y=2^x + 1

you meant:

y= 2^(x-1)

while i’m generally optimistic about the concept of singularity i have reservations about Kurweil’s utopian vision. there are just so many factors involved (e.g. socio-cultural, economic, political, and unknown unknowns). however, i do think that the technological acceleration is inevitable so we have to inform ourselves on what the future might look like to be better prepared for it and be more embracing of the surprises that will come our way.

that said, there are other awesome scenarios that might happen along the way. some of them sound very much like the stuff of science fictions. check out “The Coming Artilect War” (are you a cosmist, a terran, or a cyborgist?)

as for consciousness downloading in a machine, i’m agnostic about it. but i was surprised to discover that even the Dalai Lama is open to the possibility.

exciting times, my friend. exciting times….

~C

There are of course other possibilities as well beyond rapture and rupture. There is an existing critique of technology as a program of control of that which cannot be controlled, doomed to failure. See Charles Eisenstein’s magnum opus The Ascent of Humanity for a good portrayal of this view: http://ascentofhumanity.com

(From the integral lens, you will almost certainly see Eisenstein’s perspective as “green” and reject it, but even so, it forms a strong antithesis to the conventional integral view that also posits an upcoming new age–not the “integral” age but the Age of “Reunion.” Similar terminology, but very different conclusions, I think.)

This argument is not that the dangers of technology are that it can be used by the less moral (which of course it can), but that even when used as intended by the intelligent and ethical, technology has enormous ecological, social, cultural, and economic side-effects. The argument is that these side-effects are currently converging in a set of crises that threaten to destroy all of civilization…or perhaps give birth to a new one, if you’re an optimist like Eisenstein. The idea being that if technology is causing the problem, more of the same technology won’t solve it (but perhaps radically different and ecological technology can be very useful, depending on who is positing this perspective).

I find it integrally important to give full voice to the possibility that perhaps the desire to predict and control our world is itself the problem.

I’d also like to add that George Lakoff and Mark Johnson have a strong critique against the view that minds are like computers in their book Philosophy in the Flesh, which argues that cognition is fundamentally embodied. Per their argument I’ve concluded that perhaps computers could have a different non-human kind of cognition, but that unfortunately makes downloading our brains into a computer highly unlikely.