• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

The upcoming technological singularity / 'Alternative' scientific theorization

P

Psylex

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
90
Location
Switzerland/France
In about a few decades, inexpensive nano to quantum hypercomputers operating on abundant high energies will permeate just about the totality of our surroundings thereby leaving the human experience with a fully intelligent environment. Furthermore, utopian bioengineering will give humans infinite control and power over their Physical, Emotional, Mental and Spiritual states of being ... this seemed obvious to my intuition during a few spiritual/hedonistic trips. When Metaphysics gets ever closer to it's full mathematical accomplishment (Unified Field Theory) and spiritual accomplishment (Human Consciousness merging with it's own subconscious source Field) the human existence will be left with only undiluted Art to deal with.

In all of history, the evolution of practical knowledge has never encountered a fatal decline, it is thus bound to invariantly grow. Idealism gives us the sense that humanity is a dormant divinity following time cycles. The Absolute, by definition, encompasses both the enlightened and obscure states of existence which could be seen as codependent.

Sooner or later we will surely entirely redefine everything we know about ethics and life, since we are the imagination of ourselves it's never too early to anticipate our cocreation. For starters i would see a new world order embracing all cultures and experiences into a coherent whole, this will erase any borders as we are ultimately one same specie, this would theoretically also apply to the cosmos. Advanced and immersive new tools of ever more genuine communication like an enhanced psychic language should quickly bring the new paradigm into play.
 
compare a cave man to a feudal peasant.

compare a feudal peasant to an industrialized working man.

compare an industrialized working man to modern human, whose brain developed with entirely different sensory input in its formative years (television being one example).

what's next? i think everything is in place, except the social/cultural recognition that we do have the material and energy abundance to leave behind our historical notions of "earning a living."

of course, we will always have to "earn our living" (we will always start out as babies... well, for quite some time, at least...) but that concept will have to be entirely transformed.
 
Indeed money is only a survival tool for a society which hasn't fully technologically matured yet... it will become useless once we obtain infinite knowledge and energy ^^


I guess the last stage is really man merging with it's source (the cosmos or god), but before that we will see new forms of fine arts using advanced technology (simulation based, etc...) and paradoxically even if the earth will become only one country we will probably have an increase of sub-cultural diversity moving in.

Before merging in the fundamental spiritual realm it will also be very interesting to see how we will fuse our physical realm with the emotional and mental ones : can we rationally predict aesthetic enjoyment and create algorithms for good art? Are our intuitions infinite? And how will subjectivity enter an more "objective" reality? It's a pretty ambitious topic to say the least.

And concerning the future of rave parties and festivals... this might get very extreme with an advanced pharmacology, holographic and virtual reality techniques and new arts.
 
I also totally agree on the fact that we will have to fully redefine human growth and experience itself. Many people are claiming that the post-modern western life is deeply flawed on the cultural basis given the fact that our beliefs are not in alignement with nature's own paradigm. The biggest repercussion of this has been the brutal separation between our mental selves and our emotional selves due to our regrettable belief of materialism : i resonate with the theory stating that the illusion of ego emerged when human consciousness got separated from it's subconscious construct. This is fascinating because some have speculated that prehistoric human life was a lot more psychic and intuitive (opened third eye) and the same thinking can be applied to the significant differences between childhood and adulthood : children look like they are in a constant psychedelic trip of pure novelty... so maybe when we grow up we unfortunately learned to shut off our subconscious mind... classical aristotelian logic might have isolated the psyche from core intuitions due to misleaded psychological repressions. We are perhaps trying to bring our wrongly socially conditionned robotic selves back to our natural artistic selves.


Maybe our main goal is to heal ourselves from the wounds of an unnatural life style, replacing adulthood with an eternal childhood through wisdom. That is, if global unconditional love manages to erase artifical fears. It's funny how our cultural commitment to technology made us very disharmonic with nature but will eventually help us gain that initial balance back again.

Even the ambiguities of our common language point towards that social unbalance... the languages of the future will clearly revolutionize our sense of integrity.
 
I doubt it. Until we can solve our energy problems and socioeconomic inequities, there will be no technological revolution. Our current trajectory is non-sustainable according to even the most optimistic calculations. With things as they are, even if our environments can become nanotech, only 1% of the world will enjoy such a revolution. Even now, we have internet while more than half of the world doesn't even have clean drinking water.

Also, the environment is already intelligent. We don't need technology to interact with and experience nature as it already is.

Priorities people.
 
Foreigner said:
I doubt it. Until we can solve our energy problems and socioeconomic inequities, there will be no technological revolution.
Click to expand...

+1

We are still being governed and guided by an elite who hold all the wealth and power. Until that is addressed and rectified we will be going nowhere fast. I think possibly the worst thing that could happen is a rapid technological evolutionary period where the elite still hold control.. things like nano-tech, merging with bio-tech, stuff of science fiction.. all being wielded by maniacs who only care about more control and power. That is the stuff of nightmares/Terminator-Matrix like apocolypses.

The last 100 years kinda prove that advancing technology doesn't necessarily translate into a better world if the populace and leaders are still stupid fucks! All it does is accelerate the trajectory of the society.. and rampant materialism + high technology = a disaster waiting to happen (well actually it is already here).

It's all nice to fantasize.. but without some serious revolution in terms of government, corporations, religion etc it is all meaningless. To think increased technology will bring that about automatically is foolish.
 
This is a fascinating idea, and I never tire of a well-told sci-fi or supernatural story that uses this trope.

The most mindblowing implication of the technological singuarity, of course, is that it may have already happened long ago, and your present life is either a simulation of, or nay, even a complete recreation from scratch of, a bygone eon, created by a machine of cosmic proportions and godlike capabilities by the human race and their descendants. Makes causality, time, and sentient existence feel kind of like a Moebius strip.

Impossible to prove, impossible to disprove.
 
^the silly people in the matrix trilogy commentary track (not the stunningly boring original release but the boxed set with philosophers) argue very briefly that on the balance of probability this is somehow likely!
 
L2R said:
^the silly people in the matrix trilogy commentary track (not the stunningly boring original release but the boxed set with philosophers) argue very briefly that on the balance of probability this is somehow likely!
Click to expand...

That's called 'simulation argument' and there's actually been a scientific publication about it in the journal Philosophical Quarterly...
 
^ Well, its a bit questionable as a scientific theory, as it can't be tested with any easily conceivable experimental setup (see falsifiability). Philosophically it's still interesting.

The original paper about the argument is here.
 
^ To be fair, yougene, it's not a particularly valuable or attractive idea to highly practical people whose standard of a good idea is one that generates practical applications in the here and now. It has value to those of us who are dreamers, who still hold out hope for a great and glorious place for ourselves, our species, and/or our planet in the grand scheme of things. It has some value too, albeit less, to otherwise fairly hardnosed, here-and-now oriented people who just enjoy kicking around ideas for its own sake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top