Ah, another "What's your stance on Kurzweil" thread.
I see Kurzweil as one of the more provocative futurist figures who manages to stimulate inquiry on future speculating. This, I think, is a good thing.
Yet in reality, anyone who is honest with his or herself would have to admit that it is not possible to attain a high level of confidence regarding the specifics of future technological developments. Possible outcomes for future trends can range anywhere from the Singularity never happening (as a result of yet to be discovered empirical realities that will halt progress, for example) to the rapid ascension of SAI in the next moment.
It is not a matter of what you believe, but how strongly you believe it.As a radical activist -- as a revolutionary -- the task of the futurist should be "educated betting" on future trends that allows one to maximize future utility (define utility according to your personal higher level goals).
Mind
The world is full of envious critics.
Now Mind, I've notice that you use the [airquote] sour grapes [/airquote] allegation quite often. You should know that you are effectively committing a fallacy:
Description of Personal Attack
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.
Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.
In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.
I am afraid, Mind, that I may come off as one of those sour grapes critics to you but, at least from my perspective, nothing could be farther from the truth. I do not envy Kurzweil as much as I disagree with his memetics*. I have spent a good deal of time trying to pin point what exactly I find so disagreeable about the "Kurzweil" view point and I believe I can sum it up in one word --
faith. Kurzweil possesses a level of confidence in his predictions so strong that they can be accurately described as faith. Readers of Kurzweil should note when reading him that he does not say, "Here is one possible scenario for the future among many." Instead what he says is, "In 2020 we
will be here. And in 2030 we
will be there."
What I have argued, and will continue to argue, is no one, not even Kurzweil, is entitled to make such definitive statements on future prognostications. And also that, in doing so, Kurzweil demonstrates his slipshod status as a philosopher.
*edited
Edited by DonSpanton, 18 March 2006 - 05:08 AM.