What is the most badass technology developed by humans?

[Pappa]

Neither is writing.

It is in terms of storing data.

[Trolldor]

Neither is writing.

It is in terms of storing data.

Which is merely an extension of verbal legends and tales, of using pictures to represent those legends and tales etc.

[Pappa]

Neither is writing.

It is in terms of storing data.

Which is merely an extension of verbal legends and tales, of using pictures to represent those legends and tales etc.

It's far more practical than verbally passing on information though. Writing things down has allowed us to pass on complex ideas that would be very difficult to record and transmit verbally. How would a suspension bridge ever get built if the information could only be held and transmitted verbally?

[Trolldor]

Very slowly.
But not impossibly.

And in terms of 'storing data', that would be specific language forms, English is a technology as it can store data, while the concept of writing is not because there is no form to 'writing'. Writing as a concept is not, and most probably only an extension of whatever mindfuckery happened for us to associate particular symbols with particular ideas.

[JOZeldenrust]

Very slowly.
But not impossibly.

And in terms of 'storing data', that would be specific language forms, English is a technology as it can store data, while the concept of writing is not because there is no form to 'writing'. Writing as a concept is not, and most probably only an extension of whatever mindfuckery happened for us to associate particular symbols with particular ideas.

I would say technology is the practical application of scientific knowledge.

English is a practical application of scientific knowledge?

Anything you want to reconsider?

[Trolldor]

Very slowly.
But not impossibly.

And in terms of 'storing data', that would be specific language forms, English is a technology as it can store data, while the concept of writing is not because there is no form to 'writing'. Writing as a concept is not, and most probably only an extension of whatever mindfuckery happened for us to associate particular symbols with particular ideas.

I would say technology is the practical application of scientific knowledge.

English is a practical application of scientific knowledge?

Anything you want to reconsider?

English is, if rudimentarily. The assigning of values is it not?

[JOZeldenrust]

Very slowly.
But not impossibly.

And in terms of 'storing data', that would be specific language forms, English is a technology as it can store data, while the concept of writing is not because there is no form to 'writing'. Writing as a concept is not, and most probably only an extension of whatever mindfuckery happened for us to associate particular symbols with particular ideas.

I would say technology is the practical application of scientific knowledge.

English is a practical application of scientific knowledge?

Anything you want to reconsider?

English is, if rudimentarily. The assigning of values is it not?

And writing isn't? Applying substances or objects that leave marks on surfaces that facilitate visual access? Granted, that's just the same as drawing, but in the case of writing it's combined with the assigning of values. A combination of two types of technology is again technology. Or wouldn't you call automobiles technology? They're just a combination of the wheel, the box and the combustion engine...

[hackenslash]

Computers. In a couple decades, they'll be smarter than we are.

Roger Penrose might disagree with that. See The Emperor's New Mind.

Indeed. Computers are in many ways already smarter hen we are, but they aren't conscious. It'll be more then a couple of decades before computers become conscious, as the way computers are constructed doesn't lend itself well to the emergence of consciousness: there is only a symbolic link between the "mind" (the hard drive, RAM and processor, mostly) of the computer and its "senses" (input devices). Computers don't "mean" anything. It's the human users that assign meaning to what a computer does.

For now. That'll change over the next couple decades.
Computers are already millions of times faster than people in terms of abilities to calculate information (nevermind accuracy), but in terms of congitive abilities, pattern recognition, creativity, learning potential, etc., the most powerful machines today are about as smart as a mouse. A couple years ago, they were as smart as an insect. Enter Moore's Law - by 2030, give or take a couple years, they'll be as smart as a person, but with the sort of blinding speed we're used to now. Once that happens, they'll be able to recursively improve upon their own designs. Given the means to do so uninterrupted, and the first one with this ability will very quickly achieve a tremendous level of true, independent, sentient intelligence, far greater than any human being. Theoretically, of course.

The problem here is that it will take a serious change in the way computers operate, and neither speed nor capacity can accomplish it. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem comes into play here. There are things that we can know to be true that cannot be proven within the axiomatic system from which they stem, because we can intuit truth. That's a massive barrier at the moment, and even quantum computing cannot address it, because quantum computing will still operate on algorithms. There's also the problem of the halting, which is connected to Gödel.

[charlou]

Splitting the more specific weapon v tool debate .. will post a link when done.

Temporary lockage ...

[charlou]

Wait .. Mystery solved? mistermack are you omniscient?

Moving weapon/tool posts to the mistermack 'Mystery solved: ... " thread ...

[charlou]

Done: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =9&t=18109

[Trolldor]

Good work Charlou, Mystery Solved.