Thanks for the very clearly written post. I think you are spot on here. Though, however desirable it would be to have a “… non-ambiguous language to communicate the findings”, I fear a non-ambiguous language capable of encompassing
non-trivial propositions is not possible. How do you see technology contributing to this enterprise?
I’m going to go out on a limb here and hazard a guess that anyone that has commented in this thread has not been laid in years.
If you were a folding chair, would u say so?! I think BrentNewton’s point here is out of the nut-damn-shell. :eyebrowlift:
I wanna suggest a chemical reproduction of humans to amaze him in. Any help?
Tech helps us get beyond our sensory limitations for observations and greatly augments our ability to process data.
The non-ambiguous language might not be so far out of reach. I guess that the real issue is how we would use it. We have already, in this stage of our development redefined what it is to be human. There could be a fundamental change the human being. We have already become immensely reliant on our technology. David Chalmers with his “Natural Born Cyborg” has suggested that we are already becoming cyborgs. I of course wouldn’t be able to extrapolate forward with this but there are a lot of interesting possibilities.
BrentNewton
I’m going to go out on a limb here and hazard a guess that anyone that has commented in this thread has not been laid in years.
Haahaa 
but it kinda’ has been a while. 
haunt_house
While the max limitations of humanity as a whole are certainly interesting, as long as most people live in the < 10% range of their potential, I’m more interested in practical application of raising potential. Or let’s say it that way: I rather be responsible for a nation of good runners than the fastest person in the world.
Cognitive abilities are around 10% of our resources and the other 90% are motor and autonomic function. The idea that we only use 10% of our resources is a misunderstanding of this.
My brain extrudes nuggets of quality, but mostly it’s just a new way to turn a person into a fine paste, so most of that I keep to myself,
Plasma engines and micro-reactors on the other hand 
However, with the current emergence of free internet learning,
and the eventual but unstoppable emergence of a “FreeNet”
humanity is bound to be smarter just due to access to information when
the need arises.
imagine a direct link to information, that was filtered…
not by “bias” but just the facts…
Gray Goo and high yields FTW
I agree wholeheartedly about potential that the internet has for mass education. It’s already had an impact. It’s been somewhat mixed by our standards but that may be an issue with our standards. I’m optimistic. 
Or will we just be more saturated by the mundane and the fanciful claims of expertise by frauds and publicity seekers?
I think collectively humanity can be smarter, but the unaided individual (ie artificial enhancements) will always have a limit. Maybe in a few millennia evolution will provide the individual with more capacity for intelligence, but some (with controversy) already believe we’re coming to the end of that. If then if our reliance on technology becomes our crutch, why evolve? Maybe we’re going backwards and hoping our Iphones and the internet will save us? I thought Nature’s End by Whitley Strieber is a really neat take on this idea.
http://project-byzantium.org/about/
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/networking/batman-adv.txt
Free nets, Free brains, Free books, drop chains
At some point the line between man and machine will blur,
what happens when a device can replicate via Dna?
What happens when you can grow a system that interacts with our systems?
I think that horizon may have already been breached, but the information would prove dangerous.
How do you stop a distributed person?
I think this is interesting too. There are societies now that have rejected or never even adopted technological progress. It would be safe to assume that the legacy human would still exist even if the bulk became cyborgs or even uploads. There could even be a bifurcation with an industrial society as more sustainable, “off the grid” solutions arise. I think this could happen because of some of the privacy and other issues that are emerging in our current networked society. This is loosly based on Hugo de Garis’ work. I’m just a little more optimistic about the outcome.
isnt it fun how we become interested and knowledgible about humanity as a whole but we lack the skills to help our neighbor with their hyperactive child. Or the woman who doesn’t get her life in order and suffers daily. Or the parents of a child where the child serves as a trash can for the outbursts of the mother.
… or an alcoholic father (shudder). Still there are some shreds of hope. Neuroscience is beginning to make real progress. Though even that is unlikely to be able to make us care, it would have to make loving parents first.
My father in law likes to call kids nowadays the microwave generation, and I think he has point. I’m going to use the word ‘we’ in this as a generalization, not to be all inclusive.
We have a tendency to believe we are <i>entitled </i>to personal assistance and instant gratification. We get irate when our custom orders can't be fulfilled in our own distorted view of what is possible (I see this one everyday where I work). We even developed the slogan "The customer is always right." no matter how idiotic the demand. We expect their to be a ready made solution to our individual problems and we expect someone else to provide it for us. We have been con'd into thinking our needs are special, that our ailments have little to do with our lifestyles and that company X is working on a pill to alleviate it, that the state is there to provide, and that someone else will fix it. And when all this fails those who can't cope - they break - and fall back to their vices while we watch on YouTube with little more than curiosity.
I think we’ve grown to see our neighbours as competitors, not people. They’re someone else trying to acquire the resources I need and requiring the time and effort I can’t spare. Ya, it’s sad they have a drinking problem. They should get some help for that - oh crap - Celebrity Rehab is on, gotta go watch it.
I tend to think that it revolves around the competitive behavior that emerged with “civilization” and morphed into that old world, fanciful notion of the engine of evolution. The “survival of the fittest” that justified the hoarding of the abundance while people died in the street. It’s a shame and maybe even an existential risk that we haven’t been able to shake that dangerous programming and start living by the modern correction. Graham Hancock has pulled some serious boners in the past decade or so playing Archaeologist and burning himself out but as a Sociologist I think he was dead on when he said “we have forgotten who we are”.
I think life revolves around dealing with what you did not plan, making a new plan, and then having that explode in your face.
On a new topic, here is god with the weather.
Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here’s God with the weather."
How do you define ‘plan’?
A. observe
B. evaluate
C. make correlations
D. decide on path of actions - plan
E. engage in actions
F. Return to A
Hm, since this doesn’t involve scale, about 95% of all plans should work. Cool ( :
I like this. It excludes failure.