Turning Points in Human History.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The possibility certainly exists given the current and cutting-edge state of what we may conveniently call cybernetics. The next 20 years should be more exciting than the last 20 years.

In fact, we have been in a state of rapid change for quite some time. If you look at the world from 1800 and compare it to 1900 there aren't too terribly many differences--better guns, better trains, better ships but they did have telegraphs and the most advanced urban places actually had electricity or even telephones, phonographs, and cameras. If you compare 1900 to 2000, though, then you might as well be looking at different planets--the rate of technological advancement accelerated wildly, giving us efficient automobiles (I drove to work at 70mph, which would have outraced anything available in 1900), airplanes, computers, wireless phones, organ transplants, microscopes that can spot single atoms (or even move them around), etc. The rate of technological advanced might have slowed somewhat but we are still on an upward climb and we haven't reached the top yet.

As adults, my children will have access to technology that might still be considered "impossible" (or at least not feasible) at this time. Fully-functional voice-input computers (only a minimum of typing needed), "screens" that are actually projected onto available surfaces rather than relying on physical monitors, etc.

[peter]

Has the rate of advance slowed Hashi? I thought if you used the number of academic papers being published per year as a measure of the rate of increase of knowledge then it was rising almost exponentially.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I wouldn't use the number of published academic papers as a measure of anything except people pursuing advanced degrees or fulfilling professional contract requirements. Consider computers--hard drives are significantly larger than they were 10 years ago but the processers aren't significantly faster, even if you take multi-coring or multi-threading into account. Automotive engineering hasn't advanced much, either, except for truly high-end cars where they use more adavanced transmissions to reduce lag while shifting (preusming they aren't using those transmissions that don't have "gears"). Wireless technology has advanced, yes, but the leap from 11 Mbps to 600 Mbps (for 802.11n) isn't as large as "no wireless" to 11 Mbps. Televisions are thinner but not necessarily better, even taking HD into account. In fact, I think the only places where technology has really advanced significantly in the last 10 years have been in medical technology and astronomy (we have much better imaging devices than we did 10 years ago).

The rate may have slowed but we are still advancing quickly, though.

[Vraith]

I call shenanigans.
Processing speeds are hugely faster than ten years ago.

Automotive engineering on a practical level is stuck in an improvement of usable tech/materials mode...but even that is pretty impressive; you can get twice the horsepower and twice the mpg and much greater safety for roughly the same price.
But on the theory level it is hugely advanced.
The problem is the materials to execute it are not economically feasible at the moment.

[Avatar]

There are more scientists living and working today than at any time in the last 1,000 years combined.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I call shenanigans.
Processing speeds are hugely faster than ten years ago.

1 GHz wasn't attained until 2000 and by 2003 the typical speed was 3 GHz, which is still the speed of most of the computers for available for sale at this time. The fastest processors for sale to the general public top out at only 5 GHz and the world record for processor speed is just a hair under 8.5 GHz.
Performance enhancement these days comes from finding ways to reduce the time required to process a command or from building processers that can execute multiple commands simultaneously; this will increase the effective speed but not the clock.

The first point I was making was that the rate of technological advancement has slowed because we have made so many advances already. The second point was that the Internet (as we know it) will not revolutionize the world--it has had 15 years to do so and it hasn't happened yet--but cybernetics will. A voice- and thought-controlled exoskeleton that allows a spinal injury victim to walk and use their arms again is much more significant than being able to research 11th century Brno from your bedroom or watching funny cat videos.

[peter]

I take Hashi's point about using scientific/academic papers as a measure of rate of increase of knowledge. A case of knowing more and more about less and less I suspect.

[Cybrweez]

I believe the internet already has revolutionized the world. Hence the rapid advancement we have now. It allows communication throughout the world, rather than isolated pockets of advancement. Two brains are better than one, and a few billion is better than 2.

[Vraith]

I call shenanigans.
Processing speeds are hugely faster than ten years ago.

1 GHz wasn't attained until 2000 and by 2003 the typical speed was 3 GHz, which is still the speed of most of the computers for available for sale at this time. The fastest processors for sale to the general public top out at only 5 GHz and the world record for processor speed is just a hair under 8.5 GHz.
Performance enhancement these days comes from finding ways to reduce the time required to process a command or from building processers that can execute multiple commands simultaneously; this will increase the effective speed but not the clock.

The first point I was making was that the rate of technological advancement has slowed because we have made so many advances already. The second point was that the Internet (as we know it) will not revolutionize the world--it has had 15 years to do so and it hasn't happened yet--but cybernetics will. A voice- and thought-controlled exoskeleton that allows a spinal injury victim to walk and use their arms again is much more significant than being able to research 11th century Brno from your bedroom or watching funny cat videos.

I think the clock speed problem is a materials and economic bottle-neck.
Cuz I'm pretty sure, not positive, that IBM and maybe others have gotten well above 100Gig...but they're delicate and require super-cooling.
There are possibilities in the fairly near future, though for a form of germanium, and after that graphene. [I think the potential numbers were 150 gig for Germ. and 300+ for graphene].

I'm not sure advancement in general has slowed...though I have an impression that it has slowed in fields that have been big in the public eye/mind for the last 50 years or so.
I agree on the internet...it isn't personal/visceral enough yet, in most ways. But I think it is a short step away from the point that WILL change everything...and that, I think, will be when it merges with the cyber you mention. I would bet anything that the first fully functioning exoskeleton will include integrated wi-fi hotspot [or something even better], and the first commercial version [who wouldn't want an exoskeleton for fun?] have google-glass [or something better] and an autopilot with gps so one can, almost literally, "sleep on the run."
At minimum. It will have swappable attachments for on and off-road use, for various sports [both games and hunting sports].
"Ninja" and "Road King" models [hey...some folk like Kaws, some folk like Hogs]
Jungle, Desert and Arctic explorer kits.
Real-time sensory system stimulators to REALLY keep in "touch" over long-distance. [I'm right now registering the name "True Sex" for that system]

[Orlion]

Of course, then you have the problem of some people, say, developing a free public communications protocol and every company using it, bugs and all, merely because it is cheaper. This sort of event is a sort of "backstep" in progress, since now the problems of yesteryear are again the problems of today and updating "for free" or "on the university funding" can be slow.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I'm not sure advancement in general has slowed...though I have an impression that it has slowed in fields that have been big in the public eye/mind for the last 50 years or so.
I agree on the internet...it isn't personal/visceral enough yet, in most ways. But I think it is a short step away from the point that WILL change everything...and that, I think, will be when it merges with the cyber you mention. I would bet anything that the first fully functioning exoskeleton will include integrated wi-fi hotspot [or something even better], and the first commercial version [who wouldn't want an exoskeleton for fun?] have google-glass [or something better] and an autopilot with gps so one can, almost literally, "sleep on the run."
At minimum. It will have swappable attachments for on and off-road use, for various sports [both games and hunting sports].
"Ninja" and "Road King" models [hey...some folk like Kaws, some folk like Hogs]
Jungle, Desert and Arctic explorer kits.
Real-time sensory system stimulators to REALLY keep in "touch" over long-distance. [I'm right now registering the name "True Sex" for that system]

As long as I can get a USB port wired into my brain I would be happy but I would also love a prosthetic webcam eyeball, as well. Of course, if the option is available then I would take an exoskeleton.

Orlion also makes a good point--everyone using one particular system or protocol can lead to stagnation because as long as x works no one really sees the need to improve upon x. I'll have to look back at the articles but I think the researchers building a prosthetic hand that can be controlled by brainwaves had to write a new communication protocol because the existing protocols weren't fast enough (the hand was being controlled wirelessly via the Internet).

[Avatar]

I believe the internet already has revolutionized the world.

I think I agree with that 'Weez.

Two brains are better than one, and a few billion is better than 2.

Not always man, not always.

--A

[peter]

The 'wisdom of crowds' can be quite starteling in it's effect at times. In the book of that name (IIRC) the author states how in the case of a totally random sort of thing (eg guessing the weight of a cow in the middle of a field), a large group of people with virtually no knowledge of 'cow weights' can come almost supernaturally close to the correct figure when the average of their guesses is taken. In some instances the view of the prevailing masses on social websites etc is likely to be the most advantagious or correct one just on this principle alone.

[Orlion]

Something that bugs me with the internet is that it has given rise to the "free information movement". We saw what a free protocol did for technology advancement, guess what free information would do?

All ready, many of the studies available for free online that I have read are bogus, poorly put together, and just bad mathematically. However, these same studies are being referred to by the public and by politicians (one that leaps to mind is the one that claims that high fructose corn syrup caused rats to gain weight even though they did not eat any more. A simple perusal shows that the study was just thrown together and no mention is made of how they made sure they did not eat more then the other rats, even though many studies show that fructose increases appetite in rats).

When you have not earned the information, when you are not trained to handle it (like knowing something about mathematics, particularly statistics) you end up with people throwing in with the most 'popular' study, not the one that is actually true or helpful.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Most of that free information is bogus (at best) or actually lies being presented as if they were truth (at worst).

The Internet is a mirror that is showing us, as a species, our true selves. pr0n, trolling, duck-faced selfies, thoughtful prose, music, art, deviant fetishes, and the ability to reconnect with friends or family and recapture part of ourselves that we might have lost years ago. Beauty and Ugliness all at the same time.

[peter]

One of the key features of science prior to at least the 'bio-tech' revolution was the free sharing of information between scientists in the form of academic papers - and it served both scientists and humanity pretty well. (I hate the idea of closed doors research with results kept closely guarded in case there is financial bennefit to be gleaned - think where we would be today if this practice had prevailed since Galileo first tied mathematics to observation). During the course of both my undergraduate studies and my Masters I was given instruction (and examined) on critical apraisal of the methodology aand data interpretation of academic papers previousely submitted to Journals in the scientific press. Despite suposedly rigorous vetting by the panels of experts who 'peer review' each published article, even 30 years ago many shoddy and ill thought out papers made it through to the 'permanent scientific record'. This was not a problem as long as scientists were capable of recognising high quality research from poor. The same will no doubt apply today in respect of 'research' published on the internet. The problem arises of course when this poor quality matereal is used by those with vested interests to dupe the public into believing things that are not true and to influence policy decisions made by people who are not trained to spot such shenanigans.

(Quick example of how politicians themselves can use the results of 'studies' to dupe the public. Last year following the introduction of re-assesment of all persons claiming 'sickness benefit' in the UK, the press proclaimed loudly that '"A million claiments come of sickness benefit before being assesed". In fact 86% of these people were individuals who were not actually being paid the benefit, but were in the process of being assesed for the first time. As such 'the million' included those who died and those who due to improving health were able to return to work, and would have done so anyway.)

[Avatar]

The Internet is a mirror that is showing us, as a species, our true selves.

It's more than that though, it's a collection of virtual societies that could not have existed without it.

--A

[Cord Hurn]

Despite all the errors and distractions the internet offers, I believe it will lead to making people smarter and more adept at refining why they believe what they believe.

[Avatar]

Agreed, but with the attendant risk of creating such filters that we lose touch with anything that is contrary to our own opinions.

--A

[Cord Hurn]

Agreed, but with the attendant risk of creating such filters that we lose touch with anything that is contrary to our own opinions.

--A

A very good point, Avatar!