Slashdot Mirror
Ray Kurzweil On IT And The Future of Technology
Roland Piquepaille writes "In this interview with CIO Magazine, Ray Kurzweil says that one day, software and computers will reside inside us. He adds that by 2020, "we will be placing millions or billions of nanobots -- blood cell-size devices -- inside our bloodstream to travel into our brains and interact with our neurons." He also says that if we're not enhanced by machines, they will surpass us. But he doesn't think it will happen. According to him, machines and humans will merge. In the mean time, he's pursuing his anti-aging quest and takes about 250 supplements to his diet every day! With this regime, he says his biological age is 40 while he's 56 years old. By 2030, there will be very little difference between 30-year-old and 120-year-old people, says Kurzweil. He's certainly a bright person, but I'm not sure that I agree with someone taking daily such an amount of pills. What do you think? This summary contains some selected -- and biased -- excerpts to help you forge your opinion."
website
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
Great!
Every sci-fi dystopian movie I've ever seen is coming true.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Maybe 2100 so we'll know if this anti-aging shit actually works. In 2030 the 120 year old would have been near 100 years old today.
Small Wikipedia article on him
You will be assimilated. Seriously, though... It it really such a bad thing? A couple of nanobots could cure a lot of diseases. Then again, we risk the possibility that there will be haves and have nots. Perhaps the poor will get nanobot version 1.0, and the rich get nanobot version XP. I certainly don't want to be the guy running nanobots that crash or get h4x0red. Then again, even without bots, we have similar problems. Clean water, clean air... No matter what happens the little guy gets screwed, so we might as well sign up for this too. It sounds cool anyway.
I didn't just do this post, I also did Yomomma!
...just like we were going to have intelligent robots by 2001.
What's wrong with existing as a human? Why do we have to constantly "improve" upon our existence? My take on any modifications to humanity are such that it's basically pointless. We might be smarter, but will we be happier? That's what life is about.
All he's trying to say is 10 years from now we're all going to robots.
I think he is a nut
did you forget to take your meds?
I think this will make it a damed sight easier to drive my flying car, that's what I think
KFG
It's funny because yesterday I was thinking of how long it will be possible to take pictures with our own eyes instead of using a camera.
Can you at least add him the the author list so we could at least filter him out?
This guy is using slashdot as his own advert. How come nobody running this site is noticing or addressing it?
He's just afraid to die, but unlike the rest of us, he lies to himself about his own mortality.
I'm a freshman at Harvey Mudd College, and he's supposed to come and give a speech there in about a week or two.
I'm really excited because he's not supposed to be there himself. Supposedly he's invented some kind of hologram projector that will be projecting him for us to see while he looks at us with camera's.
I stopped taking supplements after reading this article a few weeks ago. Here's an excerpt:
Careless use of vitamins, taken by millions in the belief that they promote good health, could be causing thousands of premature deaths.
A study investigating whether antioxidant vitamin supplements can prevent cancer found that rather than saving lives they seemed to increase overall risk of death.
Although the effect was small, it amounted to 9,000 premature deaths among every million supplement users.
Food for thought.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
Create the cyberthalamus and everything changes. When we know the output and control the input to sentience, we are beyond the singularity.
With the cyberthalamus, the singularity will happen.
Anyone who has not read his Age of Spiritual Machines is a noob. Its just incredible reading, specially for anyone who is remotely interested in technology.
But honestly, this is a stupid idea. I personally don't want Script Kiddies controlling me!
"You little bastards, give grandad back! You know it's not fun to make him give you his wallet, and his car keys! No it isn't, even if it seems to be so!"
Face it.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
So, either 94-year-olds today have a surprisingly youthful future to look forward to, or today's 4-year-olds are going to age awfully fast!
Freedom of expression includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas expressed in software form.
Did mr P. just link to his own weblog?
Well, go with what works for yourself i say, pills didn't work for me and i was taking about 5 different types a day. One of them I would feel the effects of when i will be 70. Now i only take a few if I remember to take them and that would only be a odourless garlic tablet. What i found instead was a healthy lifestyle without the pills is a better option, eat real food and excercise.
Also, those natural pills are even worse (i had 2 types as well), than the chemical based ones, at least they are tested first.
Jonathanjk.com
He seems to have a good vision of the future. I read his book "The Age of Spiritual Machines" and it's clear he's not a 'nut' he's a smart and succesfull programmer and businessman. I think he has a lot more vision about the direction things are going in then most people. Many of his previous predictions have come true.
My only beef with him is that his timeline is pretty radical. His whole premise is based on his 'Law of Accelerating Returns' which basically states that the pace of technological growth is increasing exponentially and we're at the point where the pace of growth is about to shoot straight up. The reason I think his timeline for all these predictions is too optimistic is because of considerations outside of his realm of thinking. Things like politics, buearocracy and social concerns can really slow down the adoption of new technology. What good is the latest nerve regeneration treatment when stem cells are illegal in the US. What good is the latest disease fighting nano-bots when their FDA approval is pending. What good is the latest wearable computer when all your friends will make fun of you when you wear it. These are the types of issues he never really deals with.
The eventually of AI I'll accept but roving nanobots still seems like fantasy to me. The only thing we're successfully miniaturizing fast enough to save Kurzweil from involuntary discorporation is computing power. Kurzweil better hope we develop fast enough machines, good enough software and neuroscience to be able to download his mind into a machine before his body rots away. I still think it's a long shot given his age.
In a related story, Ray Kurzweil has been hit by a bus. The coroner's report revealed that Kurzweil forgot to take his bus-repelling dietary supplement today.
I also managed to ask him about his views (in his capacity as an established innovator/inventor) on aggressive Patenting and Copyright laws by corporations (for example SCO vs IBM, and the Record Industry lawsuits).
It was gratifying to know that he was well aware of these problems, and even commended the "Open Source movement" and stressed on it's importance to encourage free flow of information and it's significance in the fight against the evergrowing stifling of innovation.
It was an interesting lecture, where he covered quite a few of the topics in this article. Apparently, he treats his body as a "biological experiment" to try out different drugs (he's a diabetic) on himself.
An interesting guy to say the least.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
More like "Resistance is futile, you will die".
It's obvious that what he really wants is life extension. And he may get some. Understanding the biology of aging has certainly improved over the last fifteen years as we completed the Genome project. But even if we extended life out to such ridiculous time spans as the thousands of years, each of us must face the inevitable truth that one day we will die. It appears as though while intellectually he may be willing to admit it as axiomatic, emotionally he can't face up to this fact. Can't say that I blame him either. Death bothers the fuck out of me too. --M
Taking that many supplements is dangerous. Perhaps some readers know that Vitamin C is water soluble, so taking more does nothing unless your body needs it right then, because its going to come out again in less than 24 hours. But, for other minerals, and essential elements, there are narrow ranges which are healthy. Take fluoride for instance, just the right amount strengthens your teeth, and allows them to recover from cavities. But too much and ugly brown spots for on the teeth. Others are more serious like iron or copper...while some is necessary for enzymes to function properly, too much overloads your body and will cause other problems Woman dies of iron overdose
In the mean time, he's pursuing his anti-aging quest and takes about 250 supplements to his diet every day! With this regime, he says his biological age is 40 while he's 56 years old. By 2030, there will be very little difference between 30-year-old and 120-year-old people, says Kurzweil.
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
God (in my case) or The Gods or the Fates or Murphys Law or The Cold Emptiness at the Core of Existence (depending on tastes) has/have a way of dealing with folks like this...
Cheers,
prat
"In the Nevada desert, an experiment has gone horribly wrong. A cloud of nanoparticles -- micro-robots -- has escaped from the laboratory. This cloud is self-sustaining and self-reproducing. It is intelligent and learns from experience. For all practical purposes, it is alive. It has been programmed as a predator. It is evolving swiftly, becoming more deadly with each passing hour. Every attempt to destroy it has failed. And we are the prey." From "Prey" by Michael Crichton
If we get life extension that really works, it will probably work only for genetically modified humans. The genome, and the species, will have to be changed. The new models probably won't interbreed with the old ones. It will take a few generations to get these new species thoroughly debugged. But it will be really great for people a few centuries downstream.
If you thought race and religion were problems, wait until we have multiple species of humans.
Hear this : nanobots and crazy life quality increases like this guy claim are the flying cars we still expect. Barring a miracle, it just won't get there in our lifetime.
:| Infaillible recipee to get attention these days...
And by definition, nanobots aren't 'blood cell sized'. Nanotechnology is defined by devices smaller or in the range of a nanometer, like a virus; cells are much bigger than that.
This guy is spewing buzzwords like there's no tomorrow
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
I'm not sure that I agree with someone taking daily such an amount of pills. What do you think?
I think he has the world's most expensive urine.
To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
I think that as so many people who predict future, including the science fiction writers, he suffers from the "I wish I live to see that" syndrome in his guestimates of dates when these things will happen. I don't think these supplements will be enough for him to live to see it.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
I think that's awfully optimistic. While technology has advanced more rapidly than most people had believed, we still get colds, flu and of course, the "visionary" sky cars simply won't work unless they just fly themselves. I don't trust cell-phone-drivers, cell-phone-pilots will only make the situation worse.
It's obvious that what he really wants is life extension. And he may get some.
We already have the means to extend our lives and it doesn't involve nanobots. Here's a recap:
We don't have to wait for any nanobots to start living longer lives. But the above suggestions don't grab as many headlines as nanotechnology, I guess.
Once nano-bots are inside our brains and can interact with out neurons, that will be the end of civilization. Once true virtual reality exists, not one man in the world will ever get married again, and the economies of the world will unravel (after a boost of course in some industries). Unlike The Matrix, only this will truly free man from his bondage.
Imagine in 1776 you had a portable gas generator, and a truckload of computer parts from the last 20 years. Could you assemble a computer? sure. But what If you had 18th century knowlege. Your not really going to understand what the generator is for. Your probably going to try and make the peices into some sort of clock arrangement, marveling that you got the PCI card properly inserted into an ISA port.
I'm not ragging on Biological Scientists, but right now were at the stage where we have found the pile of computer parts, and we know how a few of them fit, but It might be a while before we notice that seam on the back of the palm pilot for batteries. Because it doesn't look important.
It might be a while before we really figure out how cellular life works. 10 years seems optomistic for just that. Ageing is a way larger issue. I dont think that immortality is around the bend.
Either way, I hope Ray keeps up the good fight.
Storm
Did anyone else blink their eyes at something and make a fake shutter noise inside of their head moments after reading this comment?
/only one/.
Come on, I can't be the
In the mean time, he's pursuing his anti-aging quest and takes about 250 supplements to his diet every day!
:)
He could take it a little more easy
So you would say it's the main purpose in training Taiji?
P.K: The classics say the main purpose in training Taiji is to achieve longevity, which in the Daoist teaching means immortality or the ability to survive after death in your diamond body. The Buddhists talk of enlightenment which means to create a body of light for the same purpose. After death you live on in your energy body one way or another. If your energy body is strengthened and refined through correct effort during your lifetime then the deeper aspects of yourself become independent from the body, immune from death in your crystallised energy body. If you haven't achieved that, then you either gradually fade from all individual existence or return in a body to try again to escape the rounds of life and deaths. This is the truth of life. It is well understood by all real teachers. Other purposes for Taiji are minor ones, created by people in normal life, usually to nurse the body and make it more comfortable, or to attain fighting power and the dubious respect that confers. Unfortunately concentrating on health or self-defence may just make the mind more attached to the body, strengthen the ego and block internal development.
loc. cit.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
All machines have some sort of failure rate. Imagine if nanobots went bad? Especially these ones that he proposes will play around in our brains. New terrorist tool anyone?
But even assuming the nanobots worked as discribed on the packet, what about immune system reactions and kidney/liver clogging? Also, there has been research that suggests aluminium (for example) can cause alzheimer. So what if the inorganic materials have a similiar effect?
I want to see some pretty hard core proof that these have been taken into consideration before it gets anywhere near the market. Like GM, once the cat is out of the bag, we are gonna be stuck with the fundimental change forever.
A French woman named Jeanne Calment lived to the ripe old age of 122. Her secret to longevity - chocolate, port wine, olive oil, quitting smoking at the age of 120, bicycling, etc. Basically, living life to the fullest and enjoying life rather than fearing old age. Unlike this anal-retentive pill-pushing twat. What good is living forever when you're stuck on a diet of pills and powder along with an otherwise boring lifestyle?
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
These people are so egocentric, that they believe the earth owes them a spot forever. It's all about doing the best you can during your lifetime and making way for the next generation. But, rich powerful people think they're special.
Ray Kurzweil has said that he plans not to die by taking advantage of this impending nanotech, but what if it takes longer to appear than he thinks? He has said that he has no real problem with the idea of cryonics. Will Ray Kurzweil sign a cryonics contract if he needs to?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I'm curious to know what each 250 supplement is, and in what dosage, as well as what his "certain diet" consists of. I've never found his research to be more than slightly off, so more data on this would be helpful. As for those who consider this guy to be some sort of nutcase, yes, I can see how one interview can give that impression. However, I would stress the need do more research and investigation before drawing a conclusion from a single datapoint, which is never good science.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Kurzweil has done some impressive stuff in his day. But sadly, he's turned into a parody of one of those 90's futurists - more embarrassing in 2004, though. The list goes on and on: life extension, nanobots in our bloodstream, strong AI, the singularity, we're going to be spending lots of time in Virtual Reality (sure thing, dude).
The foundation for 90% of the things he says are a bunch of hand-waving. Sure, we're about 20 years from discovering how to build nanobots that can do something useful in our bloodstream (oh, yeah, love those Drexler designs for nano-mechanisms - so pratical). Sure, there's an actual test that really measures aging. Sure, life extension is right around the corner and all you have to do is pop a big bunch of pills. Sure, after about 40 years of failure, strong AI is right around the corner (all we need is another 100 years of Moore's law to turn SHRDLU into HAL, really).
He may admit that he's a neophyte in most of the fields that he allegedly 'tracks'. That's not an excuse to throw all caution to the wind.
At best it's just silly. At worst it's pseudo-science and a pathetic desire on the part of your standard rich white guy to spend loads of money on living forever. I find it kind of disgusting, because we've got finite resources to spend on real problems, and these guys are busy pumping everything they can into the "Science" of "Me Extension".
Meanwhile, evil old Bill Gates is pissing around doing things like spending tens of millions of year trying to eliminate malaria - doesn't he know that the singularity is coming? He should buckle down to serious work - like designing flying nanobots to hunt down all those mosquitoes, instead.
In short, Kurzweil is a kook. He's utterly blinded by his own selfishness and wishful thinking that he couldn't track a real technology trend to save his life.
No, really! I mean he certainly had some interesting things to say back in the day, but now it just seems like it's all unsubstantiated fabrication. He's like Negroponte from the MIT media labs. You know, the authorative voice on technology that hasn't produced a single thing that matters. They are both like zombies their personas living on after their tenuous claims have died and been buried.
I, for one, welcome our pill swallowing overlord!
Why is the idea of living for thousands of years ridiculous? I've got a long list of things I would like to do, but can't because life is too short. I would love to take the time to learn many professions and develop a reputation in any that I end up being good at. How about take a stab at politics? Learn enough to compose a symphony? Watch every movie ever made and not worry that I am wasting my time with the bad ones? I can't do them all under current circumstances. Ridiculing an extremely long lifespan is an example of the ingrained "death-ism" of which he speaks. I don't have any idea of how long we really can live, but every extra year, particularly in good health, is quite appreciated by me. I would rather live long enough to get bored than not have the option. Of course, under those circumstances, we may have to reexamine the role of voluntary suicide.
Right now, there's a restricted architecture to the way our brains work. The brain uses electrochemical signaling for information processing, and that's a million times slower than electronic circuits. You can make only about 100 trillion connections in there. That may seem like a big number, but the way in which we store information is inefficient, so that a master of an area of knowledge can really remember only about 100,000 chunks of knowledge. If you use Google, you can already see the power of what machines can do. In the future, we will be able to expand the 100 trillion connections we have with new, virtual ones. Once nonbiological intelligence gets a foothold in our brains, it will grow exponentially. As we get to the 2030s, human beings will have biological brains enhanced with more powerful nonbiological thought processes.
He belittles the human mind and its "limitations", and yet we are nowhere close to even emulating even a fraction of it.
Its nice to have a vision, but this guy is talking out of his ass.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
although pills are necessary to enhance life (food alone doesn't provide enough goodies, even ingested in mass quantities), proper rest is at least if not more important. going to be early and getting up early, and maintaining that biogical circadian rythm allows for proper hormone release which is essential to prolong lifespan and delay the onset of nasty diseases. in modern society, proper rest is the one thing most people need to watch out for.
I think this is his biggest accomplishment. As far as all that futuristic stuff, I don't know...
Why is the idea of living for thousands of years ridiculous?
And even if you live ten thousand years you will have only delayed the inevitable. That was my point. --M
Asok: "Can you think of anything Wally would do vigorously?"
Alice: "I'd rather not"
--I am Sun Tzu of the Borg. Resistance is feudal.
The Chinese have a saying that, as a person ages, he seeks in order the following:
Kurzweil seems to be in the last stages.
1. great statements require great proof.
2. predictions should follow patterns of substructure
He offers no proof - he simply says : look what's happened so far, by (x) date (which will likely be after I'm dead) the world will be SO different and it will be like (THIS).
His claims of AI are floundering on simple facts like Intel scrapping 4gHz chips and any number of other signs that Moore's Law, on which Kurzweil's argument rests, is being scrapped as we speak.
another example: stick a blank floppy in your fancy pants XP machine and start the computer up. Computers are SO far from being "intelligent" in even the most rudimentary way, it's absurd. The basic flaw in Kurzweil's notions are that he believes that intelligence is a disembodied effect, when (if the likes of Ramachandran are correct) intelligence is an embodied effect and specifically dependent on wetware. So, the pattern doesn't hold, and he has no real proof. He's selling snake oil to technodweebs.
Then there's the entire issue of social class, and Kurzweil has no interest in serving the greater masses of humanity. He is interested in pushing a technological vanguard that will be open only to the rich, who, once properly enabled/enhanced with have no need or desire to accomodate a working class. Why bring on board the middle classes, when you can replace them all with machines? And if you think this doesn't mean you, you're an idiot.
But beyond all that his fantasy is just that: a fantasy.Technology is a means, not an end in itself, and the likes of Kurzweil seek to put the managers of technology in a position of power above and beyond democratic principles, and for that he and his ilk must be opposed and revealed for what they are: techno-fascists.
Now, for full disclosure: I do think we need a robust space program, I do think we need faster and better computers, I do think we can and should use technology to solve the world's ills where technology is a legitimate solution. I *even agree* that we can make humans more disease resistant and longer lived, and I also believe that that is a good thing. However:
I do not see technology as Kurzweil does: in some kind of Messianic Eschatology. It's not like that, and I feel that he and his ilk are perpetrating a fraud on the public, but mostly on the people they advocate the most: technologists. I think the Really Hard Nut To Crack is not going to be technological, but sociological and political.
Jaron Lanier wrote an interesting opposition paper that also opposes Kurzweil, but in more polite language than myself. I guess Lanier doesn't consider Kurzweil to be the charlatan I see him as.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
He may eat 250 pills a day and feel like 40 but he sure does look like he's 56 years old!
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
Well, technically using an advanced form of gene therapy it is theoretically possible to make modifications to your gene's in "real time". Cells would then divide using the modified DNA.
Depending on how aging actually works (and we haven't really figured that out yet either) we might be able to apply the "anti-aging" genome to people currently alive.
For those who are not familier with gene therapy a short description follows:
Viruses work by inserting their own DNA into a cell, thereby taking over the cell and giving it faulty instructions (these viruses are named after computer viruses because they do the same thing:) ). Scientists are trying to modify the DNA inside the virus so that instead of inserting viral DNA it inserts the DNA that they want (ie. the "anti-aging" DNA). Cells will then divide and duplicate the new DNA that they have in them. Or at least that's the idea.
With our current socio-economic problems (especially IP laws) we're in no position to be mixing our bodies with software and/or hardware. I think the supplements this gentleman is taking are giving him unexpected brain damage...
How does he find time to do interviews? He's wasting an hour or so of his life every morning -- not to mention the half gallon of juice he needs to choke 'em down -- just popping pills!
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
his liver is 90.
Visionary does not = Genius.
Life is not for the lazy.
ill wait for molecular psychology to catch up to computing
someday we will interface with computers through phermones....a controlled halucination , which will be the direct interface between our mind and the computer
back in the day we didnt have no old school
I've got a package just dying to get inside.
He's just afraid to die, but unlike the rest of us, he lies to himself about his own mortality.
You better say: 'unlike the rest of us who are atheists.'
I just got a transcript from Ramona... This girls is pure AI... No joke... Ramona: Hello, I'm Ramona. What's your name?
User: bush
Ramona: Hi there, bush. What did you do last weekend?
User: I was talking with a friend of mine. His name is Bin Laden.
Ramona: Do you do that often?
User: YES!
Ramona: oh. I went out with some friends. We had a great time
User: Me too...
Ramona: We went to a concert.
User: and?
Ramona: Or.
User: not
Ramona: Ok. So where do you go to meet people? I spend most of my time on the Net, so I'm a bit out of touch
User: I spend also my time on the Net... You know? Matrix got me!
Ramona: That's an idea, but I'm rather shy.
User: I'm Bush...
Ramona: OK, thanks. Maybe you have other suggestions?
User: Will you vote for me?
Ramona: I will become smarter as I grow older. For you I will consider it.
RE:"we will be placing millions or billions of nanobots -- blood cell-size devices -- inside our bloodstream to travel into our brains and interact with our neurons"
aint no way in HELL anybody sticking mechanical things inside my bloodstream!!!
Does anyone know if this was a fallen GONG satellite?
As long as real robots aren't able to clean my room autonomously as good as humans do, "nanobots" won't travel in our bloodstream in about 15 years from now either...
I was talking to a friend of mine the other day, and he brought up the very real possiblity that people under or around 30 years old today, may very well live to be 200-300 years old.
With as much medical knowledge we've gaining in just the last 20 years because of the advent of computers and better collaboration, it's acceptable to belive that the rate at which we make new discoveries is only going to increase.
Scientists have found the gene that turns aging on and off. If 10 years down the road someone develops a way to actually turn it off safely in humans, it will likely increase our lifespan. Also, stem cell research looks to be a promising method of growing replacement organs and body parts.
If both of these things are possible within the next 50 years, it's well within reason that people under 30 could use them to live nearly forever.
Surely a major hurdle will be governments, but I would suspect that because of the potential demand for such things, purchasing procedures like this will simply move underground. Instead of drug dealers, we could very well have gene dealers.
You look at things which might kill you off now, like cancer and other diseases, and more and more discoveries are being made every day to combat these things (viruses that kill cancer, etc).
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Wasn't Martin Landau's conspiracy theorist *also* named Kurzweil? It's a conspiracy, I tells ya!
You must think in Russian.
What he said was "Well, ultimately, there's going to be very little difference between a guy who's 120 and a guy who's 30." (emphasis mine)
RTFA.
Anonymous Coward writes "Exciting new articles from Roland Piquepaille enrich the lives of Slashdot readership. It's been known for a long time that his postings are notable for links to a website that provide summaries that a four year old could have written, as well as an opportunity to drive traffic to advertisers on his page. How does he do it? Where does he get the balls to quote large quantities of an article, while providing little to no opposing or insightful opinions? What is the history behind his methods? Read on for more details!"
Why is the idea of living for thousands of years ridiculous?
Generally, in history, people have seen two generations of their offspring, and even under those circumstances human population has exploded. If we consider it reasonable that to keep population size at a normal level you can see at most two generations of offspring during your lifetime, then living a thousand years would mean you have to wait almost half a millenium before you have chilren.
The price of living forever is that you can't reproduce.
Lets face it, life is really only a "good time" until you graduate college and gave to get a day job that sucks the life out of you just like everyone else. After that you're just a working stiff mindlessly going about your day exhausted, stressed, and boring.
We should be focused on extending the fun years before the hell begins. I sure don't want more years as a 60 yr old, I want more as a 20 yr old.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
this guy is isane. who in their right mind would want to live any longer? I think 70 years or so is just fine.
I stopped taking supplements after reading this article a few weeks ago.
I agree too many people think vitamins and herbal supplements are the magical solution to simple problems so thanks for sharing the link. But I think it's important to consider the serious limitations of that study and what one can justifiably conclude from it.
1. The study did not include 'healthy' people. All participants had cancer of the gullet, stomach and intestine, bowel, pancreas or liver. Conclusions about any supplement's effect on a person without those cancers is not supported by this study. It would have been interesting to include a group of healthy patients in the study to see if the supplements were accelerating the existing cancer or causing some other form of death. The cause(s) of death is not stated in the article but probably is in the study itself. (Link to the study, anyone?)
2. The supplements studied were limited to beta-carotene, vitamins A, C, and E, and selenium, alone or in combination. The premature death increases were connected to taking both beta-carotene and either A or E. Conclusions about supplements other than beta-carotene and A or E aren't supported by this study.
I'm not saying you can't extrapolate in your own mind about what other supplements might do to healthy people. Maybe that's a safe thing to do. But it isn't something the study is suggesting.
Piqu-e, Piqu-e, Piqu-e!
This might give you and idea.
t ml
http://morelife.org/personal/health/his-regimen.h
We don't even know the basics of how proteins fold yet. In order to be able to predict the function of these genes, we need to first learn what exactly sort of proteins come from these genes(CASP, a every-once-in-awhile protein folding competition, where scientists have a known protein structure which hasn't been published yet and protein folding scientists try to predict the structure, shows just how far behind we are). And even if you know the structures of the proteins, you need to than figure out what they do. A more important project, the human protesome project, is what needs to be completed first. Maybe than we can understand exactly how our bodies work.
Slashdot has to have crackpots on every once in awhile, I guess, in order to keep things interesting.
In 2004 well, we now have one of the three thanks to SpaceShipOne possibly by 2010 for the ueber rich, but rarely do I pay much attention to any predictions in technology more than about 18 months out.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
i'm waiting for the day some script kiddie hacks into their teacher and makes them do vaudeville dancing in front of the class.
Maybe he'll be able to use his extended lifetime to think about the implications of immortality on an overpopulated planet in a nation that'll be facing an economic crisis of working vs. non-working folks causing by century-old laws that were created back in the dark days when people only lived to be 70.
But it's more likely that he'll try to figure out how to extend it even further.
Son of a lich...
I remembered reading something about this, so I Googled it. There was a Harvard/U Toronto study about the linkage between creativity and "latent inhibition". Basically the conclusion is that highly creative people with high IQs don't filter incoming information in the same fashion that the rest of us do.
This is just one study, of course. But it is interesting. One thing I've noticed about the mentally instable people I've met (not that my sample is large), is that they do tend to exhibit more outward manifestations of creativity. Perhaps it's because they are less bound by the need to categorize the world in which they live. We certainly do have a lot to learn about how the mind works.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
A person that is 120 in 2030 was born in 1910, clocking 94 years old now, and the 30 year old in 2030 is 4 years old now.
What is he going to do to make that 4 year old age so fast that in 26 years he'll look like grandma, and/or what will make that 94 years old not only make it through the next flu season without their vaccination, but beyond that get rid of the necessity of assisted living, love of bingo and driving very slow in very large cadillacs?
Those people will never look the similar on the same day. He's fantasizing.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
I took a class awhile back dubbed "Ethics of Computing" and during the last half of the course most of the topics focused on future technologies and their potential impact. Therefore I read a lot of Kurzweil's work as well as many other futurists.
A lot of rather fantastic predictions are made for the short term future (~2020). Even if you believe nanotech at this level is going to be available so quickly, are you going to be able to afford it? Marshall Brain, http://www.marshallbrain.com/, predicts the concentration of wealth is going to accelerate even faster and move to the owners of our impending robotic workforce! Will you be going to the clinic to have your robotic doctor inject these life-altering nanobots, or will you be plotting revolution to overthrow the wild economic imbalance created by a robotic workforce displacing millions?
The comment above is meant to be slightly sarcastic. My overall impression is that many futurists (particularly the optimists, like Kurzweil) predictions are on timeframes that are wildly unrealistic. Does anyone really believe nanotech at this level is even going to be available in their lifetime? Much less cheap enough that sub-billionaires are going to be able to afford treatments?
For someone who's on a much more even keel I suggest reading: http://edge.org/documents/archive/edge74.html
Not saying all dietary suppliments are good, but the ones that are properly made and don't contain large amounts of filler are good for you and will make you look younger.
My mom is about 46 years old. She's been told quite a few times that she looks as young as 20 years younger than she is.
To complicate things, she's got Crohn's disease, which is known to cause the body/intestines to not absorb as many nutrients (calories, vitamins, protiens) as would normally be the case. She's done regimented treatments (nothing too crazy, just specific types of pills, no wheat grass, etc.) and has been told by doctors that there's no evidence of her ever having Crohn's disease (which isn't something that conventional medicine has a cure for, or even really understands).
Furthermore, I've seen Hepititis B, lime's disease, and many a severe cold/flu completely obliterated by high doses of vitamin C (3000+mg/day) and other such malodies. In the cases of lime's disease and hepatitis B, there was no evidence that the person had ever had the diseases, and it didn't take long for them to get better. The person that had both hepititis B and lime's disease was over 60 at the time, and is currently 75. He still spends a good portion of his day walking through the woods, fishing, and various other phyiscal things, and has absolutely no problem keeping up with people 1/3rd his age. He's taken vitamin and herb suppliments for the last 30 years or so, and doesn't look to have aged much since then.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
On a different note, I don't know why people still listen to Kurzweil. None of his predictions ever came true; his opinions on Artificial intelligence are either silly or obvious (yes, it's obvious to me that we will integrate chips in our body in the future); and the few products his company produces have been made by others much better (speech recognition).
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Machine Dreams:: Ray Kurzweil spoke at RI25. Well, when I say "at", I mean that he was projected onto a transparent screen, in what was perhaps the highest quality tele-presence I've seen.
:)
But still, he lacked situational awareness, and it was awkward at times. I wanted to ask questions, but there wasn't an option.
The interview linked above is a lot like his talk. He talked about the numerous exponential growths in recent technology, and not just Moore's Law.
He figures that he should try to be healthy until 2020, then a biomedical revolution will keep him healthy for another 20 years, and then a nano-technology revolution will kick in to keep him alive forever.
By "alive", he means that his intelligence propagates in the cold, soul-less heart of a machine. But considering that I agree with him that there is no ghost in the shell, this soulless form doesn't seem that bad. At least you're still sentient!
I agree with the principle, that there is nothing to stop this, that all technology is pushing us in this direction, and that it would prove to be a very positive experience. I do not necessarily agree about the time frame. I can't really trust the curves that he fits with so much confidence. Then again, I'm 32 years younger than him, so if he is off by 32 years, I guess I shouldn't complain
Last night at a party, drunk enough to make the discussion interesting, some folks objected to the extrapolation of the increasing rate of expansion of scientific knowledge. What guarantee is there, after all, to find all the secrets in that time? I would say first that the rate of growth in the number of researchers alone could do it. Also, increases in productivity, have always been accompanied with "this pace can't continue" claims, which have always been wrong.
Also brought up was the notion that life is defined by death. That is a very defeatist thought, which I will fight, err, to my grave. In addition, some thought they would get bored if they lived forever. I would say that I could never complain about there being "more books than i could ever read", which is a great thing. Also, I've always wanted to get really good at GO.
Finally, the notion of replication of machine intelligence was introduced. Someone claimed that I shouldn't discount the important sociological and physical implications of being born from a human whom. I agreed, only to realize that the first few moments of any existence will have a huge implication on the formation of the individual intelligence. So if I copy myself, I'll have to think of a few appropriate words to introduce the other me into this world. So far, all I can come up with is "hi".
Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
Just recently, suppliments have been shown to reduce lifespan. So by this recent data, Kurzweil may actually be shortening his lifespan. And this study is not based on diabetics taking masses doses either. I'm wondering what age his kidneys are.
I just want to address a couple of points you make. As far as Intel scrapping the 4ghz, I don't think it's wise to see that, as is, as evidence of Moore's Law no longer being attainable. We could clearly make processors running at higher speeds that that, but it wouldn't be cost effective for the current consumer market. That is pretty much the problem underlying all of this.
What Kurzweil is claiming will happen in 20 years, I think is easily possible. It would take work, and a shitload of cash, but it's possible. But that's the issue. Money. We have the ability to roam around a city with a foldable OLED screen, with wifi capability that gives you access to the net from anyhere in the world. What stops this being the case already? Money. The technology is there. We know it is. It has been for a couple of years, but it takes many to filter onto the market. As with new medicines and vaccinations.
I do certainly agree that Kurzweil, and some of the other guys I've seen predicting the near future, are doing so irresponsibly. I think they should not get so carried away by their dreams and visions, and carefully assess the situation.
The anti-death shit has already changed human lifespan quite a bit.
Global average human lifespan, year 1900: 30 years.
Global average human lifespan, year 2000: 60 years
I'm not so sure about the anti-aging shit. I'll keep up with my diet and exercise and see how I feel when I'm 70 years old.
In any discusiion about aging and death, it's a big mistake to take the state of $TODAY as some static natural state and then wonder if life will be better or worse with a 100% improvement. First step back and decide whether the 100% improvement in the last century was good for people. I think it was, I like my life as a 42-year-old a whole lot better in 2004 than I would have in 1904.
When 'The Age of Spiritual Machines' was released, Ray did a sermon at my church (1st Unitarian Church of San Diego). Before his sermon the church music was played with Kurzweil synthesizers. Very cool. I got to meet Ray and get my book signed. He signed it 'good luck with computer science', as I was a CS major at the time.
As a programmer and futurist, I found his book absolutely fascinating. I would write some quotes, but I let friends borrow both of my copies and never got them back. The book has a graph in it plotting computing power per $1000 vs. time.
SproutWorks Software Design
This maybe on topic, but who knows. I was watching the second season opener of Enterprise last night and thinking about Daniels.. and how much we've changed our ways of thinking about us and our bodies. We've gone from thinking the seat of the mind and soul was the heart to our brains, we've gone from thinking life was immutable to rioting against stem cell research. And it seems to happen very quickly. I don't see the impetus for change, any better than any other futurist I think.. but in that Star trek episode where Daniels was all mixed up with different parts of him from different times.. I started thinking. What if a future person conceived of himself not the sum of his parts, from knee injuries as a kid, to pill popping as a teenager.. what if he conceived of himself as the some of all his ancestors.. and could actively effect them.. and less outlandish scifi.. what if we conceived of ourselves as a community of cells and opened up a dialog.. and could reach greater potentials within our own biology? Weird concepts.. but I think it was Francis Crick who was exploring the 'direction' of conciousness just before his death.. found it fascinating.. haven't you ever noticed how your 'attention' seems to steer your accomplishments and your destiny.. like driving a car.. if you look in one direction too long.. pretty soon your liable to be there? I guess my point is.. perhaps like Slashdot or Google.. raising attention and capturing imagination can often lead us to places and ends we really never took serious before.
Just look at any autistic person who can memorize a whole phone book - there's orders more than 100,000 chunks there.
Another thing - the brain is incredibly efficient at random-access information stuff - think about how many times you read something, and immediately, you go "bullshit". You KNOW it's wrong, within a fraction of a second, without even having the time to sort out the whole thing "logically". You then check, and find out that your "instincts" were right.
No computer can act as fast, sorting through a lifetime of experience in a fraction of a second and coming to a correct conclusion. Hell, no computer can even have an opinion. And that's probably not going to change even with nanotech, because the consciousness seems to "inhabit" the quantum world, way smaller than your nanobots.
I suggest those who don't understand this simple fact check out the bottle for any food supplement. There are usually 20-50 components in each pill. This means that Kurzweil is likely taking no more than 10 pills daily, which translates into about 2-3 per meal. Which isn't really that big of a deal.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
For real anti-aging research, check out the following:
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/index.html/
http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/
Furthermore, taking anti-oxidants has little effect on the time-increasing probability of a person dying soon (simply, aging), since it does not repair the damages that have occurred through aging, but simply prevents some types from happening.
CRN castigates Lancet for incendiary reporting
04/10/2004 - The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) has reacted angrily to the article published in last week's Lancet - which suggested that dietary supplements may be doing more harm than good, and accused the journal of "creating publicity over practicing journalistic integrity".
Scientists from the University of Niss, Serbia and Montenegro, and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group carried out a review of previously published trials, where antioxidant supplements had been used for the prevention of gastrointestinal cancers.
The researchers looked at 14 randomised trials - totalling over 170,000 participants - before concluding that supplementation with b-carotene, vitamins A, C, E, and selenium (alone or in combination) compared with placebo on oesophageal, gastric, colorectal, pancreatic and liver cancer incidences provided "no protective effect".
They then went a step further and concluded there was "a small but statistically significant increase of 6 per cent relative risk in mortality among people taking antioxidants compared with placebo". And added that two combinations of supplements, namely b-carotene and vitamin A and E, were associated with an even higher relative mortality risk of 30 per cent for b-carotene and vitamin A and 10 per cent for b-carotene and vitamin E.
"We could not find evidence that antioxidant supplements can prevent gastrointestinal cancers; on the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality," said lead researcher Dr Goran Bjelakovic.
The CRN expressed its unhappiness with many aspects of the research, but saved its real annoyance for the way in which the Lancet had reported the findings.
"It's not news to say that we don't know for sure what might prevent cancer," said Annette Dickinson, president of the CRN, questioning the rationale of using "only three studies that focused on healthy people".
"While studies can successfully draw upon unhealthy populations to find solutions for healthy populations, antioxidant supplements alone should not be expected to reverse the negative effects created by a lifetime of smoking or poor dietary habits," she said.
Her colleague - the CRN's vice president, scientific and international affairs, John Hathcock - added that he saw little value in comparing different supplements in the same meta-analysis.
"Comparing different supplements in the same meta-analysis results in violating a primary rule of meta-analysis -- combining only similar studies -- and discounts the valuable information one would otherwise learn about the individual supplements," said Hathcock.
"Averaging out the effect of beta-carotene and selenium in the same meta-analysis is like saying if you have a husband who is morbidly fat with a wife who is morbidly thin, you've got a couple with an ideal weight," he said.
However, the trade body was most aggravated by the way in which the Lancet had decided to present the research by highlighting the following quote by David Forman from the University of Leeds, UK and Douglas Altman from Cancer Research UK: "If their findings are correct, 9000 in every million users of such supplements will die prematurely as a result. The prospect that vitamin pills may not only do no good but also kill their consumers is a scary speculation given the vast quantities that are used in certain communities". The CRN believed instead the journal should have focused on the fact this research is still in its preliminary phase.
"Lancet's handling of this article makes it frighteningly clear that we have moved into an age where getting headlines takes precedence over a scientific journal's responsibility to report without bias," said Dickinson.
Indeed, Forman had told NutraIngredients.com last week that although he felt comfortable with the conclusion there was no proof that vitamin supplements had protective effects against gastrointestinal cancer, he felt the authors of the study had more confid
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that all this talk about nanotechnology, cold fusion, AI, life extension, etc. is like Alchemy was to the middle ages. If you are not familiar with the history the study of alchemy was the attempt to 'transmute' various metals into gold. It failed of course, but their attempts did lead to the isolation of a couple elements and a few experimental methods such as distillation, which led to the development of modern chemistry.
Perhaps nanotech, fusion, and AI research will lead to science and technological developments that we haven't even envisioned, much as alchemy did.
I don't have much respect for 'futurists' like Kurzweill who aren't real scientists and don't give good reasons why their technologies are feasible. Biology is a complex science and is nowhere near fully understood. The higher functions of the brain such as memory, for instance, have not been able to be reduced to chemical and electrical interactions. Perhaps they will in 100+ years, but I don't see it happening within my lifetime.
He adds that by 2020, "we will be placing millions or billions of nanobots -- blood cell-size devices -- inside our bloodstream to travel into our brains and interact with our neurons."
Has there been a breakthrough that I missed?
Because it has to be one pretty much now for the technology to evolve and mature over the years to the level that we dare to use it inside ourselves. I doubt we can discover this tech in 2018 and by 2020 have it on the market...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Living until the heat death of the universe isn't such a bad thing (and even then there may be fantastic ways to actually slip to other realities).
--
Power to the Peaceful
1980-2010: Software engineer
2010-2013: Law school (job was outsourced to India).
2014-2030: Lawyer
2030-present: Software engineer (India is outsourcing to US)
And the bad side is?
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Note to self: In 30 years see how Kurzwel is doing. if he's doing fine start taking lots of supplements. If he's kicked the bucket keep eating at McDonalds.
Can you believe that 42% of the population actually think's Kerry is a better choice? They they should be the first recipients...
Mid Life Crisis.
Dude needs to get over the fact that he isn't going to live long enough for any future tech to make much of a difference in his life, and the fact that it will end sooner rather than later.
Living until the heat death of the universe isn't such a bad thing (and even then there may be fantastic ways to actually slip to other realities).
I suppose there are no physical laws which prevent a possible future whereby humanity shifts conscious awareness from one physical substrate to the next for a near infinite time. But I highly doubt that outcome.
I count myself lucky to live in a time where humanity may cure such major diseases and causes of death as: cancers; heart disease; viral, bacterial and prion infections; even "just" diabetes. I'm amazed by these advances. We all stand a good shot at living past one hundred years due to the advances of medical science. But it's highly speculative to assume we can extend human life much longer than that, never mind a full order of magnitude or two. At least not without some major genetic tweaking. Not that we have any idea how to do that or what the biological consequences would be.
As for the Drexler dream of conscious upload and transformation out of our biological bodies.... yeah, well, you keep dreaming. I suspect we'll discover that the physical processes behind consciousness are so complex that predictions today for the potential of such technology are a waste of time. So maybe, but probably not. JMO. --M
First of all, I'm a Biochemist and I work in the field of Neurobiology, so my comment will probably be a little bit "biased".
That said, I find this kind of "fantasies" about nanobots and man-machine fusion or immortality quests just that, nice fantasies, because reality is a complete different thing.
#1: We are and will be, for years and years to come, ignorant about the processes and mechanisms that drive our lives. Yes, we know a lot, but there's still a lot more to know, and it seems a paradox, because the more we know or we think we know about someting, the more we figure out that there is more to know that we were unaware of. Simply, the more you know, the more you discover that you don't know. Brain mechanisms are an excellent example, but are just another example.
#2: Nanobots are not "miracle" little gadjets than can do everything. In the future they might rdo something, but right now, there is a loooong road ahead before they are of any pratical use. Academically incredible and fascinating, yes, but in reality useless right now (or in the next decades).
#3: Body enhancements, as I said in the first point, we know nothing, but we think we know. For example, nowdays we find electroshock therapies or frontal lobe lobotomies to be totally useless (in most cases) and dangerous (allways) forms of psiquiatric therapies, but 100 years ago they were the most advanced, safe and correct forms to treat almost any brain desorders. Now... Just imagine what will be said about our "safe", "advanced" and "correct" therapies in 100 years, or for that matter, about our fantasies of body enhancements.
#4: Immortality, the Quest. A nice title for a hollywood Blockbust, but in reality is the oldest form of denial known to our species. We've allways wanted to live forever, be here forever, live longer, etc. Why? We are afraid to die, to notexist anymore. Yes, it's natural that an animal like us tries to preserve itself, but... We will all die. It's a fact. Being alive means that we will die. 5, 10, 30, 60, 90 years? Whatever, we'll die. It might be hard for some to accept it, but it will happen.
Living longer and better is a great heathy purpose, but... on 250 supplement pills? This guy does not only live on a fantasy world of "magical" nanobots, but's also a complete idiot. He's just killing himself in an expensive way.
Pills have 2 kinds of components, the active principles, and a thing called exipients, that make the pill. More, all that comes into us, will eventually be excreted somehow. In case of pills, either by the feces, or urine. 250 pills of crap on a day-to-day basis for a few years == a huge increase in the probability of having a serious kidney problem, as well as other problems related to the abuse of those supplements or the crap that comes with the excipients.
The secret to live longer? Simple. Some things help, like having good genes, taking care of those genes, a balanced diet, a balanced amount of exercice during lifetime and avoiding accidents. What is *really* important?... LUCK.
Eh, this is just my biased opinion anyway...
Live long and prosper! (and die happy)
What we need to speed up this process it a Manhattan style program (an equivalent of the atom bomb project of wwII). If we co-operate and pool resources with all the asian countries and europe we could speed this program up by quite a bit, perhaps reaching it by 5 to 7 years from now...after all, einstein said that because of the atom bomb project, what would have taken 40 odd years instead took 4 years to do...and in this case, look at all the baby-boomers world-wide who do have a lot of pollitical influence and money who could finance this sort of project...it was estimated by the methuselah mouse prize foundation. http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/ that an xprize for biotech/nanotech life extention breakthrough would be a prize size of 64 million.
You could also check out http://www.betterhumans.com/ and http://www.longevitymeme.org/ for info on the race to develop better anit-aging discoveries and also, did you realize that the same people who sponsored the X-prize is now setting up equivallent prizes for anti-aging and nano-assemblers goals too.
An educated adult can remember and know the meaning of over 40,000 words in whatever language (English, Japanese, Chinese, ...) they were brought up in. And many adults have been educated to speak in two if not more languages. I know of technical translators who can speak/read/write in four or more languages, so that would discredit the 100,000 chunks limit.
There used to be a talent show (You Bet!) in the UK, where people would be challenged to see if their claim to recognise highly similar objects was really true (one guy claimed to recognise records/CD's simply from the pattern of the reflected/diffracted light). Another guy claimed he could recognise the exactmodel/version/manufacture date of cars just by looking at the colour photograph of the car.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Kurzweil is just following in the footsteps of many other MIT EECS professors and and alumni who grossly overpromised technology to be 'insanely great'.
It's hard to dispute that MIT professor Marvin Minsky, one of the fathers of AI, has probably done more ill than good to his own creation. By relentlessly overhyping the field's progress, AI's benefactors have themselves lost all credibility. As such, the AI winter of the 1980's is now a black hole. AI is dead. Long live operations research and dead-end derivatives like expert systems and neural nets. "It's not AI, but it sure is cool..."
I'm betting that Kurzweil was one of Minsky's students.
MIT's robotics lab seems to have been infected with the same contagion. After 30 years of continuous pronouncements foretelling the imminent arrival of autonomous intelligent mobile robots, their failure to deliver more than a string of slick demos has caused their funding to diminish to the point that it and MIT's much vaunted AI lab have retreated into the venerable CS Lab, perhaps not soon to be heard from again. I suspect that too many times was heard the familiar refrain, "I'm sorry General, this robot works only on red-and-green checkerboard carpeting. In full sunlight. Driven by a wireless connection to a supercomputer in the next building. But it *could* be useful. Just give us another $20 million..."
Finally, there's no better example of technohubris than MIT's Media Lab, which after about 20 years of sound and fury has finally run out of gas. Like the decomissioned AI Lab, too many grand designs and too few useful systems has left the Media Lab bereft of fans and financiers.
When will MIT EECS professors and their progeny learn that computer science is about *delivering* the future and not just titillating us with it?
Randy
There may be 249 regular pills, but somewhere there must be a funny pill in there somewhere!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You're not doing much better than him. Idiot savants are the exception, rather than the rule among autistic people. You really can't get all of your information from watching Rain Man.
I agree, Kurweil does sound like a crazy man. And I don't appreciate the rather inflated list of achievements attributed to him.
However, I think I know where the 100,000 number came from. Research on expertise suggests that one must learn about 100,000 "chunks" of information to achieve expert status. Given the rate at which humans learn new chunks, this translates into 10 years of concerted practice. If you look at the time it takes people to attain world class status in various endeavours (e.g., chess, tennis), these numbers fit pretty well.
Bobby Fischer is commonly held up as an exception as he achieved a grandmaster rating 9 or so years after being introduced to chess. Prodigies like Mozart are not considered exceptions because apparently people distinguish between the works he produced as a child and the true masterworks of his adulthood.
Google "expertise" and "chunks" for more information, such as http://www.admin.upm.edu.my/~mzbd/expert.html.
Kurzweil's always saying stuff like this. Nothing to see here.
Ray certainly sounds like is enjoying life to the fullest.
Oh..and perhaps you can tell me what good is being dead, that it outweighs living forever? I'm really curious.
Idiot savants are the exception, rather than the rule among autistic people.
Read in context: Kurzweill is talking about the master of knowledge, not the average people.
As a master of something is *supposed* to be the exception, rather than the rule.
Well, it all depends on if existing as a human is the best you can aspire to be. When I look at the news today, humanity doesn't have a lot to be proud of.
Given all the wasted opportunity spent in hate, power games, etc that run amok in human "civilization", if we could alter the basic human template and reduce the wasted opportunities, then I think it's a worthwhile endevour.
But hey -- I wouldn't force this on anyone. Having a control group is a good idea.
And it's widely recognized that ignorance is bliss.
But for myself, I'd be glad to trade a bit of bliss for a little less ignorance. If I am a bit less certain of my own actions because I can see a bit further down the chain of consequences, then that's a trade I'm willing to make.
Then there's computer languages - a couple dozen, at least.
Then there's tons of stuff from decades of reading. You'd think it would be forgotten, but then something jogs the memory, and there it is. For example, we were talking about old sci-fi stories, and I mentined "The 9 Billion Names of God". The funny thing was, I was able to recall the rules for formulating each possible name, even though it had been decades ago, and I had read the story quickly (it was a short in an anthology, after all http://www.hatori42.com/lib/The%20Nine%20Billion%2 0Names%20of%20God.htm
Probing the brain with electrodes can bring up all sorts of memories, vivid, as if it were happening right there and then. We store data differently than a ram chip.
Ho, well.
The interesting thing is, we don't just take chunks of information and store them - we integrate them with all the other stuff we've accumulated over a lifetime, so that the sum is truly greater than the parts.
Everyone does this, to some extent. Think of it - when you read a newspaper, you're abosrbing more new information in one sitting than the average neanderthal had to in a year ... perhaps a lifetime. And neanderthals were no dummies - they were smarter than their successors, having invented all the necessities of life.
We can't even keep bread fresh for a week. Good luck trying to extend human life :> Until we can stop the breakdown of our DNA/RNA we are all doomed :>
You can also go straight to the source of above 100,000 and 10 year info: chech out Herbert A. Simon's Sciences of the Artificial.
I would put up a link to Amazon but I'm very unhappy with them right now.
"I think we should tax people who stand in water! " - Mr. Gumby
is not a good thing. People don't relize that overpopulation will become a problem already without the introduction of "life extension" technologies. Overpopulation WILL happen and it will make living in the world difficult. Lack of of enough natural resources will introduce more problems then can even be predicted at this point. Greed will prevail, with the most wealthy getting first access to the more scarce resources.
I would counter a few of your underlying assumptions with the following references - note that electron tunneling pathways affect protein folding dynamics and that quantum interference plays a critical role in photosynthesis. See also Zeilinger's biomolecule matter-wave interference experiments.
Of course, future computing architectures can incorporate these 'spooky' features.
It sounds good, yet I'll see about that once it happens to a few million first. Like windows patches the beta is often the ones that makes systems crash into a horrible death. I just like to know what would happen in a blood transfusion or donation. These little bots are gonna go WTF at a metal object in the middle of a blood stream sucking it up. You take bot A that had saved info about you and shove it into another and it starts killing your spleen or attacking bot B. Better yet, you put these in food or something and get into your system. Who knows who made them and hell there would be "viruses".
It might sound simplistic, but I think we all are in no rush to die. We all look for little signs that we are going to live a long life, or maybe luck out with Immortality. So, Religion in the past offered one such escape. Pray hard and you'll live forever. But if you can't use religion to comfort you, then Science may be the answer. Diets and supliments based on obscure sources, Nanobots, Brain Implants, whatever. The Spike. The hope that Science will progress forward to some breakthrough in the next 20-50 years before My Time is up, and I will Live Forever. Anyway, just waffling.
You certainly are right about the instantaneous BS detector. You set mine off several times with your other comments.
You haven't even managed to keep your own arguments on the same page. At one point you cite the memorization of a phone book as evidence about the chunk-scale of human intellect, apparently forgetting that computers already exceed this extreme data point on human performance by a rough factor of a billion. Phone numbers are in no way the "chunks" of human processing that make human processing interesting.
The failure of computer hardware to perform "random access" information assessment is not a property of digital hardware, Wogger Penrose notwithstanding. It's a property of a class of algorithms appropriate to a scale of computation which we are rapidly exceeding.
We already have classes of algorithms which perform exceptionally well at random access classification: neural networks and statistical models encoded using hashing techniques. What seems to be apparent is that the human brain encodes information at a higher level of dimensionality than our toy neural networks.
I regard the Penrose algorithm as entirely circular. I'm altogether unimpressed with the creativity of the human brain. Open your eyes. Every day I witness hundreds of computational tasks orchestrated by the human brain that humans do badly or barely at all.
For example, the driver who makes three dangerous S-style lane changes from behind to pass you and gain 50 yards of progress before ass kissing the next obstruction and then coming to a grinding halt at the next red light, which you could see was red half a block back. Meanwhile, having coasted down to 10mph and arrives by good planning at the intersection just as the light changes green, the "laggard" car comes out the other side 20 yards ahead at half the gas consumption, and zero wear-and-tear on his break linings.
Then there are the large number of cases concerning how rarely most people even recognize the incompetence of human intellect all around them.
Of course, if you conceive of yourself as off-the-scale brilliant at the pinnacle of human intellectual achievement (creativity is usually trotted out) as Wogger does, then of course you need quantum mechanics to explain this.
If Wogger really were that bright, he might have noticed the circularity of his own argument. We need quantum mechanics to achieve this level of competence? I think not.
I love it when people say they can see into the future. I can't even tell you if I'll have a viable job in 5 years, and things today are certainly not what I thought they'd be 5 years ago.
I love the claim about having the biological body of a 40 year old at 56. Reminds me of anti-aging creams they sell stupid women for hundreds of dollars a jar.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Sounds like an old print article I recall. It took a large number of famous, historic figures, and estimated a numeric I.Q. for them. Like the research you mention, an attempt to chunk the number of steps required to make a gien accomplishment was part of the methodology. Unlike the works you cite, Mozart scored very high, above 210, because of his early accomplishments. Other people were estimated to fall at various places on the curve (i.e. Abe Lincoln 160, Gothe 185, and so on.) Some famous scientists and engineers, such as Watt, Maxwell, and Carnot, all ended up with estimated ratings of 105-110. Why? Because their biggest accomplishments came in late middle age, after they had time to get trained to expert status in multiple areas.
To all this, I'm inclined to reply, if Mozart had had to invent the Harpsicord, Piano, and all the other instruments he wrote for before he could have written any music for them, he would have been a lot later than age 6 getting off the block.
Some intellectual achievements are more constrained by external factors than others, and any theory that talks about chunks required without measuring how many of those chunks are part of a teachable, external, formalized system, and how many must be derived by the introspection and innovation of the thinker, will make absolutely zero useful predictions.
Who is John Cabal?
CIO's are usually business major's with microsoft certifications.
They know nothing of the future of technology, only the best price they can bargain for out of the box solutions such as Windows XP (Gasp).
Seriously, who lets this crap get posted anyway?
I think you mean that neandertals were smarter than their precursors.
All it takes is nukes and nerves.
this is the *quality of life* that counts. not how long do you live.
... ... or may be not (?)
incidently, I'm about 20 pounds overweight. My physician asked me to try modified Atkins diet (much better than the original one). I've lost those 20 pounds and more in about a month, but every day I had that awful carbo craving. So after living like a shite for 5-6 months, I've said 'enough of that'. Back to pizza! I've gained my extra 20 pounds (and more), but am happy as a pig
But I digress
You said: No computer can act as fast, sorting through a lifetime of experience in a fraction of a second and coming to a correct conclusion. I say: I don't think that's what human brains do. I think we "cheat" by developing feelings based on a few important data. Which data are important? You just develop a guessing instinct by trial and error. This is why life experience is invaluable and why ivory-tower academics are often so wildly wrong about obvious facts the rest of us understand implicitly. Some answers cannot be efficiently, algorithmically determined, that's the point of doing it. The computation involved in such an effort IMHO is not that amazing. What's amazing is that it works so well.
Currently hooked on AMP
I call em Stimutacs. They're mostly kelp
They'll make him feel like a koala bear crapped a rainbow in his brain!
So go on, "Eat some more pills, pillhead!"
No sig for you!!
This virtual existance would be facilitated and likely designed by machines themselves - that is, strong AI likely evolved as we climb the exponential curve of technological progress. We find it difficult to view this rapid rate of change because we, as humans, tend to view such progress in a linear fashion. In truth, in the short term it does look linear, and so we extrapolate that it is linear. However, when you actually plot technological change rates over the centuries, such as within the narrow confines of communications, for instance - you see that it actually has an exponential curve to it. For the most part of humanity's history, this graph would look nearly flat and linear - it has only been recently (within the last 100 years) that the graph has begun a sharp climb upward.
Since everything after the singularity would be a simulation (likely due to a strong AI wanting to study us), even our "children" would be simulations - all of it, from conception to birth to growing, would be simulated (and could be "rebooted" or "restarted" at will). So, if it is simulated - it can be copied (cloning, at will?). Death would cease to matter (if you "die", you would either have an instant backup, or the simulation would be restarted to the moment before your death, or something similar).
Also note that if a strong AI were to develop, it would immediately begin aquiring and developing knowledge at that same exponential rate. Eventually, it might be able to figure out a true GUT - at which point manipulation of matter, regardless of distance or time - might be possible. If so, it would continue to build itself (the physical substrate) to house the simulation at phenomenal rates - likely deconstructing the universe to do so (and simulating it at the same time). The first species to reach the Singularity would likely search out and eliminate (or put in stasis, or simulate) any other species in the universe likely to reach a similar singularity (which posits why we haven't come into contact with an ET culture - either they are all post-singularity, and we are *already* being simulated - or we are likely the first - Occam's razor seems to suggest the former, but either is an interesting, possible "scary", proposition). Since the entire universe becomes the physical substrate for the simulation, and is simulated itself, overpopulation (or underpopulation) isn't a problem.
Of course, this then leads into the question of "what if another species has already gotten there" - and we are already in a simulation - how could we ever know? I think one way we would know is if no matter how hard we tried (if we try) to get to a post-Singularity - we couldn't, we kept hitting some wall (and it might be a very strange wall), that kept us from going "post-Singularity". That might be the one thing that would argue for such an artificial limit. The next question would be if such a thing really was reality, and we kept bumping up against it, trying to "breakthrough" - would our insistance be noticed, and would our simulation be "rebooted"?
Unfortunately, I don't have any answers to any of this (and greater minds than mine have been pondering these and similar questions for hundreds of years)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Wow, he must have dropped a tab of acid, came down and then consumed the "special" brownies.:)
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
I for one welcome our ageless cyborg pill-popping overlords.
People say they don't want to become cyborgs, but usually these are the same types that have become dependent on their calendar, spell-checker, watch or calculator without realizing it.
People say they don't want to double their lifespan, but already have it compared to the average person in the prior century.
I don't see anyone here asking for their lifespan to be reduced to its original natural average from several centuries ago. (You would already be dead in most cases.)
Now, in the article Kurzweil explains that virtually the entire aging process can be explained by a handful of fairly straightforward causes. You are right that he doesn't provide many details in this interview, or maybe it wasn't printed, but his claim is plausible given recent research.
For instance, the gene linked with the success of caloric restriction diets in mice has been isolated, and mice with this gene but without the diet have been shown to experience 30% longer lifespans. An interesting side effect is that the mice did not become obese. If a counterpart is found for humans, there would well be an overall reduction of healthcare costs, less methane in the atmosphere, more land that could be devoted to biodiesel production, etc. So, don't assume that just because someone pursues this as a hobby that everyone else is going to be screwed; it may be in the Immortal Overlords' interest to let others have access to the golden chalice. (moderator note: Parent howls pretty loud for someone who is convinced that the hobby will show no real results.)
IIRC, P.T. Barnum said "a new sucker is born every minute." Well, what if there were very few new suckers? What if all the suckers were wise old suckers? If you could retain mental sharpness in your old age, the food supplement marketers would have a harder time selling you inert garbage or otherwise scamming you. If someone is alive who survived Hitler, wouldn't that person be very useful in ringing the alarm bells to prevent the emergence of a future Hitler?
Sure, a near-elimination of aging could create a permanent elite, but it could just as easily create a stable society for a change.
Young as you probably are, you are probably not too concerned about aging at the moment. Give it 20 more years, sonny, and see if you still hold the same opinion. (Now where is my cane so I can hobble back to the toilet?)
One of the theories is that cromagnon and neanderthal coexisted over a period of time, and even interbred, until the neanderthals were totally absorbed.
Remember, they (neanderthals) invented/developed the 7 things we take for granted: agriculture, animal husbandry, fire, tools, religion, communications, art.
It would be like every thought being generated from a program that is re-compiled with every run, with slightly different code and data. And the "monitor program" or "supervisor program" also being subject to those constraints.
Its akin to a neural net program constantly training itself (the conscious, for example), but on a system where the underlying OS is also constantly modifying itself as well (your personality, say), on a hardware platform that is also constantly modifying/restructuring itself (your brain) and responding to different environments (chemicals, etc, vs. a computer being supplied with, say different voltages and currents).
Besides, computers don't "come up with conclusions". They just crunch bits. Kurzweil has made the mistake of anthropomorphizing them, which then led to his assuming that nanotech will help us extend our brain's "powers".
It seems to me that a biological solution would be more likely than a nanotech one - more compatible, more adaptable.
I think he's wrong at least on this point. Flesh as a vessel is a weakness. Upgrading just doesn't make sense when the new model can do so much more!
Nobody sells books by pointing out how technology will probably evolve hundreds of years from now. You sell books by making implausible claims that these things could happen sooner than what is realistically possible.
Just out of curiosity, does everyone here buy into the desperate tone of this article?! Sheesh, have all scientists gone athiest nowdays? The whole article sounds like Ray is pretty much saying, "Oh, shit... I'm old! What to do, what to do?"
I am floored that no-one here takes a religious viewpoint. Doesn't anyone believe in a higher power anymore? Does everyone believe that Science is the answer to everything? I think it's nuts to believe in science giving us all the answers. I don't mean to spoil all your hopes and dreams, but eventually YA'LL are gonna die. I feel sorry for everyone that feels that great anxiety that when they close their physical eyes their awareness simply ceases to exist. I'd probably feel desperate if I believed that too. However, I don't believe that we just happened to be in the right place at the right time at the right temperature with all the right mixtures of gases and ingredients to give life to our predecessor THE AMOEBA. Doesn't fly with me. Even Einstien seemed to have believed in a superior/higher power of some kind.
Though of course the real idiots are those who take any notice.
1. What will I do with 70 years of retirement!
2. Alternatively I will have to work for 80 years!
3. I am not so sure I want to live till 130!! 80 seems long enough.
4. Can I opt out of living till 130 or will be forced upon me!!!!
O this learning! What a thing it is - William Shakespeare
The guy's been right an awful lot on predictions. Go ahead and call him a nut, but anytime I read something he says, I put a 'could happen' note next to it. Unlike quite a few other folks like Smalley (bloviating pinhead IMHO) who get a quick crossing-out. I think he challenges conventional ideas, which will always get you slammed. Everyone (of 'consequence')(ha!) thought Tesla was nuts too.
You're stupid. Take an introductory course in artificial intelligence at your local university.
Well if you don't want to live long, then don't. We won't miss you. ;-)
About people like Kurzweil: people who pretend to know what the future will be like may or may not be kooks, but IMHO their function is not to tell us what the future will really be like, but to inspire us and make us dream about the future so we may actually work towards making it better.
Your criticism of his "fact" is weak. Try defining what you mean by "chunk" and by "information" and then try to determine the precise definitions that Kurzweil is using.
Oh, please, you pick up a small error that Kurzweil has made (which has little influence over his theories, it is a minor point in that respect), and then go on to state as fact:
Hell, no computer can even have an opinion. And that's probably not going to change even with nanotech, because the consciousness seems to "inhabit" the quantum world
There is _no_ evidence to back this up. And I don't consider Penrose's half-assed psuedo-scientific arguments evidence, but the rants of someone too convinced of his own superiority to allow him to consider that the way his own mind does things might not be the only way to achieve similar results.
No, actually neanderthals on average had larger brainpans than their successors.
The correlation between brain size and intelligence isn't always direct. Structure is important, too.
Remember, they (neanderthals) invented/developed the 7 things we take for granted: agriculture, animal husbandry, fire, tools, religion, communications, art.
How on Earth can we possibly know that? Particularly if they coexisted with cromagnon man, at which point radio-isotope datings of any cave paintings we might find would not indicate which of them was responsible.
I wouldn't call Kurzweil an idiot myself by any means, but I will say that I think some of the fundamental underlying premises of his view of reality are different from a lot of people's. One example is that I've heard him referred to numerous times as an atheist, and then read in this interview about him wanting to achieve physical immortality. To me, as an atheist he would view death as the termination of any form of existence, and so from that point of view it is entirely logical that he would want to prolong his physical life as much as possible. I personally believe in an afterlife, and so while I'm not in any tearing hurry to die myself, the idea doesn't fill me with anything like the level of consternation that I suspect it does him.
;)
What he himself would realise if he thought about it though is that the instinct for self-preservation itself is only a genetic or instinctive directive...if a person was hypothetically able to give themselves an android body they just as likely would cease to care whether they remained alive or not.
The other thing to remember about all such people (and this will help you take them with the necessary grain of salt) is that although the media love the idea that they can tell us what the future is going to be like, the reality is that they actually can't. If you were to ask Bill Gates what he thought the world would be like in 20 years from now, you'd possibly get a radically different answer from the one Kurtzweil would give you, and the reason for this is that the vision of the future these men have is the vision of what *they want* the future to be like. The future is the product of any number of different variables, as well as the desires of entire societies, not just individual men. Kurtzweil might want nano-based cyberware, but you can bet your boots that other very large demographics of society won't, and therefore there's a good possibility that such inventions either a) won't occur, or b) will be significantly delayed in their development and/or introduction. The media like to promote the idea that the future is something inexplicable which somehow just randomly and magically falls together in a certain way, and that it is unknowable to all but a few select intellectual giants, who are able (with the aid of no small amount of controlled substances, no doubt) to periodically come down from their ivory towers and kindly offer prognostications on what we can expect the world to be like several decades down the track. It's a romantic view, and like most such romaticised perspectives, it's also complete garbage. Contrary to what a lot of these technologists will tell you, public opinion/desire DOES influence technological progression/adoption in my view.
It's important to make sure we don't allow our admiration of some of these individuals to cause us to think that they are somehow inherently intellectually superior to the rest of us...in many cases, they aren't. Many of them might write interesting material, but so can just about anyone, given enough LSD and more than a marginal level of intelligence.
This reminds me of another interview I read with Bill Joy recently, which I found seriously underwhelming. I'm also aware that a fair number of people worship this man, but I don't. I think it's a very safe assumption that his shit stinks to an equal or greater degree than my own. So does Kurtzweil's.
"we will be placing millions or billions of nanobots -- blood cell-size devices -- inside our bloodstream to travel into our brains and interact with our neurons."
Right after they've tunneled through the blood-brain barrier? This guy may know something about IT but he's no biologist.
No computer can act as fast, sorting through a lifetime of experience in a fraction of a second and coming to a correct conclusion.
You know, that's a skill I could use. Those times that I have the "aha!" seem to always be preceded by a lot of study and thought and beating my head against the wall. From what I've read about considerably more insightful examples of that experience (e.g. Kekule and the benzene ring) I'm not alone. "Chance favors the prepared mind," as Pasteur said. How do you know that that "sudden" flash of recognition isn't just the figurative signal sent by a background task that's been running for a long time?
I want to stop aging. I am looking forward to the day we humans can live for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, while our bodies are around the age of 25.
As for whether the consciousness inhabits the quantum world, consider that the existence of a conscious observer affects the outcome of experiments that depend on quantum effects (the "two-slit" experiments are the best starting point). Just as the existence of an observer affects, in some situations, whether the exact same state should be considered as an increase or decrease in entropy.
It's a LOT stranger than Schrodinger's cat. And, unlike the cat, these experiment has been done many times.
So, since there's no explanation for these phenomena in the macroscopic world, and the quantum world explains it more or less, why not consider it until something better comes along?.
And I have never in my life referred to anything by Penrose, so why bring it up?
A model that helped me (but may only confuse you) It's not really computation in an algorithmic way, it's actually more like a bunch of interconnected abacuses that that the position of their beads as inputs, and after a certain number of them are in particular positions, they trigger the motion of beads in other abacuses, which in turn trigger others, each row of beads just one of many inputs of other connected abacuses. Certain abacuses are designated to be Inputs and Outputs, all the others function the same way, but the 'calculation' is arrived at by reading the 'output' bead positions at any point in time. Thus, changing the position of one bead in one abacus could theoretically change the position of other beads in the same abacus if it is appropriately wired to other ones. In effect you get 'solutions' (desired output bead configurations) from 'problems' (specific input bead configurations) without ever knowing the method by which the output was produced. This is why evolutionary and genetic algorithms are so great for producing working ANNs. This was the explanation that finally made the model click for me. Maybe it'll help you, maybe not.
The parallelism of a neural network is the hardest part to simulate digitally because when you take a 'snapshot' of the neurons at any one point in time to calculate the activation, then you lose the fact that the activation of one neuron could be changed by another one that was firing during the time you take to make the calculation. This is why the brain appears to be doing more processing than a digital simulation (in most models of artificial neurons) even if they could simulate the same number of neurons and synapse wiring. Each neuron needs to be in effect it's own processor running in it's own timescale -- not on a stateful fetch and execute cycle treating the whole network as one huge processor.
Speak for yourself.
It's a major error when he goes on to use this mistaken premise to argue for nanotech being the route to improving brain performance.
All we're talking about is a minor error of scale. He's probably only out by a few orders of magnitude in terms of the brain's capabilities for learning. This doesn't change his fundamental arguments.
As for whether the consciousness inhabits the quantum world, consider that the existence of a conscious observer affects the outcome of experiments that depend on quantum effects (the "two-slit" experiments are the best starting point). Just as the existence of an observer affects, in some situations, whether the exact same state should be considered as an increase or decrease in entropy.
I believe that it's generally held these days that the presence of a conscience is not necessary to constitue an 'observation' under quantum physics. What precisely does constitute an observation is a matter that is, I believe, presently the focus of much debate, but there are many theories which do not require the presence of an intelligent observer.
I'm not quite sure I understand your point about entropy, though. I've never studied thermodynamics in great depth, and am unaware of the situation you mention.
And I have never in my life referred to anything by Penrose, so why bring it up?
I bring it up because AFAIK he was the first person to suggest that consciousness is a quantum-level effect, and has offered the only argument as to why this must be that I had previously heard (an argument which I dismiss as grounded in absurdity). I'll admit your reasoning is new to me, and while I'm not convinced by it, I'll grant that it makes more sense than Penrose's.
Easier to postulate a quantum-based consciousness capable of and dependent upon superpositions of states. Less "cpu power" required, for one.
I had no problem grokking positive-feedback meshes over a decade ago. They are still only a simulation of a limited subset of what the brain actually does, and they cannot achieve consciousness.
Living processes are, by definition, parallel. You can't have cells dying, then being resurrected so they can perform their function, then dying again until the next time they're needed. Everything happens concurrently.
No computer simulation that has fewer logical units than the thing it is simulating can hope to catch all the complexity.
Even then, it is still only a deterministic machine, with the outcome predictable in every case, given the exact same inputs and state.
So, while neural networks explain a lot (such as how the optic nerve preprocesses data for the brain), they are still only simulations, just as a simulation of a pizza is only a simulation.
Either way, sometime the smartest people can lose. Evolution TENDS to pick the best of the bunch and over time it gets results, but any one smarter species at any point in time can fall victim to circumstance. Perhaps the neandrathals all died out by coincidince. (Perhaps not) but to speculate only from the geological record is just that -- speculation.
Speak for yourself.
you can build a neural network in which each neuron is indeed it's own processor. That would not be 'simulating' but 'duplicating' the behavior. If they work the same way, they may not be the same thing per se, but they are analogous, and thus they are equally significant examples of the same priciples. One is simply organic, and the other not. Who knows, one day we may actually build organic ones, but that would be counter productive since electronics can respond so much faster.
Speak for yourself.
If that isn't enough to give us a headache, think about this: what is "random"? In some cases, the number 4444 is random, even though we erroneously instinctively reject that statement. Now, let's apply it to our favourite topic - computers. Random data has a higher entropy than organized data. It takes energy to move data from a state of disorganization to a state of organization, and energy to keep it there.
However, whether something can be considered to be organized is determined by its utility to the user. The same set of bits, in the same order, represents an advanced state of organization on one computer to one user, and complete disorganization to another user with another OS. The order of the b its hasn't changed. Their "information content" is the exact same. Yet, in one context, they are organized, in another, not.
This is an over-simplification, but it's a starting point to get you thinking :-)
It may also end up being slower rather than faster, despite the fact that electrical impulses travel faster than chemical ones, depending, in part, on size. You may also run into limitations vis. cooling, etc., that would require it to be run at such a slow "clock speed" (though, in a real duplicate, there should be no system clock, as every processor would have to run async to be a close duplicate) as to be incapable of any meaningful work.
Sort of like the idea of creating a world-size computer. It would be SO slow as to be useless.
The two-slit experiments have been done in such a way as to test whether an observer is required.
Do you have a reference to that? I haven't seen any discussion of it before.
Here's an interesting theory that you might be interested in -- one of the methods for observation to take place without requiring consciousness. Ironically, it was proposed by the same Roger Penrose who believes the same thing you do, but for different reasons...
I see what you mean about the entropy of the data... in the end though, I think what's wrong here is that you're applying a subjective interpretation of entropy where an objective one is required. This page has an interesting discussion on what entropy is and isn't.
With current technology, I concede your point. Pending a revolution in technology, who knows.
Speak for yourself.
I see no reason why you come to the conclusion that consciousness must originate from a non-determistic system. An argument could be made that the different outcomes that a human makes are really just a determistic process dependent upon the input received from the environment and the internal state of the body and brain.
One of the differences between computers and humans is that it is much easier to repeat previous computer states while controlling the relevant variables which could alter the outcome. Humans on the other hand do not lend themselves at the present time to repeating previous states down to the level of molecular interactions, and thus we cannot see if doing so would lead to the exact same results.
It doesn't get much simpler than that :-) :-) :-)
This is just another consequence of what we tend to think of the normal course of events (cause and effect) tending to break down in special cases (and that's somethig that will really make your head ache).
This is just another phase we're going through in that search, same as cloning a couple of decades ago, same as the philosopher's stone, the holy grail, the golden fleece, etc.
We always want most what we can't have. Bummer.
Yeah, I get that. It was more your idea of an experiment that tested whether an observer was required in the double slit experiment having been performed. I've never heard of it.
I still don't see it as impossible, just not something that we can do tomorrow or the next day. Nano-tech may well be able to do all of that -- for example a nanobot could stimulate neurons, or shape itself so that it fits neural transmitter receptors (electronic drugs!) or something. I just know that we don't have these capabilities today. Remember, in 1899, the head of the patent office said 'everything that can be invented already has'
Speak for yourself.
The logic circuits used in computers are created from the same basic "non-deterministic" matter that the human brain is. I think what you are saying is that the logic circuits are at a large enough physical size to disregard these non-determinisic effects. But what evidence is there to suggest that the fundamental mechanisms of consciousness are not also operating at a physical scale that is large enough to discount the non-determistic nature of the matter of which they are made?
The Heisenberg Uncertainty priniciple dictates that we can never create completely deterministic structures at the scale that our mind operates at.
Whether or not society would tolerate it, the fact that it can be done -- machines will design machines -- means that someone, even if it's a terrorist, will do it eventually. Just like the fact that since we have the nuclear bombs means that someone someday will use them. Maybe not the best idea, but.. I think goop may be in our future. Maybe this is the substrate in which our disembodied minds will exist. You have to question every single thing that we currently believe and take for granted. There is no rulee that cannot be broken here. The fact that our brains exist means that we can indeed build them.
Speak for yourself.
To resume, just load the saved ram states, set the instruction pointer to pick up where you left off.
This is fundamentally different from how the brain works. It is impossible (and physics makes it clear that it will always be impossible) to describe the state of the brain in enough detail to duplicate this. As I pointed out before, this is due to the structures involved, the scales involved, and the very nature of the system. For example, a computer can be told to load the previous states into ram, and not alter them until all the ram is loaded. A brain would not be able to do that, as the parts that would be loaded first would start working right away, and their state would be different from what it was by the time other parts are loaded - you cannot do a "system restore" on a mind.
The right tool for the right job, you know :-)
... sure, we can build nanosAnd then there's the whole question of whether it's even necessary. I'd be willing to bet the organic solution will always be better, in terms of performance over the broadest spectrum of problems.
To quote you "The Heisenberg Uncertainty priniciple dictates that we can never create completely deterministic structures at the scale that our mind operates at."
As I asked in my previous post - where is the evidence that the mechanisms which create "mind" work at a physical size which is subject to non-deterministic effects? As far as I am aware there is no broadly accepted scientific knowledge of the actual physical mechanisms which are repsonsible for consciousness. IMHO current scientific knowledge of the brain and consciousness is nowhere near a clear understanding on these issues, and your claims appear to be speculation.
I definitely agree with you on this one. Your steam engine example is an excellent illustration of this. However, I think that this statement, "the only thing that remains is to follow the speed of progress and construct a simple timeline..." is a prime example of how logical thinking can be inconsistent with the group behavior exhibited by human beings.
For example, look at what the Nazi embrace of eugenics did to the study of genetics. To this day discussions about altering human genetic makeup are under the dark cloud of eugenics.
Nuclear power is another example. Fifty years ago everyone thought that by 2001 we'd all be riding around in nuclear-powered airplanes, but the negative effects of nuclear waste and the possibility of events like the Chernyobyl disaster were not forecast.
The social reaction to these potential and real dangers is often radically out of proportion to their actual threat. It is a well-known fact that most people are woefully incompetent at threat assessment. Societies at large are characterized not only by poor threat assessment, but by historical bias, religious doctrine, and other factors that are completely outside the scope of any "pure" extrapolation of technology trends.
I support the notion that some people disagree with Ray's predictions because they don't like his predictions. But at the same time I think it is worth taking any long-term predictions with a grain of salt, simply because the course of human events is not driven solely by technology.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
constantnormal, regardless of your country of citizenship, will you accept one man's nomination of you for the presidency of the United States of America?
Let me put it another way - we have not found any evidence that what we call "the mind" or "consciousness" can exist independent of quantum-scale phenomena. We do know that observations by a conscious mind do affect the outcome of quantum-scale events, so there appears to be at least some sort of link other than what could be explained by purely macro-scale phenomena.
Speculation? Sure. but moure sound than saying that the brain can only hold 100,000 chuncks of information, and that nanotech can help expand that (the first is outright bs (as other posters have acknowledged), and the second has no scientific basis).
As far as saying everybody will be doing this or that by 2030, I think Ray is forgetting that most of the worlds population is below or barely above the poverty line - food, water and shelter are hard to come by, and this stuff will just be for those who can afford it...
Extrapolations like this need to be balanced by others. Just look at the degredation of quality of life, the environment, the looming oil crisis and think again. We will be lucky if its not World War 3 for the Earths resources and cities like in Blade Runner by the time 2030 rolls around.
He says (actually said, though a bit more flowery) "oops, Sorry buddy" to Galilleo, quite a few years too late. Currently, he's moved on to screwing in wacko fashion with other issues, courtesy of his direct line to gawd and his legions of wacko followers.
I still think the lesson of Galileo's experience is that those in power do what they want. After all, my currency still says "in god we trust." Bushie-boy still prays for advice from his god. The congress still prays prior to session. We still have stone tablets outside of courthouses. We still have the most credibility if we swear on (instead of at) a bible.
It is a strange world where people can't face reality without a sky-daddy.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So you are speculating about someone elses speculations.
The law of exponential returns is an establised fact. Exponential return was the driving force behind the recent .com boom. And most companies will tell you how they expect to experience exponential groth in the near future.
That's the nature of the beast.
Other parts aren't, because they are simply facts (such as the 100,000 chunks of data limit being a load, or the 2-slit interference experiments, their results, other stuff I haven't mentioned, like strange effects at a distance and what that implies for *all* interactions, etc).
You may be right and the brain is nondeterministic. If so, a 'copy' of it made at time T will not be identical with the original when compared at T + 1s, even given identical inputs. This is what nondeterministic means for me. Nevertheless, the difference between the two will not be relevant and does not exclude consciousness of the copy. Thus, you have been able to create an artificaial conscience and as you assumed deterministic behaviour is not a requirement, it may evolve on its own but it is not distiguishable in any aspect from the original.
Barring disease or trauma, the brain functions fine until death, provided it gets exercised on a regular basis.
What part of Kurzweil's assertion that nanotechnology can at some point be used to improve the brain's capacity to store information relies in any way on his statement about the brain's current capacity, except to say that it could get better? Kurzweil's statement that an expert in a particular topic typically can only master about 100,000 "chunks" of information is perhaps ill-defined, but hardly crucial. To the contrary, on what basis do you make this rather strange assertion that nanotechnology can never be used to improve the brain's capacity for information? Explain your reasoning on that one!
More importantly, you've written a lot here about conciousness and concious observers. What do you mean by conciousness?
Secondly, a stupid person would remain a stupid person, just able to pull more factoids out of their arse. No additional capability for insight, etc. No additional creativity. Just more data. Sort of like the difference between an interesting short story and a phone book. Now, if we were all of a sudden living for 1000 years, we'd probably need to find some way to extend or capacity beyond what it is currently, but for now, it's not only not needed, but it fails to address the real issues, which are - what is creativity, what is insight, what makes someone a genius, and how could we go about developing/instilling these traits in the general population?
The whole nano thing is a red herring.
It's not memory capacity we need - we already have more than enough, even though we don't use much of it very effectively, mostly because we're lazy.
First - most people do have memory limitations. For example, I may have known what the maximum temperature was 236 days ago, but now I cannot even remember what I had for lunch on that day. Obviously my memory capabilities do leave room for improvement and enhancement. Is that laziness? Maybe you are suggesting some other technique to enhance memory other than nanites?
Second - I would say that data and facts are one aspect(and a cenral aspect) of what makes up intelligence, insight and creativity. As someone said - we stand on the shoulders of giants - one person can only do so much, and data and facts are what can be siphoned off another persons mind and integrated into ones own mind within a far smaller timeframe than actually finding the facts acts directly for oneself. It seems unlikely that without Newton leaving behind his data and facts that Einstein would have been able to do what he did. It seems to me that creativity/invention is sometimes the act of bringing together and recognizing useful relationships between hiherto disconnected facts and data. The more facts and data you have, the more you have to work with, the more original and creative connections you can make.
Having the data pool of google directly, instantaneous and intuitively accessible to the brain might open up possibilities that would make the genius of the past look like ants.
My overall impression of your stance on these issues is that you are dismissing these future technologies far too early into their development. Most of these technologies are barely past the sci-fi stage - if that.
The proof of this is that we easily designed devices to remember things for us (books, computers), but we don't have the first clue as to how to design something to be creative for us.
Having more data will not in itself make you smarter, or more creative. In fact, it sometimes gets in the way of the creative process. Look at people who can never make up their minds, and use the "I need more facts" excuse to put off making decisions. Or kids who need a calculator to figure out how to make change from a $10.00 bill, or to figure out the tax on an item.
I'm not dismissing that nanotech could be helpful, for example, in helping a diseased mind cope. But, and this is an important but, "the right tool for the right job" - having access to a bunch of facts is not knowledge.
Look at the fad of "sleep-teaching". Kid would go home and listen to a tape recorder repeating "The Nile is the longest river in the world" over and over while he's asleep. The next day:
Facts are useless without the ability to understand them and manipulate them. Being able to google for the Nile doesn't make you smarter. Neither would having the ability to "google" the fact directly from your brain.Unfortunately, Kurzwell doesn't understand this. He mistakes knowing facts (his 100,000 chunks of information) with knowledge.
Sorry if I sound a bit like I'm philosophizing at this point, but there's a difference between "knowing a fact" and "grokking" something, and we tend to overlook that in daily life, starting with teaching in the early years of school.
You can also go straight to the source of above 100,000 and 10 year info: chech out Herbert A. Simon's Sciences of the Artificial.
...)).
You're right, I should have referenced Simon. I thought that might be too obscure and was aiming for something that was a click away -- the link I tried to include discusses Simon's work, and I thought this would be an indirect pointer to the truly interested.
For those who care, the two seminal articles on this topic are:
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55-81.
Ericsson, K. A., Chase, W. G., & Faloon, S. (1980). Acquisition of a memory skill. Science, 208, 1181-1182.
The first article is on the 1000s of perceptual chunks chess experts use to instantly parse the strategic information in a game position. Although this article is brilliant, the second one is even better! Chase and Ericsson had Steve Faloon, an undergraduate at Carnegie Mellon and accomplished distance runner, practice his memory span for digits. You know: How many digits can you remember? For most people, the answer is in the range 7+/-2 (i.e., 5 to 9). Faloon was able to stretch his digit span to over 80 digits. I have an audiotape of him doing this for 25 digits and it's mind-bending to listen to it. The digits are read to him at a rate of about 1 per second. He pauses, strains, and struggles, and then spits them back out, perfectly.
How did he do it? By "chunking" the digits into running times running times that were meaningful to him (e.g., "4-1-2: my mile time in meet X back in 1978") and then by learning to chunk these chunks (and chunk these chunks of chunks (and
I didn't intend my comment to be a criticism so much as an excuse to bring up Simon. He seems to be woefully under-read by some of those, i.e. computer programmers, to whom his work should be most directly relevant. In any case, I don't particularly feel that he is overly esoteric. It can take a bit to grok the importance of his ideas, but he writes fairly well and expresses himself clearly.
Fascinating! Thanks for the pointer.
"I think we should tax people who stand in water! " - Mr. Gumby