The amazing things we will see in our lifetime...

[Mr_J]

Every now and then I think of my granddad and how he had seen the world develop during his lifetime. We went from learning to fly to spaceflight within half a century. Genetics is only 30 or so years old, and now we can clone. At the beginning of a century we could detroy a building with artillery, half a century later we could level a city.

In my lifetime I have no doubt we'll see a cure for cancer, cloned organs etc, hovercars and sky highways, buildings 1km or 2 tall, space exploration etc. Who knows how long we will live if we are to die by natural causes. When we were born our life expentency was ~75. With the advances in medicine we are making, I have no doubt most of us will see 100, possibly much longer. Of course who wants to live that long unless they slow or stop the aging process. Just think of how far we have come over the last 100 years, and what we will see over the next hundred. It's an awesome time to live, and we are living in a special time in our species history.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Just think of how far we have come over the last 100 years, and what we will see over the next hundred.

[/ QUOTE ]

the advances of the past years (advances in communication, etc) should help facilitate advances in the next years...so this is indeed an exciting age.

although I can't say that I agree with..

[ QUOTE ]
hovercars and sky highways

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think with will be a broad option... Sure I agree with increased air traffic and a wider variety of airborn travel options, but a personal flying vehicle I think may be a little further off. The general technology will most definitely be there, but unless the population increase forces this type of thing (which is a possibility), I don't think that this will be too soon in the future.

[Mr_J]

100 years is a long time. A century ago we couldn't even fly. This statement was alot more ambitious than curing cancer or seeing the 22nd century, but I think it is possible. Not necessarily like star wars or the jetsons, but cars that don't have wheels that fly on highways (not big conrete ones like today). Our populations will grow hugely, so either we remove roads for building space, roads get built ont top of, cars get done altogether or we just keep roads as they are and build up. Maybe the technology will be there that we just keep building out instead of up (faster travel times between outskirts and city, or mulitple CBDs/work from home because of improved communications).

[madnak]

I'm more pessimistic. But I hope I'm wrong.

[Prodigy54321]

I would agree that it is possible, but assuming that we find a cheap efficient fuel source, which I don't see why we wouldn't, It would be I think much more efficient to have a mass transit system in the air, rather than a "highway" of personal airborn vehicles.

I guess that all I'm saying is exacly what you said

[ QUOTE ]
Not necessarily like star wars or the jetsons

[/ QUOTE ]

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just think of how far we have come over the last 100 years, and what we will see over the next hundred.

[/ QUOTE ]

the advances of the past years (advances in communication, etc) should help facilitate advances in the next years...so this is indeed an exciting age.

although I can't say that I agree with..

[ QUOTE ]
hovercars and sky highways

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think with will be a broad option... Sure I agree with increased air traffic and a wider variety of airborn travel options, but a personal flying vehicle I think may be a little further off. The general technology will most definitely be there, but unless the population increase forces this type of thing (which is a possibility), I don't think that this will be too soon in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me of these advances in communism you see that are better for the world.

[ShakeZula06]

Interesting book out called live long enough to live forever out. Basically says they'll come out with medicine that will allow you to live until your 150 or something, and by that time they'll have medicine to keep you alive forever, as the title implies. Theres a review for it on ZeeJustin's website, suprised he hasn't posted something in this thread yet.

[FredBoots]

We may live to see the beginning of the end. Our entire society is propped up with cheap fossil fuels (e.g., transportation, food). Eventually, they will be gone and if we haven't perfected fusion power by then, we're going back to the horse and cart.

[Gobgogbog]

A few years ago, I was trying to figure out what the chances are the United States would remain a single country throughout my lifetime. And at the outset I thought the chances might be smaller that I'd like, but I never quite got around to thinking too hard about it because I ran into a snag.

In order to think about the chances of the US surviving throughout my lifetime, I had to think a bit about how long I expect to live. And I thought, well, if I live another 60 years as is "expected", that is a LOOOONG time in terms of technological advances, especially conaidering the boom in genetics right now. And I thought, man, there's a decent chance that in the next 60 years there are advances that increase my life expectancy by even 40 years.

And in those additional 40 years, wow, maybe there will be advances that give me another 20 years, and in those 20 years...

And suddenly I can't rule out the possibility that our generation won't have a life expectancy of 150+ years. And maybe my kids 200 or more. And my grandkids... well, they might just be immortal.

I'm deadly serious about all this, by the way.

[BigBiceps]

I highly doubt we will have a cure for cancer in the next 100 years.

There might be treatments or cures for some specific types of cancers, but once the cancer has metastized the patient will still die.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt we will have a cure for cancer in the next 100 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think this?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting book out called live long enough to live forever out. Basically says they'll come out with medicine that will allow you to live until your 150 or something, and by that time they'll have medicine to keep you alive forever, as the title implies. Theres a review for it on ZeeJustin's website, suprised he hasn't posted something in this thread yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually for the OP I would recommend the Singularity is Near by the same author (Ray Kurzweil). The book deals with the authors theory of how evolution is accelerating (paradigm shifts become closer and closer together), and he shows how the same effects apply to virtually all aspects of information technology.

Basically, in the exponential graph of the advance of civilization, the singularity is the point where the graph starts to look like it is completely vertical (this graph started almost completely horizontal). The author explains why he thinks this point in history will occur in the middle of the next century and he talks about all the crazy [censored] that's gonna happen as a result.

Even if you can't believe the crazy predictions he's making (despite the fact that his past predictions ahve been proven true), the book is an amazingly interesting read.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
The book deals with the authors theory of how evolution is accelerating

[/ QUOTE ]

Biological evolution?

[soon2bepro]

when science has evolved enough to keep humans alive forever, religions as we know them will be history

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
when science has evolved enough to keep humans alive forever, religions as we know them will be history

[/ QUOTE ]

All humans? Forever?
I can't see this happening.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The book deals with the authors theory of how evolution is accelerating

[/ QUOTE ]

Biological evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, biological evolution. But the book also goes to show how the evolution of information technology is part of the same evolutionary progression.

Basically, we've reached the point where we can evolve faster than biology will allow us to naturally.

For example, when computers have the capacity of the human brain, those computers will being to design even more efficient computers. This is just a continuation (or the replacement) of biological evolution.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The book deals with the authors theory of how evolution is accelerating

[/ QUOTE ]

Biological evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, biological evolution. But the book also goes to show how the evolution of information technology is part of the same evolutionary progression.

Basically, we've reached the point where we can evolve faster than biology will allow us to naturally.

For example, when computers have the capacity of the human brain, those computers will being to design even more efficient computers. This is just a continuation (or the replacement) of biological evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have to read it but his ideas on evolution seem pretty weird and possibly uninformed.

And there's no way that computers will be able to mimic the human brain by the middle of the century IMO.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The book deals with the authors theory of how evolution is accelerating

[/ QUOTE ]

Biological evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, biological evolution. But the book also goes to show how the evolution of information technology is part of the same evolutionary progression.

Basically, we've reached the point where we can evolve faster than biology will allow us to naturally.

For example, when computers have the capacity of the human brain, those computers will being to design even more efficient computers. This is just a continuation (or the replacement) of biological evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have to read it but his ideas on evolution seem pretty weird and possibly uninformed.

And there's no way that computers will be able to mimic the human brain by the middle of the century IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bold is the only part of what you said that I even come close to agreeing with.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The book deals with the authors theory of how evolution is accelerating

[/ QUOTE ]

Biological evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, biological evolution. But the book also goes to show how the evolution of information technology is part of the same evolutionary progression.

Basically, we've reached the point where we can evolve faster than biology will allow us to naturally.

For example, when computers have the capacity of the human brain, those computers will being to design even more efficient computers. This is just a continuation (or the replacement) of biological evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have to read it but his ideas on evolution seem pretty weird and possibly uninformed.

And there's no way that computers will be able to mimic the human brain by the middle of the century IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bold is the only part of what you said that I even come close to agreeing with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. no need to get nasty about it.

[Rduke55]

I'm not saying that Kurzweil isn't brilliant in his field. But there's a laundry list of people that were legends in their fields branching out to others and most of the time it wasn't neccessarily great. Francis Crick and his consciousness stuff immediately comes to mind. I would guess they get to a point where they feel like they need to hit it out of the ball park in another field so they grab a huge question and try to give the huge answer.

While I don't know all the specifics of Kurzweil's writings, I am pretty familiar with a few and many experts in the fields in which he is dallying have serious problems with them.

Predictions of the scale of Kurzweil's are always shaky. Look at Paul Erlich's stuff.

Also, AI type people, more so than many others, seem to have a talent for making amazing claims and predictions. They haven't had the best track record with these. Marvin Minsky may be brilliant (depending on who you talk to) but, wow, was he way off on a lot.

[Mr_J]

FWIW I do think that there's a good chance I'll be part of the first 'immortal' generation. Not necessarily live forever, but the first huge leap in life expectancy. I really do think my generation could be seeing the mid 100s or greater. We've come so far in 30 years of genetics, I don't think we can even begin to speculate what will be possible in another 30.

I think we are all born close to the life expectancy breakthrough. If we don't see it ourselves, people a few decades younger than us definately will.

I doubt I will live to see poverty in western countries taken care of, let alone the starvation and disease that exist in the 3rd world countries.

[VanVeen]

The smugness with which you defend a book you barely understand is laughable.

There is no a priori reason why the rate at which 'paradigmatic shifts' occur should accelerate. There is no a posteriori reason why the rate at which 'paradigmatic shifts' occur should accelerate. There does not exist a language with working definitions to describe the methodological process by which we would even gather data to test his "Law of Accelerating Returns" (his graphs are LOL-funny). There is no causal model for the rate of technological growth. None whatsoever. Both Kurzweil and many of his critics are therefore engaging in baseless speculation when they proffer their respective theories on the nature of the curve describing the growth of technology. One cannot sincerely defend any position relevant to a discussion of "the rate of technological growth" without revealing one's ignorance.

General rule of thumb: no causal model? no theory. In fact, no nothing. Intellectually bankrupt rambling. Futurism does not involve scientific conjectures. Instead, it relies on meaningless suppositions based on limited data and arbitrary value schema to shape the nature of the extrapolations (usu designed to appeal to avg person - sophisticated salesmen)!

Good talk. See you out there.

[soon2bepro]

Of course there's a causal model, once you analyze how progress works, it becomes obvious that the rate of technical growth is exponential to the total number of people and to progress itself.

[Brom]

I'd like to add to this by reminding people of the massive impact of computers on everything. People are saying that genetics have come so far in the last 30 years, but keep in mind that computers have only been around for the last 10-20 years (depending on what you view as a useful computer).

It is said that processor speeds double every 20 months or so. I don't think I can even fathom the power that computers may have in another 50 years. Of course we will reach limits of the silicon chip, so we will need to get quantum computing downpat before the real revolutions will occur in almost every field of science.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
I would agree that it is possible, but assuming that we find a cheap efficient fuel source, which I don't see why we wouldn't, It would be I think much more efficient to have a mass transit system in the air, rather than a "highway" of personal airborn vehicles.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, there is now way we're going to allow the average idiot to fly. It's enough that they drive.

[madnak]

You can't just extend the rate of technological growth and assume that is going to hold up. Even if there are no physical limits, given our dependence on scarce resources and the mounting difficulty of passing certain theoretical barriers the exponential growth is likely to taper off or even decline.

People are saying thinks like "assuming we find a cheap efficient fuel source" and it's silly. Where would we find such a fuel source? How do you justify an assumption that we will? What happens if we don't?

We've come a long way in the last 100 years. But many predictions of thinkers from the early 20th century have not been borne out. We're likely to develop considerably over the next hundred years, but we have no way of knowing what that development will look like.

[amirite]

If they don't perfect the everlasting gobstopper before I die I'm going to be [censored] pissed.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't just extend the rate of technological growth and assume that is going to hold up.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you can easily show that it will (actually must) continue to increase.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if there are no physical limits, given our dependence on scarce resources and the mounting difficulty of passing certain theoretical barriers the exponential growth is likely to taper off or even decline.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't. The fact that resources are scarce is the very reason technology continues to advance. If everything human beings needed was superabundant (and therefore there were no economic goods) there would be no need at all for technology, and there would be none (i.e. The Garden of Eden).

[ QUOTE ]
People are saying thinks like "assuming we find a cheap efficient fuel source" and it's silly. Where would we find such a fuel source? How do you justify an assumption that we will? What happens if we don't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Energy, while being the fundamental resource, is not the technological bottleneck (or cliff) that most people assume it to be, given our proximity to a power source that continuously emits four hundred thousand million million million kilowatts. The costs of energy will continue to rise and it will make alternate sources and more efficient utlilization economically viable and inevitable. People fail to undrestand that energy is a cost that capitalists seek to minimize; the power requirements of every power-using consumer product tends toward a minimum (which is often zero).

[ QUOTE ]
We've come a long way in the last 100 years. But many predictions of thinkers from the early 20th century have not been borne out. We're likely to develop considerably over the next hundred years, but we have no way of knowing what that development will look like.

[/ QUOTE ]

No we don't. But current technologies are actually far in excess of most predictions. The "Where's my flying car?" response is misguided. Many futuristic predictions basically boil down to people living essentially the same lifestyle with gross futuristic doodads (like flying cars) tacked on. The truth is that technology has advanced so far so quickly that the fundamental lifestyle of the average person (in the FIrst world, at least) is radically different. We don't have flying cars for a number of reasons (the most important being government monopolization of roads and aviation administration), but we do have the technology to contain hundreds of hours of the play of entire symphony orchestras in a device the size of a cigarette lighter, or communicate with anyone on the planet (as long as they are similarly equipped) instantaneously with a device smaller than a deck of playing cards, or make incredibly complex calculations in moments that would have taken many, many, many lifetimes to perform when they were predicting "flying cars."

Not that I am completely optimistic. I think that there is a race on right now, a race between what's left of capitalism (the carcass gets smaller every year as government and mercantilist hyenas become ever more numerous) and the increasing pace of technological advance trying to make everyone wealthier, and government, which as I have explained recently acts to halt the progress of civilization and reverse it. Real wages in the western democracies have stagnated or begun to drop recently, despite ever increasing technology and productivity, and that is very, very frightening.

[bearly]

and soon you will be seriously dead...........b

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't just extend the rate of technological growth and assume that is going to hold up.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you can easily show that it will (actually must) continue to increase.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how is that?

[bearly]

kudos...........perhaps you have been around long enough to remember dirk pearson and sandy shaw's "life extension"---the "free radical" theory that had "progressive" drs. passing out every imaginable thing to their patients. oh yes, these various compounds (CoQ enzyme and all the rest) seemed to change about every 6 months..................b

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't just extend the rate of technological growth and assume that is going to hold up.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you can easily show that it will (actually must) continue to increase.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

See the thread on time preference and civilization, for one. Basically lowered time preference incentivizes longer, and hence more roundabout, and hence more productive, methods of production. A consequence of this is technological advance. Capitalists go to great lengths to hire the best innovators and technologists to a) produce new products and b) reduce the resources required to produce existing products, both of which inevitably lead to technological advances. And a consequence of these technological increases in productivity is that time preference is lowered still further, which leads to even more investment in even more roundabout, and hence more productive, technologically advanced production methods and products. Thus there is a natural feedback mechanism that drives technological advances.

In fact, it is precisely when resources get scarcer that the pace of tachnological innovation increases, not decreases. It's actually pretty cool.

[madnak]

That's assuming there are more productive methods. What is the justification for this assumption? What is the mechanism by which you propose this happens? Computers are going faster and faster as the components get smaller. But we will run into a brick wall when those components reach the size of fundamental particles (if not sooner). At that point we need a completely new paradigm in order to make computers faster. And why do we assume there is some "new paradigm" out there somewhere that will allow us to create faster computers using the resources we have at hand?

What if better computer technology isn't possible? What if it requires a resource that doesn't exist on earth (and must be harvested, very slowly, from other planets creating a bottleneck for advancement). Or what if those planets exist millions of light years away and we have to figure out how to get there without using advanced computers (assuming that is possible)? Or what if new computer systems require an incubation period? (As, say, self-replicating programs spend decades developing into true AIs)

You're looking at innovation like it's a resource. I don't accept that perspective, but even by that standard I fail to see how your views are justified. How do we know that it isn't a finite resource? How do we know that innovation doesn't become more and more difficult to "harvest" as we get "deeper" into the reserves?

Do you think technology will continue to advance at an exponential rate 1000 years from now? Do you believe that human beings are capable of omnipotence? Do you think we can create a vessel that will move faster than the speed of light? Do you believe we can break the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy? Do you believe we can make 2+2=5? If you answered no to any of those questions there must be some theoretical limit to what technology can accomplish. And as we approach that limit it will likely take greater and greater effort to achieve each innovation, until it becomes literally impossible for technology to go any further.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
That's assuming there are more productive methods. What is the justification for this assumption? What is the mechanism by which you propose this happens? Computers are going faster and faster as the components get smaller. But we will run into a brick wall when those components reach the size of fundamental particles (if not sooner). At that point we need a completely new paradigm in order to make computers faster. And why do we assume there is some "new paradigm" out there somewhere that will allow us to create faster computers using the resources we have at hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's between a third and a half of a gallon of computer in your head that exceeds the capacity of all man-made computers on Earth. Someone I doubt that human technology is close to running out of room for improvement.

[ QUOTE ]
What if better computer technology isn't possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

See above

[ QUOTE ]
What if it requires a resource that doesn't exist on earth (and must be harvested, very slowly, from other planets creating a bottleneck for advancement). Or what if those planets exist millions of light years away and we have to figure out how to get there without using advanced computers (assuming that is possible)? Or what if new computer systems require an incubation period? (As, say, self-replicating programs spend decades developing into true AIs)

[/ QUOTE ]

What if magic pixie dust is required? The next frontier in computing is already visible on the horizon, quantum computing, and it will increase computer power by orders of magnitude.

[ QUOTE ]
You're looking at innovation like it's a resource. I don't accept that perspective, but even by that standard I fail to see how your views are justified. How do we know that it isn't a finite resource? How do we know that innovation doesn't become more and more difficult to "harvest" as we get "deeper" into the reserves?

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes little sense. I am not treating innovation like a resource, it seems like you are. I can look at the computing power of the human brain, which is a physical device, and it is intuitevly clear that human computing technology has a long, long, long way to go. I can look at the cellular machinery of life and understand that the gigantic devices of even the most miniaturized human technology have a long, long, long way to go before running out of "innovation space." I can look at the enormous power output of the Sun, all just streaming away into space, nearly 100% waste, and realize that human energy needs are infinitesimally small compared to available reserves.

The increasing level of technology increases the rate at which technology may advance. Any resource that becomes a potential bottleneck will draw ever greater amounts of capital and ever larger numbers of innovators until technological advancement removes the bottleneck.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think technology will continue to advance at an exponential rate 1000 years from now?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think a "singularity" in human technology will occur in less than 30 years. 50 at the most.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe that human beings are capable of omnipotence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Omnipotentence? No. We won't be able to violate the laws of physics. But our technology will be capable of things that to us, today, would seem miraculous, magical, and impossible. Just like our technology would seem to someone from as little as 50 years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think we can create a vessel that will move faster than the speed of light?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the laws of physics don't allow it, no. I'm interested in the recent news story that someone posted about a unification theory (a quite old one, from like 1948) that allows for faster-than-light travel. I'm highly skeptical, but apparently the theory produces a calculation which predicts the masses of the fundamental particles (to within measurement precision), which is astounding and unheard of (even QCD only gets to within 1-10% of the correct values). But I am extremely skeptical. I'll believe when I see it.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe we can break the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe we can make 2+2=5?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
If you answered no to any of those questions there must be some theoretical limit to what technology can accomplish. And as we approach that limit it will likely take greater and greater effort to achieve each innovation, until it becomes literally impossible for technology to go any further.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the problem seems to be that you seem to have little comprehension (perhaps its a problem of imagination) of just how advanced technology can theoretically become, and just how incredibly rudimentary our current technology is compared to the theoretical limits.

So no, unless government manages to reverse the trend of civilization and set us back to the stone age, there is nothing that can halt the advance of human technology before it exhausts all conceivable "innovation space," which is so much more immensely advanced than our current technological level that it will seem truly miraculous, and its wielders truly Godlike, by our standards. And it will be here in under 30 years.

[madnak]

The human brain isn't a computer. There are things a computer can do that a human brain can't, and vice versa. The structure and function of the two objects are entirely different. Many artificial intelligence specialists have cast doubt on just what is possible with computers.

There is not yet any mechanism for quantum computing or for efficiently collecting solar power. The fact that the energy exists doesn't necessarily mean we can harness it. The clouds exist, but that doesn't mean I can jump high enough to reach them. It's possible for an object to travel very quickly, but that doesn't mean humans will ever be able to run a one-minute mile.

No specific mechanism has been proposed that will accomplish all these miraculous achievements. You are assuming that such a mechanism exists and that we will find it. You also assume that there is a technological solution to every obstacle, which is begging the question. If technology can eliminate the bottleneck, then it really isn't a bottleneck to innovation.

Again, you haven't presented any arguments supporting the idea that our "innovation space" is so vast. You say there is solar energy, so we will figure out a way to use it. And I agree that we will make solar collectors more efficient. Because specific mechanisms have been proposed to accomplish this. But those mechanisms will hardly allow us to harness the full energy of the sun. And you haven't explained how we are going to do that, or why you think we are able to. Also you speak of natural mechanics as though we can do much better. Personally I think creating any device on the level of a natural organism is close to the limits of human endeavor. Why do you believe that because brains exist, we must be able to improve on them?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
The human brain isn't a computer. There are things a computer can do that a human brain can't, and vice versa. The structure and function of the two objects are entirely different. Many artificial intelligence specialists have cast doubt on just what is possible with computers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. I knew this was coming. Yes, the brain is a computer. It is a vastly better computer at some things than any human built computer, and it isn't good at all at some things that human computers are very good at. But that is only because the human brain wasn't "designed" to be good at those things. A computer designed to be good at those things, but at the level of sophistication of the brain, would be vastly superior to any existing computer technology.

[ QUOTE ]
There is not yet any mechanism for quantum computing or for efficiently collecting solar power. The fact that the energy exists doesn't necessarily mean we can harness it. The clouds exist, but that doesn't mean I can jump high enough to reach them. It's possible for an object to travel very quickly, but that doesn't mean humans will ever be able to run a one-minute mile.

[/ QUOTE ]

How sad it must be to be you. I can just picture you making these same arguments 10 years ago, 20, 50, 100. Human beings don't have to jump to the clouds or run a one minute mile. We build machines to help us. I've flown through the clouds many times and beat a one-minute mile every day, using technologies that you probably would have pessimisticaly warned "might never be possible" before their advent.

[ QUOTE ]
No specific mechanism has been proposed that will accomplish all these miraculous achievements.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what?

[ QUOTE ]
You are assuming that such a mechanism exists and that we will find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It seems like the most parsimonious assumption.

[ QUOTE ]
You also assume that there is a technological solution to every obstacle,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
which is begging the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
If technology can eliminate the bottleneck, then it really isn't a bottleneck to innovation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is in the short term. Which is what drives the technological advances required to overcome it.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you haven't presented any arguments supporting the idea that our "innovation space" is so vast.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's self-evident. If you disagree, I think it's a problem of lack of imagination on your part, or lack of understanding of the importance, subtlety, complexity, and capabilities of "natural" technologies, combined with a lack of understanding of the quantity of resources that are available off-planet.

[ QUOTE ]
You say there is solar energy, so we will figure out a way to use it. And I agree that we will make solar collectors more efficient. Because specific mechanisms have been proposed to accomplish this. But those mechanisms will hardly allow us to harness the full energy of the sun. And you haven't explained how we are going to do that, or why you think we are able to.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think too small. I'm thinking giant orbital mirrors. Or rmaybe not. Maybe it'll be fusion. Or maybe electricity generated from space elevators. Personally I like orbital mirrors.

[ QUOTE ]
Also you speak of natural mechanics as though we can do much better. Personally I think creating any device on the level of a natural organism is close to the limits of human endeavor. Why do you believe that because brains exist, we must be able to improve on them?

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to believe that we're even close to either of these technologies. We're nowhere near. That's the point. Clearly the technologies can exist, they already do, all around us. Why do you think that nature can produce something but mankind cannot?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol. I knew this was coming. Yes, the brain is a computer. It is a vastly better computer at some things than any human built computer, and it isn't good at all at some things that human computers are very good at. But that is only because the human brain wasn't "designed" to be good at those things. A computer designed to be good at those things, but at the level of sophistication of the brain, would be vastly superior to any existing computer technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brains and computers function in completely different ways. I don't want to get into semantics. It's not the same type of technology.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is not yet any mechanism for quantum computing or for efficiently collecting solar power. The fact that the energy exists doesn't necessarily mean we can harness it. The clouds exist, but that doesn't mean I can jump high enough to reach them. It's possible for an object to travel very quickly, but that doesn't mean humans will ever be able to run a one-minute mile.

[/ QUOTE ]

How sad it must be to be you. I can just picture you making these same arguments 10 years ago, 20, 50, 100. Human beings don't have to jump to the clouds or run a one minute mile. We build machines to help us. I've flown through the clouds many times and beat a one-minute mile every day, using technologies that you probably would have pessimisticaly warned "might never be possible" before their advent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. Of course, if I were alive 100 years ago I would fully believe that humans could fly and that automobiles could reach very high speeds. But I would consider the question of whether humans could walk on the moon unresolved. Certainly if someone asked me to bet my life that humans would walk on the moon I would never have made that bet for anything. And I definitely wouldn't have staked the existence of the entire human species on such a claim. Possibly I would have bet quite a lot of money on even odds, possibly I wouldn't have. It's hard to say.

But there was no excuse for absolute certainty. There never is. If you feel the need to view the world in terms of black and white that is your prerogative. But I choose not to.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, you haven't presented any arguments supporting the idea that our "innovation space" is so vast.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's self-evident. If you disagree, I think it's a problem of lack of imagination on your part, or lack of understanding of the importance, subtlety, complexity, and capabilities of "natural" technologies, combined with a lack of understanding of the quantity of resources that are available off-planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's "self-evident" to anyone with imagination, and that is all the reasoning you can give to support it? And you expect me to just take your word for it, that I have a deficit of imagination and otherwise I would believe the same thing? And I assume I'm supposed to go on your definition of imagination.

If I substitute "faith" for "imagination" I end up with an argument that I see frequently. If I gave that argument any credit I would be a Christian.


[ QUOTE ]
You think too small. I'm thinking giant orbital mirrors. Or rmaybe not. Maybe it'll be fusion. Or maybe electricity generated from space elevators. Personally I like orbital mirrors.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think too small. Based on current standards none of these technologies could create anywhere near enough power to support the exponential pace of advancement, even under the best conditions. They might in theory, but we would have to make them much more efficient somehow.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to believe that we're even close to either of these technologies. We're nowhere near. That's the point. Clearly the technologies can exist, they already do, all around us. Why do you think that nature can produce something but mankind cannot?

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are overgrown apes. If artificial intelligence is possible then the threshold would increase considerably. But I think it's a bit arrogant to assume human beings are capable of designing something on the level of nature. You have expressed your belief that a natural equilibrium is more fit to create economic solutions than human design; why is technology so different? Look at what humans have designed over the centuries and at the crude mistakes of even our greatest geniuses. In fact, many of our greatest technologies were accidental, and most of them rely on systems that we didn't create.

I have plenty of respect for humans, but however smart we are there are considerable limits to our intellect. We've identified limits to the mental capabilities of all other species on earth. Isn't the most parsimonious assumption the idea that we have limits, too? That some intelligent alien race may see us in the same light that we see dogs or horses? That there are entire categories of intelligence of which humans (as they exist today) are not capable?

I think if an artificial intelligence does develop it will be through emergent programming and self-replicating algorithms, not by design. A human being actually designing an AI is about as reasonable as a gorilla designing a car engine. Many of our recent technologies would have been impossible without computers. They have effectively extended the capacities of our minds. But far from adding anything qualitative to our thinking, they are not even capable of the most basic categories of thought.

In reality, we already fail to understand many of our technologies. Humans haven't actually cloned anything - they have simply figured out how to trigger a process. Humans don't fight diseases either - microorganisms fight diseases. Many medical treatments still amount to cutting someone open and removing the offending element. Increases in human longevity are mainly due to refining chemicals from plants and breeding strains of microorganisms (at a paradigmatic level not much different from ancient agricultural practices of culling). We don't even understand the basics of how many medications work. We know they work, so we use them, and that is the end of it.

Real paradigm shifts and revolutionary ideas still happen pretty rarely. Most of technological advancement is either accidental or is just refinement.

[Leaky Eye]

Deep fried cubanos on sticks. Also, the cure for coronary artery disease.

[Darryl_P]

I'm with you.

I think it's safe to say that a human brain is several orders of magnitude more complex than an amoeba. The moment humans are capable of creating an amoeba from only non-living materials is the moment I'll start believing in any of this transhumanism stuff.

[flatline]

[ QUOTE ]

Brains and computers function in completely different ways. I don't want to get into semantics. It's not the same type of technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is claiming it is the exact same type of technology. The point is that it is possible to build something at least as good as the brain, and the brain is an example we can point to.

[ QUOTE ]

We've identified limits to the mental capabilities of all other species on earth. Isn't the most parsimonious assumption the idea that we have limits, too? That some intelligent alien race may see us in the same light that we see dogs or horses? That there are entire categories of intelligence of which humans (as they exist today) are not capable?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point is that we do have limits. We will use technology to surpass these limits. I think you have misunderstood the entire singularity argument.

[ QUOTE ]

I think if an artificial intelligence does develop it will be through emergent programming and self-replicating algorithms, not by design. A human being actually designing an AI is about as reasonable as a gorilla designing a car engine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree, but so what? That is just a method of design. Modern computer chips are not designed by people that draw every circuit; they are designed by computers that do the vast majority of the work.

[Mark L]

bring on the cure for cancer!!!!!!

[callmedonnie]

Anyone who seriously thinks they will live forever should be shot. Only one way to learn.

Edit: Seriously though, we all have to die. Thinking otherwise is petty and narcissistic.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
No one is claiming it is the exact same type of technology. The point is that it is possible to build something at least as good as the brain, and the brain is an example we can point to.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean we can design something like that, or that we can implement it if so.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the point is that we do have limits. We will use technology to surpass these limits. I think you have misunderstood the entire singularity argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

The singularity argument you're making depends on a large number of assumptions. No justification has been given for any of those sweeping assumptions.

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree, but so what? That is just a method of design. Modern computer chips are not designed by people that draw every circuit; they are designed by computers that do the vast majority of the work.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that we don't know whether true AI technology is possible. Even if it is, we have no reason to assume it is "smarter" than humans. And even if it is, that is no reason to assume it will have a greater technological output. Also if we don't directly design AI, then we may have a limited ability to improve upon it.

[soko]

Contrary to popular belief we already have the cure for cancer, it's called being healthy.

[Marko Schmarko]

[ QUOTE ]
Contrary to popular belief we already have the cure for cancer, it's called being healthy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hah, overstatement has its place, but I'm not sure it's here.