Thanks for the reply, that helps me see where your reply is coming from.
I think that P was asking a different question - or, at any rate, he wasn't asking only the question you address. I think he was also asking the question:
'Given future technology X and future technology Y, both of which we can't do at the moment, what is the best way to separate those that we might be able to do with 50 years of progress (where "progress" certainly does imply a large social and political aspect, to me at least), and those which are technologically impossible?'
Jetpacks, for example, are technically feasible given current scientific knowledge. Teleportation is not. If we don't have widespread jetpacks by 2040, you are correct that it's unlikely to be just down to science. If we don't have teleportation by 2040, it may well be simply that it's technically impossible.
With a technology such as, say, an 'upload your consciousness to this computer' system, it's hard to say what category it falls into. Opinion is divided about whether it's theoretically possible, but even for those of us who think it is, most of us agree that we don't know how to build such a thing, and that there are problems involved that we don't know the solutions to, nor are we 100% sure that they're solvable. And yes, even if it's technically feasible, the social and political factors will be absolutely key to whether or not it happens in practice. Those same factors will be there even if it's not technically feasible, of course, but the difference is that even if they're favourable, we won't end up with a working brain-upload system at the end of it.
I take your point about the interconnectedness of all things, but I still think those are separate questions. I'm happy to discover that I'm wrong (as I say, this is more your field than mine and I respect your considerable knowledge in the area) but I'd certainly like to know whether you think they are different questions, or whether that's not what you thought P was asking. (For that matter, I'd be interested in whether P thinks that's what he was asking. ;-)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-01-26 07:21 pm (UTC)I think that P was asking a different question - or, at any rate, he wasn't asking only the question you address. I think he was also asking the question:
'Given future technology X and future technology Y, both of which we can't do at the moment, what is the best way to separate those that we might be able to do with 50 years of progress (where "progress" certainly does imply a large social and political aspect, to me at least), and those which are technologically impossible?'
Jetpacks, for example, are technically feasible given current scientific knowledge. Teleportation is not. If we don't have widespread jetpacks by 2040, you are correct that it's unlikely to be just down to science. If we don't have teleportation by 2040, it may well be simply that it's technically impossible.
With a technology such as, say, an 'upload your consciousness to this computer' system, it's hard to say what category it falls into. Opinion is divided about whether it's theoretically possible, but even for those of us who think it is, most of us agree that we don't know how to build such a thing, and that there are problems involved that we don't know the solutions to, nor are we 100% sure that they're solvable. And yes, even if it's technically feasible, the social and political factors will be absolutely key to whether or not it happens in practice. Those same factors will be there even if it's not technically feasible, of course, but the difference is that even if they're favourable, we won't end up with a working brain-upload system at the end of it.
I take your point about the interconnectedness of all things, but I still think those are separate questions. I'm happy to discover that I'm wrong (as I say, this is more your field than mine and I respect your considerable knowledge in the area) but I'd certainly like to know whether you think they are different questions, or whether that's not what you thought P was asking. (For that matter, I'd be interested in whether P thinks that's what he was asking. ;-)