pooky wrote:
Kurzweil is an idiot.
Agreed. Predictions about the future are incredibly inaccurate, especially if they are predicting several decades into the future. Yes, civiliazation will continue to progress, but it's impossible to predict in what ways. Just go back and dig up some editions of Time magazine from 35 years ago and see what they were predicting about the 21st century. Laughable stuff. Or just go watch some old sci fi movies and see how they anticipated the future.
TCB wrote:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2048138,00.htmlRaymond Kurzweil says absolutely. I've written about this on here before, it checks out. I say everyone who doesn't die within the next 50 years should certainly expect to live forever.
What do you mean "it checks out"? I read it, and it's a bunch of crock about how some guy thinks cyborgs will rule the earth. The article says "it's not a fringe idea." Yeah, right. The whole idea is based on the fact that technology is getting better, but they think that somehow proves computers can become conscious and either solve all the world's problems or destroy us. This will not happen in 2045. It won't happen in 2100. It won't happen in 3000 years. Criticize me for my skepticism, but there is a huge difference between a computer and the human mind, something no electrical impulse can reconcile. Just because a computer can get faster, doesn't mean this will continue indefinitely, which is the underlying assumption of the article.
vox cursor wrote:
They'll never be able to 'upload' a person's consciousness because that is a product of the brain, reducible to the astronomical amount of neurons and chemical connections in the brain. There is no "file" or "folder" that can be transferred; we *are* the network of our brain. The best they could hope to do is make a copy of your brain, and hence, your consciousness.
I noticed you tried really hard in that paragraph to not say that intelligence is not material. That would then suggest that there are things outside of our material reality that are not tangible, which would suggest that consciousness had to be "put into" the brain, by (gasp!) a Creator.
la la land wrote:
I see a greater possibility of life extension by finding a way to support the brain without having to rely on the rest of the body for sustenance. In this scenario, you become "a brain in a bottle".
Electrical stimulation of your pleasure centers will keep you happily bottled for centuries...
They already made that. It's called Stephen Hawking.
pooky wrote:
Kurzweil is an idiot.
No, he's wrong. He's not an idiot.
someone else wrote:
Criticize me for my skepticism, but there is a huge difference between a computer and the human mind, something no electrical impulse can reconcile. Just because a computer can get faster, doesn't mean this will continue indefinitely, which is the underlying assumption of the article.
I'm not going to criticize you for thinking he's wrong because I'm not sure he's right, but you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss his idea. There is strong evidence in quantum physics to suggest that our entire universe is just a "computer" simulation. There is still the whole world of quantum computing and organic computing that we have hardly scratched the surface of. The future of computing might not look anything like what computing looks like right now, so just because our current brains aren't compatible with current digital computers doesn't the won't always be.
someone else wrote:
I noticed you tried really hard in that paragraph to not say that intelligence is not material. *That would then suggest that there are things outside of our material reality that are not tangible, which would suggest that consciousness had to be "put into" the brain,* by (gasp!) a Creator.
That is quite a non sequiter, first assuming that there actually *are* things beyond the material consciousness (an unfalsifiable claim) and then immediately relying on those intangibles for the existence of your own consciousness (unfalsifiable again). A heavy and untenable burden to place on an unknown quantity, no?
The consciousness did not have to be "put into" anything. The existence of a complexity does not require the existence of a greater complexity. Complexity can and does arise from simplicity. Complex consciousness does not require a more complex consciousness; it is merely the expression of emergent properties of simpler processes. To postulate a greater complexity to rationalize a lesser complexity leads to infinite regression.
Unless I can have a 30yr old body forever, I am not sure I wanna live forever.
vox cursor wrote:
someone else wrote:I noticed you tried really hard in that paragraph to not say that intelligence is not material. *That would then suggest that there are things outside of our material reality that are not tangible, which would suggest that consciousness had to be "put into" the brain,* by (gasp!) a Creator.
That is quite a non sequiter, first assuming that there actually *are* things beyond the material consciousness (an unfalsifiable claim) and then immediately relying on those intangibles for the existence of your own consciousness (unfalsifiable again). A heavy and untenable burden to place on an unknown quantity, no?
The consciousness did not have to be "put into" anything. The existence of a complexity does not require the existence of a greater complexity. Complexity can and does arise from simplicity. Complex consciousness does not require a more complex consciousness; it is merely the expression of emergent properties of simpler processes. To postulate a greater complexity to rationalize a lesser complexity leads to infinite regression.
I know it was a shaky argument, but it was more of a mockery than anything. However, can you give an example of when a complexity does not require a greater complexity, or when simplicity can yield complexity? Specifically, can you point to a situation in which there is a decrease in entropy in a closed system?
To answer your question: "However, can you give an example of when a complexity does not require a greater complexity, or when simplicity can yield complexity?" - in computer science see bootstrapping. In biology, see development (the whole body develops from one cell). To address the larger topic discussed here: There is zero doubt among anybody who knows neuroscience that memory, intelligence, "consciousness", emotion, sense of self, perception, volition, hedonia, ect. are all materially based in the brain. This is not inconsistent with religion, it is just an aspect of our world like gravity.
someone else wrote:
vox cursor wrote:That is quite a non sequiter, first assuming that there actually *are* things beyond the material consciousness (an unfalsifiable claim) and then immediately relying on those intangibles for the existence of your own consciousness (unfalsifiable again). A heavy and untenable burden to place on an unknown quantity, no?
The consciousness did not have to be "put into" anything. The existence of a complexity does not require the existence of a greater complexity. Complexity can and does arise from simplicity. Complex consciousness does not require a more complex consciousness; it is merely the expression of emergent properties of simpler processes. To postulate a greater complexity to rationalize a lesser complexity leads to infinite regression.
I know it was a shaky argument, but it was more of a mockery than anything. However, can you give an example of when a complexity does not require a greater complexity, or when simplicity can yield complexity? Specifically, can you point to a situation in which there is a decrease in entropy in a closed system?
Is this like Tron. Will we be able to enjoy sex and running?
Concerned Citizen wrote:
Um . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predator_drone
__________________________________________________________
Hopefully any scientist who makes an AI like that isn't obtuse enough to put it in a predator drone.