A direction to Evolution?

[chaz wyman]

And I remind the poster that Chaz is notorious for allowing his ego to assert with certainty, that which is not necessarily certain. He admittedly, is skeptical of everything except his skepticism, arguing that 'one can't be skeptical of everything.' Funny how that one thing which he has a problem being skeptical of, is his particular resolve (not the mark of a good philosopher by any stretch.)

This is not a forum for gratuitous insults.
Your comments do not relate to "A direction to Evolution."

[SpheresOfBalance]

And I remind the poster that Chaz is notorious for allowing his ego to assert with certainty, that which is not necessarily certain. He admittedly, is skeptical of everything except his skepticism, arguing that 'one can't be skeptical of everything.' Funny how that one thing which he has a problem being skeptical of, is his particular resolve (not the mark of a good philosopher by any stretch.)

This is not a forum for gratuitous insults.
Your comments do not relate to "A direction to Evolution."

That was not a gratuitous insult, but rather the truth of your past performance in our dealings that I state for the OP so as to potentially lend some credibility to your words.

I remind the OP that, as I originally said, 'direction' is relative. But, "relative to what?", should be the question asked! I believe it a falsehood to attribute greatness to a species due to it's gadgets when it has forgotten, then betrayed, the essence of it's life.

[Kuznetzova]

When you guys get done with your little personal spat, could you try to address the Technological Singularity?

[chaz wyman]

When you guys get done with your little personal spat, could you try to address the Technological Singularity?

With which you have confused 'evolution'?

[SpheresOfBalance]

When you guys get done with your little personal spat, could you try to address the Technological Singularity?

We have been using tools to make new tools for quite some time, nothing new here, progression is built in that model. It's nothing that speaks of evolution, quite the contrary, we are standing on a precipice of self destruction. I see that an evolutionary indicator that we have any sort of long lived direction, will be in the quelling of the desires/wants, for our basic needs, and thus balance of the one singular organism, the biosphere, which I see as the true essence of an advanced species, of the caliber we profess, that has any sort of real evolutionary direction. Greatness is not to be found in conquering, but rather managing, like that of a shepherd (sometimes he may have to sprint after the flock, though he'd rather sit in his easy chair, pushing buttons, claiming superiority.)

[reasonvemotion]

Kuznetzova:

I will consider it Thread Hijacking.

Weirdo.

[chaz wyman]

When you guys get done with your little personal spat, could you try to address the Technological Singularity?

Surely there is no such thing?

[Kuznetzova]

Address the technological singularity instead of dismiss the technological singularity?

[chaz wyman]

Address the technological singularity instead of dismiss the technological singularity?

It's a fantasy.
It is a fantasy based on an unsupportable assumption about 'intelligence' having an absolute hierarchy - which it does not have.
I'm also puzzled why you think this is applicable to a thread on evolution.

[Kuznetzova]

The Singularitans and transhumanists all say that some process is "speeding up" -- and I'm trying to pin that down.
What exactly is speeding up? Complexification? Interconnectedness? Consciousness is increasing? Some amorphous sense of progress?

[chaz wyman]

The Singularitans and transhumanists all say that some process is "speeding up" -- and I'm trying to pin that down.
What exactly is speeding up? Complexification? Interconnectedness? Consciousness is increasing? Some amorphous sense of progress?

I think this is your natural home:
http://www.forteantimes.com/

[Kuznetzova]

I think this is your natural home:
http://www.forteantimes.com/

I asked you to address the Singularity, and not dismiss it.
Your response to this was to provide another, saucier dismissal.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/about
http://singularity.org/team/

[chaz wyman]

I think this is your natural home:
http://www.forteantimes.com/

I asked you to address the Singularity, and not dismiss it.
Your response to this was to provide another, saucier dismissal.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/about
http://singularity.org/team/

[chaz wyman]

And I remind the poster that Chaz is notorious for allowing his ego to assert with certainty, that which is not necessarily certain. He admittedly, is skeptical of everything except his skepticism, arguing that 'one can't be skeptical of everything.' Funny how that one thing which he has a problem being skeptical of, is his particular resolve (not the mark of a good philosopher by any stretch.)

This is not a forum for gratuitous insults.
Your comments do not relate to "A direction to Evolution."

That was not a gratuitous insult, but rather the truth of your past performance in our dealings that I state for the OP so as to potentially lend some credibility to your words.

I remind the OP that, as I originally said, 'direction' is relative. But, "relative to what?", should be the question asked! I believe it a falsehood to attribute greatness to a species due to it's gadgets when it has forgotten, then betrayed, the essence of it's life.

The idea of TO a direction is antithetical to evolution. The path that evolution takes, if it can be said to be on a path, is only considered in the breach. Evolution is not a cause but an effect.

[Kuznetzova]

Okay chaz. Thank you for that flippant, 3-line dismissal written in haste.

Would anyone else like to chime in here, and dismantle the singularity with a post containing a little more eloquence?