They should focus on a person, but that should be secondary to the predictions. There are many reasons for this. One reason is that I share Kurzweil’s predictions but not his narrative. Argument against Kurzweil has no impact on me, but argument on his predictions are also arguments against my predictions and have bearing to me.

“We live in the real world, and the real world consists of ‘narrative’, real people and their life stories. ‘Analysis’ is just one device which people use to get on with their lives. Therefore, analysis is secondary.”

The real world may consist of narrative, but it requires analysis to decipher. You can’t make good predictions of the future based on narrative, but you can with analysis.

“The problem with transhumanists is that they are typically people who have fallen in love with their own powers of analysis. Then they make huge, misguided extrapolations based on current trends in computing power and come up with horseshit about AI, ‘the singularity’ and ‘immortality’.”

These trends in cps have kept up for over 100 years with very little deviation. They only need to hold true for a few more decades. They are not just “current trends.”

“Deep down, you know NewsWeek is right and simply talking common sense.”

You provide no argument for this, it is just an assertion. Back up your claims with arguments/ evidence/ something.

“At least you are open-minded enough to not disagree with them.”

Open-mindedness means waiting to judge something until after you read it, it doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with something. I’m not saying I’m 100% certain in Kurzweil, but I am saying that the NewsWeek was a bad argument against Kurzweil.

“you categorize and dismiss NewsWeek as a bunch of journalists who only makes ad hominem arguments, which funny enough, is itself an ad hominem argument.”

First, that’s not all we do. We also argue against their other arguments. Second, no, it is not ad hominem to point out logical fallacies in your opponents argument. It is ad hominem to base an argument about someone’s predictions on unrelated personal information.

They should focus on a person, but that should be secondary to the predictions. There are many reasons for this. One reason is that I share Kurzweil’s predictions but not his narrative. Argument against Kurzweil has no impact on me, but argument on his predictions are also arguments against my predictions and have bearing to me.

“We live in the real world, and the real world consists of ‘narrative’, real people and their life stories. ‘Analysis’ is just one device which people use to get on with their lives. Therefore, analysis is secondary.”

The real world may consist of narrative, but it requires analysis to decipher. You can’t make good predictions of the future based on narrative, but you can with analysis.

“The problem with transhumanists is that they are typically people who have fallen in love with their own powers of analysis. Then they make huge, misguided extrapolations based on current trends in computing power and come up with horseshit about AI, ‘the singularity’ and ‘immortality’.”

These trends in cps have kept up for over 100 years with very little deviation. They only need to hold true for a few more decades. They are not just “current trends.”

“Deep down, you know NewsWeek is right and simply talking common sense.”

You provide no argument for this, it is just an assertion. Back up your claims with arguments/ evidence/ something.

“At least you are open-minded enough to not disagree with them.”

Open-mindedness means waiting to judge something until after you read it, it doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with something. I’m not saying I’m 100% certain in Kurzweil, but I am saying that the NewsWeek was a bad argument against Kurzweil.

“you categorize and dismiss NewsWeek as a bunch of journalists who only makes ad hominem arguments, which funny enough, is itself an ad hominem argument.”

First, that’s not all we do. We also argue against their other arguments. Second, no, it is not ad hominem to point out logical fallacies in your opponents argument. It is ad hominem to base an argument about someone’s predictions on unrelated personal information.

If you think it’s a mistake to focus on “narrative” instead of just “analysis”, then in fact you’re the one making the mistake. We live in the real world, and the real world consists of “narrative”, real people and their life stories. “Analysis” is just one device which people use to get on with their lives. Therefore, analysis is secondary.

The problem with transhumanists is that they are typically people who have fallen in love with their own powers of analysis. Then they make huge, misguided extrapolations based on current trends in computing power and come up with horseshit about AI, “the singularity” and immortality.

Deep down, you know NewsWeek is right and simply talking common sense. At least you are open-minded enough to not disagree with them. You just can’t fully accept their point of view because it contradicts the Singularity fantasy. So instead you categorize and dismiss NewsWeek as a bunch of journalists who only makes ad hominem arguments, which funny enough, is itself an ad hominem argument. Then you all leave comments validating each other, and the fantasy lives on.

If you think it’s a mistake to focus on “narrative” instead of just “analysis”, then in fact you’re the one making the mistake. We live in the real world, and the real world consists of “narrative”, real people and their life stories. “Analysis” is just one device which people use to get on with their lives. Therefore, analysis is secondary.

The problem with transhumanists is that they are typically people who have fallen in love with their own powers of analysis. Then they make huge, misguided extrapolations based on current trends in computing power and come up with horseshit about AI, “the singularity” and immortality.

Deep down, you know NewsWeek is right and simply talking common sense. At least you are open-minded enough to not disagree with them. You just can’t fully accept their point of view because it contradicts the Singularity fantasy. So instead you categorize and dismiss NewsWeek as a bunch of journalists who only makes ad hominem arguments, which funny enough, is itself an ad hominem argument. Then you all leave comments validating each other, and the fantasy lives on.

a lot of very smart people failed to make this prediction at the time, including Bill Gates. Microsoft played catch-up to smaller companies for a decade after that

a lot of very smart people failed to make this prediction at the time, including Bill Gates. Microsoft played catch-up to smaller companies for a decade after that

Kurzweil must’ve taken him right to Shock Level 4 without anything to stand on!!!

No wonder he is having a hard time integrating the idea of accelerating advancement into his worldview!

Don’t worry, if Kurzweil’s right then he’ll get there soon enough!

Kurzweil must’ve taken him right to Shock Level 4 without anything to stand on!!!

No wonder he is having a hard time integrating the idea of accelerating advancement into his worldview!

Don’t worry, if Kurzweil’s right then he’ll get there soon enough!

“I also think it is interesting to see what drives people to do what they do”

It’d be interesting if it was really possible. Quite often we have no idea why we’re involved in something, or so passionate about a particular topic. But we are, so we weave a narrative around it to give a reason. But it gets even more absurd when a 3rd party speculates on it. It’s a bit like the pointless speculation most of us were forced into for lit classes.

“I also think it is interesting to see what drives people to do what they do”

It’d be interesting if it was really possible. Quite often we have no idea why we’re involved in something, or so passionate about a particular topic. But we are, so we weave a narrative around it to give a reason. But it gets even more absurd when a 3rd party speculates on it. It’s a bit like the pointless speculation most of us were forced into for lit classes.