about web 2.0. Both of these activities are not directly related to reproduction , yet we evolved an ability to perform these acts.
So when I say that, humans are more evolved then bacteria, in regards to, say, using a web browser, I am refering to the abilities that we have evolved.
Obviously, there are things that a bacteria can do that we cannot, and in that regard, they are more evolved then us. Fair enough?
But, getting back to my point, in regards to computers, and information. The abilities that we have evolved, in order to be succesful in reproduction and survival, have allowed us to create a global network of computers. It is in this way that I can relate the activities of humans to the process of evolution, no other.
We are an extension of what's come before us and the things that we create are an extension of us. Therfore, the act of a billion people, all communicating and exchanging information at the speed of light and on a global scale could be considered an extension of abilities that we have evolved.
posted by kuatto at 3:50 PM on October 12, 2005
Our tool making abilities, as an extension of our need to survive and reproduce, do seperate us from a species that does not share those same attributes.
So when I am talking about humans using computers in the context of evolution, I am refering to those abilities that arose within us as a means of survival and reproduction.
Snow Monkeys bathe for pleasure, humans type away, arguing about web 2.0. Both of these activities are not directly related to reproduction , yet we evolved an ability to perform these acts.
So when I say that, humans are more evolved then bacteria, in regards to, say, using a web browser, I am refering to the abilities that we have evolved.
Obviously, there are things that a bacteria can do that we cannot, and in that regard, they are more evolved then us. Fair enough?
But, getting back to my point, in regards to computers, and information. The abilities that we have evolved, in order to be succesful in reproduction and survival, have allowed us to create a global network of computers. It is in this way that I can relate the activities of humans to the process of evolution, no other.
We are an extension of what's come before us and the things that we create are an extension of us. Therfore, the act of a billion people, all communicating and exchanging information at the speed of light and on a global scale could be considered an extension of abilities that we have evolved.
posted by kuatto at 3:50 PM on October 12, 2005
kuatto: Yes, yes, but the developement of human cognition allowed for reproductive success.
There are dozens of different strategies for reproductive success. You can't say that the complexities of human cognition is any more successful than the complexities H. pylori's manipulation of human immune systems.
So when I say that, humans are more evolved then bacteria, in regards to, say, using a web browser, I am refering to the abilities that we have evolved.
Given that web browsers have existed for just about a single generation, you would be hard-pressed to say that human beings have evolved in regards to using a web browser.
Obviously, there are things that a bacteria can do that we cannot, and in that regard, they are more evolved then us. Fair enough?
Certainly, however that pretty much means that you cut the legs out from under your argument in regards to "hyper-exponential" evolution over geologic periods. Because you must open the door to the fact that, for example, Carboniferous insects were highly specialized and complex and apparently quite successful.
But, getting back to my point, in regards to computers, and information. The abilities that we have evolved, in order to be succesful in reproduction and survival, have allowed us to create a global network of computers. It is in this way that I can relate the activities of humans to the process of evolution, no other.
Actually, your original reference to evolution was that the "hyper-exponential" advancement of technology, is analogous to the "hyper-exponential" advancement of evolution. One would hope that they are not analogous, given that you have pretty much killed your yardstick for claiming "hyper-exponential" evolutionary advancement.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:44 PM on October 12, 2005
There are dozens of different strategies for reproductive success. You can't say that the complexities of human cognition is any more successful than the complexities H. pylori's manipulation of human immune systems.
So when I say that, humans are more evolved then bacteria, in regards to, say, using a web browser, I am refering to the abilities that we have evolved.
Given that web browsers have existed for just about a single generation, you would be hard-pressed to say that human beings have evolved in regards to using a web browser.
Obviously, there are things that a bacteria can do that we cannot, and in that regard, they are more evolved then us. Fair enough?
Certainly, however that pretty much means that you cut the legs out from under your argument in regards to "hyper-exponential" evolution over geologic periods. Because you must open the door to the fact that, for example, Carboniferous insects were highly specialized and complex and apparently quite successful.
But, getting back to my point, in regards to computers, and information. The abilities that we have evolved, in order to be succesful in reproduction and survival, have allowed us to create a global network of computers. It is in this way that I can relate the activities of humans to the process of evolution, no other.
Actually, your original reference to evolution was that the "hyper-exponential" advancement of technology, is analogous to the "hyper-exponential" advancement of evolution. One would hope that they are not analogous, given that you have pretty much killed your yardstick for claiming "hyper-exponential" evolutionary advancement.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:44 PM on October 12, 2005
There are dozens of different strategies for reproductive success. You can't say that the complexities of human cognition is any more successful than the complexities H. pylori's manipulation of human immune systems.
Your right, I can't say that we are superior purely in terms of survival and I don't.
We are more evolved then a bacterium in the realm of human activities e.g toolmaking/the internet.
I did not say :human beings have evolved in regards to using a web browser
I said, we evolved the ability to create a web browser. big difference. I also stand by my original assertion that evolution is an exponential process.
posted by kuatto at 7:44 PM on October 12, 2005
>I also stand by my original assertion that evolution is an exponential process.
That's an ambitious statement. How do you know evolution is an exponential process?
I've been trying to ask questions about this in the hope you might see the answers I'm trying to point to, but instead, I think it's best to just say what I'm thinking.
Under selection there could be bouts of exponential diversity, but that all depends on who you talk to about the measure of 'diversity' and how one should apply the definition. And even then, the 'rate' you talk about may not be exponential.
Evolution is an observable phenomena, it's ongoing in many species. Some species die, others thrive, others arrive from all sorts of variation. One cannot say Evolution is an exponential process, one can only point to observations. In the short-term and in the long-term these observable phenomena have been hard to pidgeon-hole and place under the grand category of exponential rates. There are too many exceptions.
Now, under human control, exponential evolution can happen. I've done it, under controlled conditions, using a technology to artificially 'evolve' nucleic acid coding sequences -- and I'm being deliberately obtuse and not pointing to the actual name of the technique because the PageRank of this site is too high.
I think Ray Kurzweil talks about evolving -- literally -- under exponential rates, I've also met some Physicists who talk about expansion with similar thoughts and ideas. Evolution is whole different thing, and when you say that it's exponential, with no caveats, then I'm afraid the generalisation is a little insulting.
So, once again, can we give up on the invocation of a strong, solid scientifically proven process when talking about something speculative, engineered and imaginary?
posted by gsb at 9:44 AM on October 13, 2005
That's an ambitious statement. How do you know evolution is an exponential process?
I've been trying to ask questions about this in the hope you might see the answers I'm trying to point to, but instead, I think it's best to just say what I'm thinking.
Under selection there could be bouts of exponential diversity, but that all depends on who you talk to about the measure of 'diversity' and how one should apply the definition. And even then, the 'rate' you talk about may not be exponential.
Evolution is an observable phenomena, it's ongoing in many species. Some species die, others thrive, others arrive from all sorts of variation. One cannot say Evolution is an exponential process, one can only point to observations. In the short-term and in the long-term these observable phenomena have been hard to pidgeon-hole and place under the grand category of exponential rates. There are too many exceptions.
Now, under human control, exponential evolution can happen. I've done it, under controlled conditions, using a technology to artificially 'evolve' nucleic acid coding sequences -- and I'm being deliberately obtuse and not pointing to the actual name of the technique because the PageRank of this site is too high.
I think Ray Kurzweil talks about evolving -- literally -- under exponential rates, I've also met some Physicists who talk about expansion with similar thoughts and ideas. Evolution is whole different thing, and when you say that it's exponential, with no caveats, then I'm afraid the generalisation is a little insulting.
So, once again, can we give up on the invocation of a strong, solid scientifically proven process when talking about something speculative, engineered and imaginary?
posted by gsb at 9:44 AM on October 13, 2005
Sooooo....
*cracks knuckles*
Who wants some stock options?
No?
How about hyper-exponential stock options?
posted by Coda at 10:09 AM on October 13, 2005
*cracks knuckles*
Who wants some stock options?
No?
How about hyper-exponential stock options?
posted by Coda at 10:09 AM on October 13, 2005
Fair enough. But will you at least grant me that humans are more evolved then bacteria with regards to manipulating a web browser?
That's only fair to say right?
I know conversation is about being able to communicate on terms that we can agree on, and it's a lot trouble to bring yourself down to the semantic level of an imbecile, but don't give up!
Let me take a moment, from the perspective of a layperson, with infinite reservation, qualification, and an abiding respect for your knowledge and wisdom, to make a few remarks on a subject I have little, to no direct knowledge of. Please try to adapt your semantic understanding of biology to what I am trying to impart: my limited, intuitive understanding.
-----------------------------------------------------
Evolution astounds me. If I think for a moment, the shear scale and majesty of life's achievement is just amazing. Imagine , primitive RNA just on the cusp of integrating with some phosolipids and begriming this chain of events that leads through time directly to me. This must have happened, in the arena of a desolate Earth, billions of times, surely, before the limitless progression of failed attempts gave way to one or a series of success.
What a delicate moment that must have been; an eternity hinged upon the fate of a group of molecules. But locked them was the potential of all the power and energy of what was to come. This is life, and the energy that springs forth is not based on any mechanical or chemical summation, it is based on innate will; an expression of the universe.
From the moment life sprang forth, is has steadily swept forward, rushing to fill ecological niches with an enormous zeal that tapers, only when approaching the upper limits of the capabilities of the systems which sustain it.
Whitman wrote:
Urging slowly, surely forward, forming endless,
And waiting ever more, forever more behind.
A parrelism unmatched, by anything we (as an extension of it), can produce.
Perhaps like this, I may justify myself; poorly I'm sure:
If life began as I've been told, a most lonely speck in a sea of eternity, a delicate act, hanging in the balance, how can I justify an earth that erupts in the shear vitality and strength of life? How can I reconcile the two?
How can I dignify the proportional increases in life? The variation in complexity that defies categorization and description, a natural history of our world that defies the conception of the whole. How can I reconcile a lifeless solar system with the insanity of a world-wide eruption in movement?
People...people are the crux of it. Of course, I say this as a person, I am naturally biased. But for gods sake, here we are setting off atomic bombs like firecrackers, roaring up the mountains in automobiles, getting drunk and roaring back down. A thousand people chitter-chattering on cell phones, a thousand more crying their heart out, waiting for something and here we be! No more evolved then a bacterium--it's true!!
The metric of a becoming a "higher-form of life" should not be setting off A-bombs in the Van Allen Belt. But if we want to, we can do just that.
But look, I'm not trying to disparage your profession or your art. I know how hard it is to have someone trample all over what is considered sacred. My tangential thoughts are nothing but a heuristic, a philosophical tool with which I can approach a problem. Everything in the universe is connected in some way. All knowledge and understanding is related to some other thing. I can say this, as the result of a process of evolution, composed of the essential elements of the universe.
Is any particular element irrelevent to me as a human? Is evolution irrelevent to the growth rate of information? As a human, can I draw unlikely and wrong-headed conclusions from unlikely sources?
My argument is essentially philosophical in nature and I know just enough about biology to get me into trouble; but please, feel free to stoop to my level anytime.
posted by kuatto at 1:30 AM on October 14, 2005
That's only fair to say right?
I know conversation is about being able to communicate on terms that we can agree on, and it's a lot trouble to bring yourself down to the semantic level of an imbecile, but don't give up!
Let me take a moment, from the perspective of a layperson, with infinite reservation, qualification, and an abiding respect for your knowledge and wisdom, to make a few remarks on a subject I have little, to no direct knowledge of. Please try to adapt your semantic understanding of biology to what I am trying to impart: my limited, intuitive understanding.
-----------------------------------------------------
Evolution astounds me. If I think for a moment, the shear scale and majesty of life's achievement is just amazing. Imagine , primitive RNA just on the cusp of integrating with some phosolipids and begriming this chain of events that leads through time directly to me. This must have happened, in the arena of a desolate Earth, billions of times, surely, before the limitless progression of failed attempts gave way to one or a series of success.
What a delicate moment that must have been; an eternity hinged upon the fate of a group of molecules. But locked them was the potential of all the power and energy of what was to come. This is life, and the energy that springs forth is not based on any mechanical or chemical summation, it is based on innate will; an expression of the universe.
From the moment life sprang forth, is has steadily swept forward, rushing to fill ecological niches with an enormous zeal that tapers, only when approaching the upper limits of the capabilities of the systems which sustain it.
Whitman wrote:
Urging slowly, surely forward, forming endless,
And waiting ever more, forever more behind.
A parrelism unmatched, by anything we (as an extension of it), can produce.
Perhaps like this, I may justify myself; poorly I'm sure:
If life began as I've been told, a most lonely speck in a sea of eternity, a delicate act, hanging in the balance, how can I justify an earth that erupts in the shear vitality and strength of life? How can I reconcile the two?
How can I dignify the proportional increases in life? The variation in complexity that defies categorization and description, a natural history of our world that defies the conception of the whole. How can I reconcile a lifeless solar system with the insanity of a world-wide eruption in movement?
People...people are the crux of it. Of course, I say this as a person, I am naturally biased. But for gods sake, here we are setting off atomic bombs like firecrackers, roaring up the mountains in automobiles, getting drunk and roaring back down. A thousand people chitter-chattering on cell phones, a thousand more crying their heart out, waiting for something and here we be! No more evolved then a bacterium--it's true!!
The metric of a becoming a "higher-form of life" should not be setting off A-bombs in the Van Allen Belt. But if we want to, we can do just that.
But look, I'm not trying to disparage your profession or your art. I know how hard it is to have someone trample all over what is considered sacred. My tangential thoughts are nothing but a heuristic, a philosophical tool with which I can approach a problem. Everything in the universe is connected in some way. All knowledge and understanding is related to some other thing. I can say this, as the result of a process of evolution, composed of the essential elements of the universe.
Is any particular element irrelevent to me as a human? Is evolution irrelevent to the growth rate of information? As a human, can I draw unlikely and wrong-headed conclusions from unlikely sources?
My argument is essentially philosophical in nature and I know just enough about biology to get me into trouble; but please, feel free to stoop to my level anytime.
posted by kuatto at 1:30 AM on October 14, 2005
You know what Kuatto, I just can't stoop to your level anymore, it's tiring. So I think I'll stick to taking the stealth-piss out of people using acronym tags, in other threads. Childish, but then, it's easier.
posted by gsb at 8:57 AM on October 14, 2005
posted by gsb at 8:57 AM on October 14, 2005
If you do not deign it acceptable to meet me on any semantic level, then there can be no conversation.
I tried to explain my personal understanding of evolution and it is unacceptable to you.
posted by kuatto at 10:41 AM on October 14, 2005
I tried to explain my personal understanding of evolution and it is unacceptable to you.
posted by kuatto at 10:41 AM on October 14, 2005
« Older Wash. Monthly: Singularity, Free Will, etc. It's... | Who got punk'd? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by brownpau at 6:01 AM on October 11, 2005