I would say there is no goal. The goals of what now constitutes a computer were to weave fancy patterns and transmit messages through wire. Then the goal was to win the war. Then the goal was to make lots of money for Bill Gates. Then the goal was to help the NSA spy and so on and so forth.
The above is just a few reasons that what we now call the computer exists. Try stating the goals for every piece of technological progress and you'll soon find it to be impossible.
Technology is used to further goals but that does not mean that technology in itself has any goal in mind.

Again, it depends on what you believe and what you know. If you can see the strings and how they are being pulled then you can see the purpose, if you can't or don't believe in it, then there is no purpose. So, it depends on your POV.

I think the purpose is following the propensity of matter and energy to become more complex, and the direction is the technological singularity.

well progress is basically a meaningless concept . Progress against what ? It needs some "scale" to measure it .
But what is that scale ?

Progress in WHAT departments ?
"technical" is many things .

so how to set a scale and measuring WHAT?

This is a "computer forum " so ....

" technical progress" in computers then.

is that just the "Complexity " in computing
systems and OS's and languages ARE more complex than in the past
but is there any "meaning " or "purpose" in that ..........

you your self have to answer that one

It is because it IS

It is the misguided belief that all of our problems can merely be solved by better technology. Fact is, our problems have been exacerbated by increasing technology.

[ Edit: redacted. I really should not get involved in stuff like this. ]

There's no patch for 'stupid'?

I also was wondering what exactly is meant by "technical" progress.

If it includes things like biology or chemistry then I'd say: The purpose of progress in these areas is, to minimise (human) suffering through development of cures for every possible disease or ailment.

At least that was my goal when I started studying neurobiology: To understand the mechanisms behind diseases and thereby help develop a cure. Curiosity was only the secondary motivation for me.


If "technical" is meant to say "purely computational" progress, then I'd say: Well, faster computers also (among a million other things) help biologists, chemists and physicians test a thesis or model faster/better and therefor indirectly helps the development of cures for diseases, so: GO COMPUTERS!

Sissy!

Right, because the world was much better place when we had smallpox, cancer had a 100% mortality rate and in order to obtain certain items people had tpo spend month at sea and end up with scurvy.
Don't get me wrong, I have a problem with a lot of what is done with technology but please let's not pretend that being spied upon by the government is as bad as high infant mortality, leaches to cure everything and amputations without aesthetic.

Technology has progressed, but human nature hasn't. That's the problem.

I do think the world was a better place when only 1 out of every 44 people could be expected to get cancer in their lifetime, vs. today, when it's nearly 1 of every TWO people; and things like chemotherapy only have about a 3% success rate. Anesthesia was used in ancient Egypt- so I don't know what that has to do with modern technology- unless we're talking about torture, which is still being practiced, even by the United States.

Smallpox was not "cured" by technology. Those vaccines which you think eradicated it [They didn't, it has made a comeback; and when it was rare, it wasn't because of the vaccines) actually cause a lot of the cancer; autism and other degenerative or deadly diseases which you think technology has cured).

Because of much of the current technology, people are leading artificial lives in environments full of toxins and things which we should not be exposed to (e.g. EMF; fluoride; formaldehyde in building materials and furniture).

And funny thing about infant mortality: If you added in all the abortions, that infant mortality rate would be almost identical today to what it was 100 years ago. Maybe there's a correlation. (Not to even mention, that due to unnecessary C-sections, it's getting to the point where many women can't have babies normally anymore- and not mention that paying for such- whether it be our own, or for others under the socialistic schemes in which we are forced to live today, is reducing nearly everyone to economic bondage)

I'm sorry but you only have to read accounts of history to know that in many ways we are far better off than people of the past. Of course there are problems I'll not deny that but to suggest that all technological progress is bad is just insanity.

Sorry, I missed this piece of insanity. Vaccinations have been effective in controlling many diseases including smallpox and nobody has ever proven they cause cancer or any other such disease. Believe me there are lots of people out there who would love their name in Nature, the BMJ, or whatever, who are dying to prove it but haven't managed.

It only made a comeback in areas where people rejected the vaccines.
That has been true ever since the discovery of fire...

Fluoride is non-toxic in normal levels. So is formaldehyde.

Remeber DHMO (dihidrogen monoxide) is lethal. It kills, burns, melts...

Not even close to identical. Infant mortality has dropped to its lowest point in history in developed countries. Even including abortions.

Now if you prefer, you can go live in Darfur, or some of its outlying villages. But I don't think you will live very long...

And C-sections have nothing to do with women having an inability to have babies. That has been true ever since evolving an upright stature.