Future Timeline

[FurkeyRefills]

If you are interested in geeky stuff, then I think this may interest you:
http://www.futuretimeline.net

I'ts just a set of predictions for the future categorized by date.
It's an interesting read if you've got 5 mins.

What I find strange about the site is that its all written in present tense :/

[Cynu]

-Deleted-

[Camerinthus]

Spoiler

Show

'Nuff said.

[BinoAl]

Spoiler

Show

'Nuff said.

So THATS where I saw that. It's exactly what came to mind when I saw this. Also, might want to put the pic in a spoiler, my mouse wheel nearly lit on fire :p

[Camerinthus]

Spoiler

Show

'Nuff said.

So THATS where I saw that. It's exactly what came to mind when I saw this. Also, might want to put the pic in a spoiler, my mouse wheel nearly lit on fire :p

Will do, it's longer than I thought it was.

[Pseudosavior]

It's an interesting read if you've got 5 mins.

Five minutes? Jeez, I've already spent two hours reading it... I must say, extremely interesting, even if it's not going to be 100% accurate. :P

[BinoAl]

I've always loved the idea of digitizing our minds. I've read into it a ton, which got me interested in the philosophy of consciousness. Interesting shit :)

[morvelaira]

I've always loved the idea of digitizing our minds. I've read into it a ton, which got me interested in the philosophy of consciousness. Interesting shit :)

You have seen Ghost in the Shell, right? If you have not, you must.

[BinoAl]

You have seen Ghost in the Shell, right? If you have not, you must.

Haha. I've seen it, but not in a long, long time

[whynocheese]

Read the entire thing.. that shit is scary glad i'll be dead.

[Mr_Hosed]

Huh. Pretty sure this is a Post/Trans Humanist propaganda site. Their predictions seem fairly focused on body/machine fusion and not on other technologies that'll likely trump said inventions.

Crazy Post-Humanists.

[Elensaar]

Seeing as I'm a (relatively conservative) transhumanist, I hope the digitizing comes a bit earlier. I don't want to live forever, I just want to live long enough to never die. ;) There's too much too see, and death is the ultimate enemy of mind - the one uniting thing for all intelligent species, and the most valuable resource we have.

Really cool site - will have to spend some time reading more of it later. Though they do seem to overlook the accelerating effect on technology and, by proxy, culture the introduction of AI will probably have. Just the fact of sharing earth with another intelligent species (machines) will probably change humanity to unknown degrees.

Singularity? What singularity? ;)

[FlowerChild]

There's too much too see, and death is the ultimate enemy of mind - the one uniting thing for all intelligent species, and the most valuable resource we have.

Or it's the greatest adventure you'll ever undertake, and the crossing into a frontier no one has ever returned from. Either way :)

[Elensaar]

Or it's the greatest adventure you'll ever undertake, and the crossing into a frontier no one has ever returned from. Either way :)

That would require me to be a lot more religious than I actually am. ;) I'm a born sceptic, man, and what could be greater than the adventure we're having right now?

[Shengji]

Oh my, some of this is amazing! It makes it seem like all the hi-tech, futuristic stuff in sci-fi movies are just around the corner. My personal favorite is the electronic paper. It's hard to imagine regular paper becoming completely obsolete, and instead having cheap, rippable computers with the flexibility, weight, and size of paper!

That stuff exists and is so close to being commercially viable - About 10 years ago I was consulting for the Ordnance Survey (They produce maps) about future technologies and they were really interested in the stuff - I ended up ordering them in a couple of hundred sheets - it was amazing back then, I can't even imaging what it's like now!

[thekyz]

and what could be greater than the adventure we're having right now?

According to FC, a gynecology career maybe ? ^^

[FurkeyRefills]

Five minutes? Jeez, I've already spent two hours reading it... I must say, extremely interesting, even if it's not going to be 100% accurate. :P

Well, I skim read it by the most interesting titles ;)

[FlowerChild]

Or it's the greatest adventure you'll ever undertake, and the crossing into a frontier no one has ever returned from. Either way :)

That would require me to be a lot more religious than I actually am. ;) I'm a born sceptic, man, and what could be greater than the adventure we're having right now?

Or less religious man. It sounds like you already have preformed beliefs about what death represents. My point was that you just don't know.

[Awfulcopter]

Or it's the greatest adventure you'll ever undertake, and the crossing into a frontier no one has ever returned from. Either way :)

That would require me to be a lot more religious than I actually am. ;) I'm a born sceptic, man, and what could be greater than the adventure we're having right now?

Or less religious man. It sounds like you already have preformed beliefs about what death represents. My point was that you just don't know.

That's not entirely true. There are lots of things we do know about conciousness. We know you can trigger concious thought by zapping certain parts of the brain. And we know that concious thought matches up with electrical activity in the brain.

Being a mind/body dualist requiries a leap of faith. It goes against the observable phenomena, that thoughts and conciousness are simply how we experience electrical impulses travelling around our brain. Believeing that conciousness stops with the halting of those electrical impulses matches with what we observe. Believing that conciousness can continue beyond that requires a leap of faith.

I recommend Microcosms of the Brain, By Douglas Tweed. There's some math, but it pretty clearly lays out what science knows about how conciousness works.

[FlowerChild]

That's not entirely true. There are lots of things we do know about conciousness. We know you can trigger concious thought by zapping certain parts of the brain. And we know that concious thought matches up with electrical activity in the brain.

Being a mind/body dualist requiries a leap of faith. It goes against the observable phenomena, that thoughts and conciousness are simply how we experience electrical impulses travelling around our brain. Believeing that conciousness stops with the halting of those electrical impulses matches with what we observe. Believing that conciousness can continue beyond that requires a leap of faith.

On the contrary, I think that believing the above scientific experiments represent an insight into the nature of your own consciousness requires a HUGE leap of faith.

It all operates under the assumption that what you perceive represents any kind of external reality whatsoever, which really, is the underlying belief that lays at the foundation of the entire scientific belief-system, and which exists entirely in the absence of proof. For the religion of science, it is almost directly analogous to the concept of "God" in other religions.

Also, I am not claiming that mind/body dualism exists, nor do I *believe* that it does. What I am saying is that any statement about the nature of death and what we experience upon it is ultimately without proof to back it up. In other words, I'm advocating a higher degree of skepticism than the poster I was responding to seems to exhibit.

As I say in the splash-screens "Solipsism ftw". I consider myself a "devout agnostic" man, in that I do not believe in the concept of belief, and attempt to avoid making assumptions at every turn.

[Awfulcopter]

I don't think that the nature of death is without proof. It is without complete proof, and completely without irrefutable proof. So, as a sceptic I refer to occam's razor.

Given that electical activity in the brain can cause concious thought
and
Given that concious thought causes electrical activity in the brain

Is it more likely that conciousness is tied to electrical activity in the brain, or not?

[FlowerChild]

I don't think that the nature of death is without proof. It is without complete proof, and completely without irrefutable proof. So, as a sceptic I refer to occam's razor.

Given that electical activity in the brain can cause concious thought
and
Given that concious thought causes electrical activity in the brain

Is it more likely that conciousness is tied to electrical activity in the brain, or not?

Oh no. You really shouldn't have invoked Occam. Seriously :)

What is the simpler explanation?

We know that our perceptions exist. It is one of the few things that can be absolutely proven.

So then, is the simpler model for the universe one that says an external reality ALSO exists to support those perceptions, or that the perceptions exist in isolation?

In other words, according to Occam's razor, the most likely explanation to the problem of existence is that only your mind and its perceptions exist.

Look man, I think the scientific *method* has definite uses in navigating and controlling our perceived reality. I have a very strong scientific background myself, and consider science to be one of a few religions I have subscribed to, and then rejected, over the course of my life.

However, I think when you start applying it to areas that revolve around the nature of consciousness its failings become almost immediately apparent. That is the point at which the inherent assumptions of science butt right up against their source, much in the same way that Newtonian mechanics begin to collapse as you near the speed of light. To me, that is largely the realm of philosophy, because some of the tools of science become entirely inadequate to the task, and you wind up with "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" style discussions, because the underlying assumptions of the participants have lead to a logical house of cards.

Anyways man, my whole statement boils down to "I don't know what's going to happen when I die". To me, that's one of the great and most exciting mysteries of life, and I hope that when my time comes I can face it with interest and excitement. I tend to respond to anyone that makes assumptions about that topic with a raised eyebrow. That's it.

[gftweek]

Anyways man, my whole statement boils down to "I don't know what's going to happen when I die". To me, that's one of the great and most exciting mysteries of life, and I hope that when my time comes I can face it with interest and excitement. I tend to respond to anyone that makes assumptions about that topic with a raised eyebrow. That's it.

My take on this is that no-one knows, or can know the nature of a continuation of experience after death (hence the development of most religions to council grief and reduce fear of death, but that's another discussion).

The simplest take on it is to live life as though "death's the final word", and enjoy all that you can for as long as you can. To me the saddest things are a short life before it can be experienced well, and a long life that is lived mildly.

Hence I'm looking forward to the age slowing, halting and reversing innovations most from that list.

[morvelaira]

The simplest take on it is to live life as though "death's the final word", and enjoy all that you can for as long as you can.

Despite what the probate lawyers tell you, death is the most obvious example of a thing you cannot readily plan for. As my OCD-leaning nature dictates, if I can't plan for it, I'm not going to worry about it. I still fear it because I have this overwhelming sense of "I'm not ready yet". Probably because I can't plan for it. >_>

[FlowerChild]

My take on this is that no-one knows, or can know the nature of a continuation of experience after death (hence the development of most religions to council grief and reduce fear of death, but that's another discussion).

Yeah, that's exactly my take on it. However, where I differ from most is that I think that the belief that your consciousness ceases after death is much along the same lines and provides comfort in terms of at least "knowing" what is going to happen.

My personal view on things is that the simple phrase "I don't know" is one of the most difficult for humans to maintain in the long run. We're wired as symbol-recognition, association, and problem-solving machines. I think not knowing something makes us uncomfortable at a rather instinctual level, and as a result, it's a state that we don't like being in for too long.

So, we ditch one assumption to only replace it with another a short while later to rid ourselves of that discomfort. Like I said before, it's something I try to actively avoid within my own life, and through the slow process of challenging my own assumptions it has left me with very little indeed that is certain.