| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
21 Nov 2005 07:20:35 AM |
| Object: |
Ray Kurzweil |
The ideas interview: Ray Kurzweil
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1647028,00.html
Expect the human of the future to be at least part computer, the
inventor and futurologist tells John Sutherland
Monday November 21, 2005
The Guardian
Ray Kurzweil has enormous faith in science. He takes 250 dietary
supplements every day. He is sure computers will make him much, much
cleverer within decades. He won't rule out being able to live for ever.
Even if medical technology cannot prevent the life passing from his
body, he thinks there is a good chance he will be able to secure
immortality by downloading the contents of his enhanced brain before he
dies.
Ray Kurzweil
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e1f8fcf316855fce
.
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 03:05:46 PM |
|
|
On 20 Nov 2005 23:20:35 -0800, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
The ideas interview: Ray Kurzweil
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1647028,00.html
Expect the human of the future to be at least part computer, the
inventor and futurologist tells John Sutherland
Monday November 21, 2005
The Guardian
Ray Kurzweil has enormous faith in science. He takes 250 dietary
supplements every day. He is sure computers will make him much, much
cleverer within decades. He won't rule out being able to live for ever.
Even if medical technology cannot prevent the life passing from his
body, he thinks there is a good chance he will be able to secure
immortality by downloading the contents of his enhanced brain before he
dies.
I, too, take several hundred "dietary supplements" every day. They
are also called "bites of food". Even so, 250 seems like an
outrageously large number of bites (or of pills).
Kurzweil has built a name for himself with some clever and important
ideas and with many more outrageous positions. There is a difference
between publicity and reality. He is truly wacky if he believes that
neurobiology will be able to identify within the next half century
either what the "contents of the brain" are or how to "download" it.
Then, of course, there is the problem of whether having a CD (OK,
probably a DVD) of your brain contents sitting on the shelf in some
repository constitutes "immortality".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 03:36:38 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Ray Kurzweil has enormous faith in science. He takes 250 dietary
supplements every day. He is sure computers will make him much, much
cleverer within decades.
Kurtzweil will grow old and die just like the rest of us. If he is lucky
he will die before he becomes senile. The problem is that Kurtzweil who
is a bit of a techno-coo-coo, has not get the serenity to accept the
inevitable. Our species is not selected for longevity, but for
fecundity. If ability to pro-create were delayed until the sixth decade,
then our species would either become extinct or the survivors would be
selected for longevity.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 09:08:37 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
maff wrote:
Ray Kurzweil has enormous faith in science. He takes 250 dietary
supplements every day. He is sure computers will make him much, much
cleverer within decades.
Kurtzweil will grow old and die just like the rest of us. If he is lucky
he will die before he becomes senile. The problem is that Kurtzweil who
is a bit of a techno-coo-coo, has not get the serenity to accept the
inevitable. Our species is not selected for longevity, but for
fecundity. If ability to pro-create were delayed until the sixth decade,
then our species would either become extinct or the survivors would be
selected for longevity.
Bob Kolker
Old age - indeed, any damage to the body - will be seen as a trivial
problem in the very near future. We are getting very good, very
quickly, at manipulating very small things (such as molecules) and
crunching numbers. In the history of humankind, it will be the blink of
an eye and the immortals will be here.
Of course, the diffference between 30 years and 80 years of development
is considerable from *my point of view, but in the big view it will be
only an instant.
So many unknowns will be happening at about the same time that the
outcome is completely unpredictable, which is why many of us call it
the singularity. The youth drugs alone will have unpredictable results;
what happens to the population when we stop dying off so quickly? What
happens to retirement and stocks when we live to be 120 on the average?
320?
And there are the questions of engineered terrorist plagues,
genetically enhanced human or other critters, AI, other unpredictable
introductions of intelligence and incomprehensible motives...
I wouldn't mind hanging around a little longer. We may not be selected
for longevity, but we have a way of dismissing our limitations. We
weren't selected to live in the frozen tundra or fly in the skies,
either.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 09:21:09 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Old age - indeed, any damage to the body - will be seen as a trivial
problem in the very near future. We are getting very good, very
quickly, at manipulating very small things (such as molecules) and
crunching numbers. In the history of humankind, it will be the blink of
an eye and the immortals will be here.
In your dreams. And you have not yet considered the possibility of
unintended side effects.
Of course, the diffference between 30 years and 80 years of development
is considerable from *my point of view, but in the big view it will be
only an instant.
Neither you nor I will be around to see if you are right. I am betting
on the stubborness of nature to thwart our most grandiose plans.
So many unknowns will be happening at about the same time that the
outcome is completely unpredictable, which is why many of us call it
the singularity. The youth drugs alone will have unpredictable results;
what happens to the population when we stop dying off so quickly? What
happens to retirement and stocks when we live to be 120 on the average?
320?
Our current financial and social instutions will be brought down. And
with what effects. Suppose only the rich get the benefits of this
technology. Then the poor will burn the world down and bring it to ruin.
That will be the grandest unintended side effect. It goes like this: if
I can't live to be a thousand like you, then YOU and I die today. Envy
and schadenfreude are very powerful impulses.
And there are the questions of engineered terrorist plagues,
genetically enhanced human or other critters, AI, other unpredictable
introductions of intelligence and incomprehensible motives...
I wouldn't mind hanging around a little longer. We may not be selected
for longevity, but we have a way of dismissing our limitations. We
weren't selected to live in the frozen tundra or fly in the skies,
either.
We don't live in the in the tundra exactly. We bring the warmer climate
to the tundra. It is called housing. Similarly our astronauts do not
live in outer space. They wear enough innerspace in outer space to stay
alive.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Togakure" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 10:58:16 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com wrote:
Old age - indeed, any damage to the body - will be seen as a trivial
problem in the very near future. We are getting very good, very
quickly, at manipulating very small things (such as molecules) and
crunching numbers. In the history of humankind, it will be the blink of
an eye and the immortals will be here.
In your dreams. And you have not yet considered the possibility of
unintended side effects.
You'll find that many of today's advancements and achievements that we
now take for granted were once nothing more than "in someone's dreams."
There is always the possiblity of unintended side effects, but I would
imagine that the experts have thought about this too and will take this
into account. It's all physics and chemistry, after all.
Of course, the diffference between 30 years and 80 years of development
is considerable from *my point of view, but in the big view it will be
only an instant.
Neither you nor I will be around to see if you are right. I am betting
on the stubborness of nature to thwart our most grandiose plans.
I'd place my money on the cleverness of human (and eventually,
artificial) intellect to overcome whatever problems we see fit to set
out to solve. Depending on your age and how you choose to live your
lifestyle, whether or not you are here to see the outcome is pretty
much up to you at this point.
So many unknowns will be happening at about the same time that the
outcome is completely unpredictable, which is why many of us call it
the singularity. The youth drugs alone will have unpredictable results;
what happens to the population when we stop dying off so quickly? What
happens to retirement and stocks when we live to be 120 on the average?
320?
Our current financial and social instutions will be brought down. And
with what effects. Suppose only the rich get the benefits of this
technology. Then the poor will burn the world down and bring it to ruin.
That will be the grandest unintended side effect. It goes like this: if
I can't live to be a thousand like you, then YOU and I die today. Envy
and schadenfreude are very powerful impulses.
The rich always take early advantage of new technology because they are
the ones that can afford it. But as technology has shown time and time
again, technology progresses and today's expensive prototypes become
tomorrow's affordable production models and become the next day's cheap
piece of commonplace that everyone has. As Mr. Kurzweil has shown, this
happens at an exponential rate, not linearly. Current financial and
social institutions may be brought down, it's very possible. But we
humans will do what we have always done and what we are best at: adapt.
And there are the questions of engineered terrorist plagues,
genetically enhanced human or other critters, AI, other unpredictable
introductions of intelligence and incomprehensible motives...
I wouldn't mind hanging around a little longer. We may not be selected
for longevity, but we have a way of dismissing our limitations. We
weren't selected to live in the frozen tundra or fly in the skies,
either.
We don't live in the in the tundra exactly. We bring the warmer climate
to the tundra. It is called housing. Similarly our astronauts do not
live in outer space. They wear enough innerspace in outer space to stay
alive.
Bob Kolker
As a reply to the grandparent post, Jeff Hawkins makes some interesting
AI-based predictions based on his pattern-prediction model of how the
brain works to create intelligence and consciousness and posits that AI
will be intelligent, but not in a "human" way, such as an intelligence
that reads weather patterns by monitoring from a sensor grid spread out
over the globe with a sensor every, say, 50 miles across a continent
and "learns" the pattern of weather (that's what neural nets do, learn
and assimilate patterns). Weather is much to complex to try to model
from the bottom up with the almost infinite number of variables
involved, but with an AI that can look from the top-down and learn the
patterns of weather across the world and "see" and identify weather
like we see and identify faces, etc. Fascinating stuff. He doubts (and
I concur) that AI will be the oppressive Matrix-entity of sci-fi fame.
Back to replying to Bob, we technically don't live in the tundra, we
live in houses, yes, but we live in houses because that is how we adapt
and overcome using our knowledge and technology to survive in that
environment, just as we will adapt and overcome using knowledge and
technology to survive old age and death by keeping ourselves healthy
(Kurzweil's Bridge One), applying genetics and bioengineering (Bridge
Two) and eventually nanotechnology (Bridge Three).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
22 Nov 2005 12:26:48 AM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
maff wrote:
Ray Kurzweil has enormous faith in science. He takes 250 dietary
supplements every day. He is sure computers will make him much, much
cleverer within decades.
Kurtzweil will grow old and die just like the rest of us. If he is lucky
he will die before he becomes senile. The problem is that Kurtzweil who
is a bit of a techno-coo-coo, has not get the serenity to accept the
inevitable. Our species is not selected for longevity, but for
fecundity. If ability to pro-create were delayed until the sixth decade,
then our species would either become extinct or the survivors would be
selected for longevity.
Life and Death in the 21st Century:
Living Forever
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/living_forever.shtml
Life and Death in the 21st Century:
Future Plagues
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/future_plagues.shtml
Life and Death in the 21st Century:
Designer Babies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/designer_babies.shtml
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Togakure" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 04:48:45 PM |
|
|
So you've read Kurtzweil's (sic) books and understand where he's coming
from, haven't you? I'm guessing not, otherwise you wouldn't be so quick
to dismiss him out of hand. He isn't just some random guy pulling ideas
out his *****; Kurzweil thoroughly researches these ideas and bases his
predictions on his findings.
Our species wasn't selected for longevity; indeed, this is the very
reason why Ray is looking to fight it by reprogramming his body
chemistry to do away with or reverse old evolutionary "programs" that
are no longer needed in this day and age. That's what life physically
boils down to: chemical processes. The human species is no longer
fighting to survive to reproduce. Age after child-bearing no longer
means you have to be a burden on resources without contribution. Why
not fight for longevity? Taken to the logical end, if you think
fighting to extend life is not a worthy cause, why have an entire
medical profession?
If you haven't read Ray's works, then you're just spouting uninformed
nonsense. Amazing the number of people who think they know better than
the experts without even cracking a book.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 05:03:10 PM |
|
|
Togakure wrote:
So you've read Kurtzweil's (sic) books and understand where he's coming
from, haven't you? I'm guessing not, otherwise you wouldn't be so quick
to dismiss him out of hand. He isn't just some random guy pulling ideas
out his *****; Kurzweil thoroughly researches these ideas and bases his
predictions on his findings.
That still does not make him right. I detect a lot of wishful thinking
underneath Kurtzweil's so-called rationalism. I believe he is
rationalizing.
Our species wasn't selected for longevity; indeed, this is the very
reason why Ray is looking to fight it by reprogramming his body
chemistry to do away with or reverse old evolutionary "programs" that
are no longer needed in this day and age. That's what life physically
boils down to: chemical processes. The human species is no longer
fighting to survive to reproduce. Age after child-bearing no longer
means you have to be a burden on resources without contribution. Why
not fight for longevity? Taken to the logical end, if you think
fighting to extend life is not a worthy cause, why have an entire
medical profession?
One can still contribute to one's own welfare and the welfare of others
after the days of reproducing pass. Grandparents have a function in the
upbringing of their grandchildren. They can pass on knowledge and
wisdom. They can also babysit when mom and dad want to go out and have
an evening alone.
If you haven't read Ray's works, then you're just spouting uninformed
nonsense. Amazing the number of people who think they know better than
the experts without even cracking a book.
I have not only read Kurtzweil's stuff, I have talked with him. He
reminds me of another shoot from the hip speculator, Steve Wolfram of
Mathematica fame. Kurtzweil is a very talented engineer but that does
not give him any chops in the biological domain.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Togakure" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 07:40:13 PM |
|
|
Have you read Fantastic Voyage? The book was also co-authored by Terry
Grossman, M.D. The book's companion site, www.fantastic-voyage.net, has
plenty of excerpts and extras to give you an idea of Ray's "chops". For
a man who has conquered diabetes and has a biological age of 40 at the
chronological age of 56, it seems he knows what he's doing.
You seem like a nice, knowledgeable guy from my lurking around here,
but on this issue I'll have to agree to disagree with you. :) I would
hope when you met him, you didn't mispronounce his name. ;)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 07:56:19 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Togakure wrote:
So you've read Kurtzweil's (sic) books and understand where he's coming
from, haven't you? I'm guessing not, otherwise you wouldn't be so quick
to dismiss him out of hand. He isn't just some random guy pulling ideas
out his *****; Kurzweil thoroughly researches these ideas and bases his
predictions on his findings.
That still does not make him right. I detect a lot of wishful thinking
underneath Kurtzweil's so-called rationalism. I believe he is
rationalizing.
What hes being overoptimistic about I believe is the timeline; Just in
time to keep him from the compost heap. The actual principles are
reasonable and I fully expect in several hundred years the dominant
feature of what was once human civilization to be artificial
intelligence, whereas you seem to cling to a more classical view of the
role of human life.
If you haven't read Ray's works, then you're just spouting uninformed
nonsense. Amazing the number of people who think they know better than
the experts without even cracking a book.
I have not only read Kurtzweil's stuff, I have talked with him. He
reminds me of another shoot from the hip speculator, Steve Wolfram of
Mathematica fame. Kurtzweil is a very talented engineer but that does
not give him any chops in the biological domain.
He has a lot of interesting observations, but hes too optimistic about
integration of agents and software development, and far to optimistic
about the consequences of the advent of AI. He envisions some
techno-eutopia where no one dies and people are vastly more free to
pursue what they want, but its just as plausible that the first
artificial intelligence systems become god machines that exterminate
and repress the vast bulk of what was once humanity (as played out in
countless bad sci-fi flicks with the exception that the plucky humans
have no chance of survival or competition)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cyde Weys" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 08:49:31 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
The ideas interview: Ray Kurzweil
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1647028,00.html
Expect the human of the future to be at least part computer, the
inventor and futurologist tells John Sutherland
Monday November 21, 2005
The Guardian
Ray Kurzweil has enormous faith in science. He takes 250 dietary
supplements every day. He is sure computers will make him much, much
cleverer within decades. He won't rule out being able to live for ever.
Even if medical technology cannot prevent the life passing from his
body, he thinks there is a good chance he will be able to secure
immortality by downloading the contents of his enhanced brain before he
dies.
Ray Kurzweil
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e1f8fcf316855fce
I know these ideas may seem "out there" now, but there is no reason to
think they won't come true some day. Downloading human minds into
computers has been around in science fiction for decades. The only
limitation, really, is making a computer powerful enough and developing
some physical interface to convert the neuronal structure in the brain
into binary data in the computer.
I think we're going to see human/computer convergence very soon. We
already have people who are using totally artificial ears and eyes to
regain some of their senses. These implants work by directly
stimulating the nerves in the brain. I don't see it being very far off
when these implants are developed for the use of healthy people.
Imagine a PDA that interacted directly with your nervous system, just
look around to navigate parts of the menus. All that would have to be
implanted is the receptors that bind to the neurons ... the rest of it
would be outside your body and held on your person, like a cell phone,
except that it would communicate to the implant with radiowaves. And
of course the PDA would have wireless internet. Just imagine, being
able to surf the internet in your head! You'd never be at a lack for
information again. And dead tree books would become unnecessary, as
text would be "beamed" directly into your field of vision thanks to the
implant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 03:37:43 PM |
|
|
Cyde Weys wrote:
I know these ideas may seem "out there" now, but there is no reason to
think they won't come true some day.
It is like Snow White sang after sending her honeymoon pictures in for
developing. Some Day my Prints Will Come.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CreateThis" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 02:25:20 PM |
|
|
Cyde Weys wrote:
I think we're going to see human/computer convergence very soon.
I bet you can already see it on pay-per-view.
CT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 03:38:41 PM |
|
|
CreateThis wrote:
Cyde Weys wrote:
I think we're going to see human/computer convergence very soon.
I bet you can already see it on pay-per-view.
Wait until the kids get those MicroSoft game boxes for Xmas.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alky" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 01:10:23 PM |
|
|
Cyde Weys wrote:
maff wrote:
The ideas interview: Ray Kurzweil
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1647028,00.html
Expect the human of the future to be at least part computer, the
inventor and futurologist tells John Sutherland
Monday November 21, 2005
The Guardian
Ray Kurzweil has enormous faith in science. He takes 250 dietary
supplements every day. He is sure computers will make him much, much
cleverer within decades. He won't rule out being able to live for ever.
Even if medical technology cannot prevent the life passing from his
body, he thinks there is a good chance he will be able to secure
immortality by downloading the contents of his enhanced brain before he
dies.
Ray Kurzweil
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e1f8fcf316855fce
I know these ideas may seem "out there" now, but there is no reason to
think they won't come true some day. Downloading human minds into
computers has been around in science fiction for decades. The only
limitation, really, is making a computer powerful enough and developing
some physical interface to convert the neuronal structure in the brain
into binary data in the computer.
I think we're going to see human/computer convergence very soon. We
already have people who are using totally artificial ears and eyes to
regain some of their senses. These implants work by directly
stimulating the nerves in the brain. I don't see it being very far off
when these implants are developed for the use of healthy people.
Imagine a PDA that interacted directly with your nervous system, just
look around to navigate parts of the menus. All that would have to be
implanted is the receptors that bind to the neurons ... the rest of it
would be outside your body and held on your person, like a cell phone,
except that it would communicate to the implant with radiowaves. And
of course the PDA would have wireless internet. Just imagine, being
able to surf the internet in your head! You'd never be at a lack for
information again. And dead tree books would become unnecessary, as
text would be "beamed" directly into your field of vision thanks to the
implant.
I would never put something that linked up using wifi between my eyes
and my brain. I wouldn't want to literally install the potential for
someone to show me images I don't want to see. On the other hand, it
would be useful...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cyde Weys" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 07:53:18 PM |
|
|
Alky wrote:
Cyde Weys wrote:
I know these ideas may seem "out there" now, but there is no reason to
think they won't come true some day. Downloading human minds into
computers has been around in science fiction for decades. The only
limitation, really, is making a computer powerful enough and developing
some physical interface to convert the neuronal structure in the brain
into binary data in the computer.
I think we're going to see human/computer convergence very soon. We
already have people who are using totally artificial ears and eyes to
regain some of their senses. These implants work by directly
stimulating the nerves in the brain. I don't see it being very far off
when these implants are developed for the use of healthy people.
Imagine a PDA that interacted directly with your nervous system, just
look around to navigate parts of the menus. All that would have to be
implanted is the receptors that bind to the neurons ... the rest of it
would be outside your body and held on your person, like a cell phone,
except that it would communicate to the implant with radiowaves. And
of course the PDA would have wireless internet. Just imagine, being
able to surf the internet in your head! You'd never be at a lack for
information again. And dead tree books would become unnecessary, as
text would be "beamed" directly into your field of vision thanks to the
implant.
I would never put something that linked up using wifi between my eyes
and my brain. I wouldn't want to literally install the potential for
someone to show me images I don't want to see. On the other hand, it
would be useful...
The point is you don't want there to be a direct wire as that can cause
all sorts of medical problems -- you want the skin barrier to be
complete, so you really aren't left with anything beyond light
(specifically, radio). However, the system would come prebuilt with
very strong encryption so the only signals that the brain implant
recognize come from your PDA-like device.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Arensburger" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 03:49:37 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Cyde Weys <cydeweys@gmail.com> wrote:
And
of course the PDA would have wireless internet. Just imagine, being
able to surf the internet in your head!
[...]
And dead tree books would become unnecessary, as
text would be "beamed" directly into your field of vision thanks to the
implant.
This sounded great until I realized that there'll inevitably
be beamed-straight-into-your-brain spam.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-bloody-spam@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Mornings are a delusion of the planetbound.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cyde Weys" |
|
| Title: Re: Ray Kurzweil |
21 Nov 2005 07:54:39 PM |
|
|
Andrew Arensburger wrote:
In talk.origins Cyde Weys <cydeweys@gmail.com> wrote:
And
of course the PDA would have wireless internet. Just imagine, being
able to surf the internet in your head!
[...]
And dead tree books would become unnecessary, as
text would be "beamed" directly into your field of vision thanks to the
implant.
This sounded great until I realized that there'll inevitably
be beamed-straight-into-your-brain spam.
Nah, the only signals the brain implant would recognize would come from
your PDA, both of which would be locked down with heavy encryption.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
