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)
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.
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?
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
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
Ghost In The Shell
Pick up the bread knife and carve your way into forensic history
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Not a nut, just not very well informed. See, one of the fun things happening now in molecular biology is that we are starting to see the contours of the agin g process. And it looks like it is actually three processes in one:
1. There's a sensor in your cells that measures the amount of oxidative damage done. Beyond a certain limit it kicks in the senescence program, and BAM! your cells go into G2 meaning a slow coast to death (can't go into much detail on this one)
2. Stem cell maintenance. You need telomerase for that, an enzyme composed of RNA and protein. It keeps the length of the ends of your chromosomes more or less constant. People without functional telomerase (a disease called dyskeratosis congenita) die at a young age of anemia, leukemia and other disorders associated with aging. They also have bowel problems and their skin looks like it's 80 years old when they're 30
3. Genome integrity. A whole bunch of enzymes is busy keeping your chromosomes from breaking, effecting all kinds of different repairs needed for all sorts of damage that a genome (an organism's DNA) can suffer. Various diseases result from a lack of one of these enzymes and they all mimick an aspect of ageing (Werner's, Bloom's, Xeroderma Pigmentosum, Fanconi anemia etc etc).
So, preventing ageing will not be the result of tackling oxidation or whatever on its own (which is what all the supplements are doing). IF we are ever going to be able to offer any kind of athanatic treatment (term borrowed from Dan Simson) it is going to be a complex one.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
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
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...
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.
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
"I wasn't trying to predict the future, I was trying to prevent it." - Ray Bradbury.
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.
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.
Oh my, I meant to say BE, "we're all going to BE robots", NOT "DO robots" you sickos..
What about the ReadDoll (tm) of the future?
--- I w00t, therefore I'm l33t.
Kind of puts a new spin on the Anti-virus program.
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/
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
No, it's just that some people (including Ray) see things. They see obvious patterns that are somehow escaping your attention. When Ray reads today's news, he reads about Mitsubishi planning a 400$ wearable display in early 2005. He reads about DOE planning a 1Kpixel artificial retina by 2007. He thinks about things he already knew, remembers what was done during the last two decades, connects the dots and realises that in 2014 we might very well have artificial vision widespread among healthy people. This isn't magic, it's just having very wide interests (what he mentions in this interview) and being at least moderately intelligent to add 2 plus 2.
It is well-known (I read research dating to 1970s-1980s) that people who are narrow specialists can generally foresee about 7 years of progress in their fields. People who are not specialists in a certain field can do only a few years estimates. Most people are blind - they read the same news, see the same technologies being turned into products, but they can't see the obvious future trends. Some people, like Kurzweil (and many others) can.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
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.
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)
People weren't just keeling over at age 30.
Concrete example: The direct paternal line of my ancestors, of which I have complete birth/death detail back to 1634, all lived into their 70's, a good number of them into their 80's and 90's until the middle of the last century, when my father broke the record by dying of lung cancer at age 54. He was a heavy smoker, so I don't consider this a significant statistical factor as compared to the rest of the paternal line. If you factor in all the dead babies and dead young children, the average numbers come out low for my family as well - even though just about every one who made it to 21 also made it way past 60. This isn't lifespan extension, so much as it is the puffing up of a somewhat vaguely named average number.
No question there have been health care improvements; lifespan extension into old age is happening, but it has not doubled by any means. 90 year olds, somewhat exceptional in the 1700's and 1800's in my family, are still just somewhat exceptional. And no one is living to 180, I assure you.
Your longevity stats are also affected by amelioration of disease effects. For instance, if you get cancer, you're still probably going to die. You will quite probably live a few more years if it is caught early, but the odds are very much against your living more than an additional five to ten. If you catch a flu, we can do a lot more, you probably won't die, though we still lose thousands to it every year in the US. Sanitation is also better, and that has a very large effect upon the general ability of many diseases to take hold.
What I'm trying to say here is that "lifespan extension" appears to me to be somewhat of an illusion. YMMV, and in fact, I hope it does. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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
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.
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
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.