Singularity?
After watching both Ray Kurzweil and Paul Wolpe discuss their idea and theory of Singularity, I would like to write only briefly about this subject because so little is known about it. I feel it best be left up to the thought of the individual viewer here, and their own perspective on it.
Singularity is first defined by Mariam Webster as the quality of being strange or odd. Another definition for it is “a point at which the derivative of a given function of a complex variable does not exist but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative does exist.” And I will leave a last definition of it as “a point or region of infinite mass density at which space and time are infinitely distorted by gravitational forces and which is held to be the final state of matter falling into a black hole.”
This topic is open so much so for interpretation that there is a vast time of space and depth to which is unfathomable unless we could travel to the future and see for ourselves what lies ahead.
In comparison between the two gentleman mentioned, one an author, computer scientist, inventor and futurist. The other a sociologist and bioethicist. The two men have differing viewpoints about singularity in relation to human and technology.
Kurzweil prefers to optimistically view singularity as an open opportunity where we will have a chance to defy our age, and the limitations of time through scientific discoveries and breakthroughs that allow for our society to become one with technology. An integration of art, education, growth, and science as we already work toward on a gradual basis.
Wolpe finds the reality is that there are such differing viewpoints, between ethnicities, genders, and religious beliefs that a successful form of singularity may be possible. But in the reality of the lives and perspectives we know and live by presently, it is more impossible for an occurrence of singularity with technology to happen as rapidly as Kurzweil seems to believe.
The structure we live in bases a good amount of reliance on technology, yet as the participatory and interactive society that we are, it is unlikely we would willingly change our traits to the point at which we become inactive and in a state allowing technology to create an inverse society, where there is no real need for humans.
Instinctively we need one another, as does technology in order to continue to progress. If anything moved in the slightest direction of changing such a state of borne nature, the resulting outcome would be greater of removing or halting use and acceptance of such a subject all together.
The argument Kurzweil then brings to the table is the progression of technology and its advancement in itself. Further reaching than the human species can keep up with. Ironically here, each individual person may be interconnected with one another over necessities for survival and sustainment of life, yet we each think independently of one another and therefore theoretically move to fast for each other to comprehend.
There is no right or wrong on a subject like singularity. Only the application of self and the events experienced by self which guide an independent and uniquely pure understanding of singularity.
This topic can be controlled or open to relate with religion, science, math, fact, fiction, experience, and theory. In itself, singularity alone, is what it stands to represent.
