92 replies to this topic

[Futurist1000]

Ray Kurzweil does seem to get a lot of stuff wrong. However, he is really smart and extremely innovative/creative. He is a novel meme generator and we need as many of those people as we can get. I think he tends to get some of the big stuff wrong, but he is a constant source of interesting ideas. So I don't really mind that much. Plus, I tend to think a lot of the stuff he says as within the realm of extreme possibility even if its not totally realistic or practical. Maybe it won't ever happen, but it is usually somewhat (even if tenuously) grounded in some actual science. He is respected enough that DARPA (US Military) considers him an adviser (I think, isn't that right?)

I think he tends to approach the singularity with a religious fervor/fanaticism. Perhaps it is a replacement of religion with a more atheistic faith. That would be my psychoanalysis of his own motivations.

I've haven't really heard him spouting that many ideas that are totally not real (ghosts, angels, parapsychology, god, psychics, astrology etc.) or physically impossible (except maybe like the stuff about going faster than the speed of light, but at least he gives some ways that it could in theory be circumvented, while not claiming that is totally 100% possible). I tend to view his whole ideas about accelerating change and the singularity as fairly warped and unrealistic. Still, I think he is a fairly influential thinker. Bringing back his dead father may seem somewhat fantastical. I'm sure Kurzweil probably has a more detailed explanation about how it could theoretically could be done, so I would have to hear how he would go about doing it before I totally dismiss him. I'm not exactly sure what he has in mind, or what he is willing to do.

My main question is how would he actually get his father's DNA? Cloning his father using an actual full DNA strand seems like its within the realm of extreme possiblity. Resurrecting long dead animals by cloning has been done already. It seems like it might be impossible to actually get a useful strand of his father's DNA, though. I also think there is the problem of ethics and creepiness. Like is it ethical to do something of this nature? Also it seems like it could be sort of creepy, considering it wouldn't really be his father. Just a facsimile. Reconstructing all his father's memories would likely be impossible, unless your talking about some sort of ancestor simulation. It sounds like he only wants something similar to his father, perhaps not an exact copy.

He's not talking about reuniting with his father in some imaginary afterlife, or using some magical powers to summon his father's body from the dead. At the very least he could use photographs (or video if he has it) of his father to create a "virtual father facsimile" and he could feed the virtual simulation whatever details he happened to remember. I think Kurzweil was very traumatized by the death of his father. I think he knows, he'll never get to see him again. So he seems to be searching for some sort of way of reuniting with him. He might be happy with a very crude father representation for all I know.

Also you have to remember that kurzweil sort of makes a living by making a lot of wild and absurd claims. He's been pretty successfully at taking a lot of implausible/fanatastic ideas and at least giving them an air of scientific credibility.

I would consider myself a skeptic on a lot of things. I don't believe in god, angels, the devil, heaven, hell, psychics, etc.

It seems like if you post at imminst, though, your willing to believe a lot of far out things that are within the realm of extreme possibility. Nanorobots, reanimated cryonics patients, extreme life extension and so on.

I see some people tend to be too skeptical of things. Like this one blogger who says that fMRI brain imaging will never be used for mind reading. I still personally think that mind reading could be in the realm of extreme possibility, though, perhaps with molecular brain imaging. Maybe its a ways off and somewhat of a leap, but I do think a person can be over skeptical. That same somewhat skeptical blogger just did a good post on doing computer reconstructions of dinosaur brains to figure out their past behavior. So there is always interesting new stuff that is being done that was science fiction not long ago.

At least Kurzweil is not peddling Alex Chiu's immortality rings as the savior of mankind. Though I do think his supplement regimen is questionable and probably won't do him much good. I think his main problem is that he doesn't know how to simplify his analysis of things and cut down to the important details. Thus he tends take an overly complex approach to anything (like taking 100's of supplements a day, for instance, when most of them probably aren't necessary).

Edited by ImmortalFuture, 16 February 2009 - 09:14 PM.

[advancedatheist]

Inventor Woody Norris says "Almost nothing has been invented yet".

Funny you should mention Norris, who like Kurzweil won an MIT Lemelson prize a few years ago. I have a clipping file about him in my filing cabinet.

Norris, who is about a decade older than Kurzweil, apparently still works on feasible inventions. And he doesn't claim he has stopped his aging, he can predict the future or he can bring people back to life from their decayed remains.

[Prometheus]

I believe I have sufficient postgraduate training in the "hard" sciences to comment on the unlikelihood of Kurzweil seeing his father again.

We're talking high level quantum physics, is this what you mean?

My main point is that SENS does not appear to require technology that does not presently exist.

Niner, I made my points above and you totally disregarded them repeating your assertion. So I'll put it differently: what evidence do you have to support your claim that the technology needed to test the SENS hypotheses exists today?

If this makes me a SENS "devotee", and "accepting of de Grey to the point of blatant gullibility"... well I don't see the connection.

It all depends on whether you are willing to accept hype or consider the facts. Are you in a position to qualify the claims de Grey makes or do you just accept them?

Should we assume that you believe Kurzweil will be successful at reanimating his father? If so, does this make you a blatantly gullible Kurzweil devotee?

If you bother to read my post you will note I never made any such suggestion. My point is that both claims can be considered equally 'ambitious' and it amazes me that de Grey's claims can be accepted as gospel whilst Kurzweil's claims are considered 'crazy'.

Before you engage in the tell-tale knee-jerk response of the typical SENS devotee, let me be clear that this is not a criticism of de Grey or SENS. It is a criticism of your thinking and the thinking of other's who are willing to embrace one far out idea whilst rubbishing another with no cognitive investment or methodology of evaluation. If you have indeed obtained postgraduate academic training you would be aware of the pitfalls of accepting conclusions without independently assessing the way they were drawn.

[JMorgan]

I just want to say that Ray Kurzweil is the reason I'm here now.

I find myself wondering why you felt this desire. Do you feel a sense of loyalty? Obligation? In order to be a critical rationalist you need to get past such sentimentalities.

I didn't mean that Kurzweil is the reason I've stayed here. I meant that Kurzweil was my first insight into the anti-aging community. I had not even thought of the possibility until I read his books.

Kurzweil is a delusional technophile and I think the time has come for the rational faction of the transhumanist/techno-progressive community to put this man in his place.

Well, he may be on the extreme side, but the fact remains that I have not seen any other factions of the transhumanist community mentioned in mainstream media besides Kurzweil and Aubrey. So if we want the more "rational" side of our community to be front and center, we need to do something big enough that warrants being covered by the media.

[Prometheus]

Kurzweil is a delusional technophile and I think the time has come for the rational faction of the transhumanist/techno-progressive community to put this man in his place.

Lead the way brother.

[DJS]

Kurzweil is a delusional technophile and I think the time has come for the rational faction of the transhumanist/techno-progressive community to put this man in his place.

Lead the way brother.

I'm nothing if not forceful in my opinions. I'm sure you can relate.

My objections don't require a PhD to understand. Over confidence and obsessive ideological thought patterns = bad. To be clear, I don't have a problem with differences of opinion (I get along tolerably well with all of my Libertarian friends) but well, ya know, I do occasionally administer the smell test when it comes to rationality.

As far as SENS goes, it's a research program in the Lakatosian sense of the word. Hopefully it will successful, but at the very least it will further our collective knowledge in the biological sciences. I say, let there be as many research programs as the market place of ideas can support. Unfortunately, it appears that so far no credible alternatives have risen to the surface. I'm not sure whether this is because there aren't any credible alternatives, or because there's simply a shortage of cogent communicators in the realm of science. Another conversation for another thread.

[Prometheus]

Kurzweil is a delusional technophile and I think the time has come for the rational faction of the transhumanist/techno-progressive community to put this man in his place.

Lead the way brother.

I'm nothing if not forceful in my opinions. I'm sure you can relate.

Not really, forcing ideas down people's throats usually gets them choking. I'm for engaging thought and let the chips fall where they may.. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink, as the saying goes.

My objections don't require a PhD to understand. Over confidence and obsessive ideological thought patterns = bad. To be clear, I don't have a problem with differences of opinion (I get along tolerably well with all of my Libertarian friends) but well, ya know, I do occasionally administer the smell test when it comes to rationality.

I guess there are different types of BS.. Including the type we convince ourselves of, because its more convenient or because we can sleep better at night..

As far as SENS goes, it's a research program in the Lakatosian sense of the word. Hopefully it will successful, but at the very least it will further our collective knowledge in the biological sciences. I say, let there be as many research programs as the market place of ideas can support. Unfortunately, it appears that so far no credible alternatives have risen to the surface. I'm not sure whether this is because there aren't any credible alternatives, or because there's simply a shortage of cogent communicators in the realm of science. Another conversation for another thread.

You make it sound like the rest of anti-aging science is moronically at a standstill whilst SENS is feverishly working towards the truth. If you're comfortable with thinking that, that's fine by me. The results speak for themselves, but you may need a PhD to draw the right conclusions..

The challenge that you have, is that if you assume the responsibility of being a purveyor of truth on what is and isn't about what is arguably going to change the course of human history, then it is sensible to have a balanced and informed view instead of existing in a bubble. Otherwise you will find yourself - as a movement - becoming even more irrelevant than you are now. And that is just some friendly advice..

[Prometheus]

And this is precisely why the premise of ignoring the importance of 'metabolism' is as inane as it is to ignore all other research programs just because there isn't a marketing campaign behind them. If the findings are confirmed then AmyloSENS could be a dead end.

[Mind]

Forget Kurzweil and his father for a second.

In support of SENS, the junk related strands (LysoSENS) are important, are accessible to the layman, and Aubrey has marshaled support for research into these. Even if indigestible junk is not the root cause of aging, there is still important knowledge to be gained by understanding the processes that create it and health to be gained by eliminating it.

The Institute supports MF in many ways but it is not exclusive. The Institute has supported several conferences over the years, only one being organized by MF. The Institute supports folding@home. The Sunday Evening Update program has guests from a wide field of anti-aging endeavors and theories. 2 guests in the last month were proponents of the evolutionary/programmed theory of aging.

Methuselah has momentum, money, and researchers and it is in our interest to at least partially support them and see if they can produce tangible results. If not, then we need adjust the allocation of resources.

[DJS]

I'm nothing if not forceful in my opinions. I'm sure you can relate.

Not really, forcing ideas down people's throats usually gets them choking. I'm for engaging thought and let the chips fall where they may.. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink, as the saying goes.

I think we're debating semantics here. No offense, but clearly you are forceful. And there's nothing wrong with that as long as you're also flexible enough to accept criticism and allow for legitimate alterations to your position. My friend, there's no need to nit pick every phrase for rhetorical flourishes.

My objections don't require a PhD to understand. Over confidence and obsessive ideological thought patterns = bad. To be clear, I don't have a problem with differences of opinion (I get along tolerably well with all of my Libertarian friends) but well, ya know, I do occasionally administer the smell test when it comes to rationality.

I guess there are different types of BS.. Including the type we convince ourselves of, because its more convenient or because we can sleep better at night..

That's close to ad hom.

As far as SENS goes, it's a research program in the Lakatosian sense of the word. Hopefully it will successful, but at the very least it will further our collective knowledge in the biological sciences. I say, let there be as many research programs as the market place of ideas can support. Unfortunately, it appears that so far no credible alternatives have risen to the surface. I'm not sure whether this is because there aren't any credible alternatives, or because there's simply a shortage of cogent communicators in the realm of science. Another conversation for another thread.

You make it sound like the rest of anti-aging science is moronically at a standstill whilst SENS is feverishly working towards the truth. If you're comfortable with thinking that, that's fine by me. The results speak for themselves, but you may need a PhD to draw the right conclusions..

I most definitely do not view the rest of "anti-aging science" (however we choose to define it) as being at a standstill. Rather I view SENS as being a valuable "research program", IOW, a perspective that needs to be present in the debate. I think I made it quite clear in my above post that I support a diversity of opinion and initiative. Why you would choose to cast my position in a different light I am not entirely certain of. BTW, if you think there are competitive alternatives to SENS then you should feel free to list them! I'm always interested in hearing new ideas and new perspectives.

My second point. I think that you're also espousing a veiled form of elitism (no offense) which discourages popular participation and is, at the end of the day, bad for science. One does not need a PhD to make informed decisions about how s-he dedicates hir time and resources on matters of science. All one needs is some basic scientific literacy and a working understanding of the philosophy of science (which in my book goes Popper-Kuhn-Lakatos). The types of questions which should be asked by the individual include (and I am leaning heavily on Lakatos here), "What is the hard core of the research program?" "Does this research program's hypotheses lend themselves to falsification?" "What, if any, are the auxiliary hypotheses?" and "Based on these consideration would I, on balance, consider the program as trending towards progression or degression?" One of the great ironies of science is that, often, as one's level of expertise goes up, the more heavily invested one becomes in hir particular research program. So Yeay!! for the science laypersons out there.

a purveyor of truth

Purveyor of truth...hhhmm... that terminology makes me feel like I haven't wiped properly. There are things that are working, things that aren't working, and things that could potentially be working. Any determination on which of the three categories something falls into should be left for the individual to decide. And this isn't a rhetorical flourish on my part (though the part about wiping was, sorry, I couldn't help myself).

[DJS]

And this is precisely why the premise of ignoring the importance of 'metabolism' is as inane as it is to ignore all other research programs just because there isn't a marketing campaign behind them. If the findings are confirmed then AmyloSENS could be a dead end.

This goes back to the point I was making in my last post about the "core" of a research project versus its various hypotheses and proposals. Often, it is difficult if not impossible to refute/falsify the "the core" in one fell swoop. Take the example of evolutionary psychology. To quote Steve Pinker,

“Evolutionary psychology” is an approach and a set of theories, not a single hypothesis, so no single experiment can falsify it, just as no single experiment can falsify the theory of evolution or the connectionist (neural network) approach to cognition. But particular hypotheses can be individually tested, such as the ones on the relation of symmetry to beauty or the relation of logical cognition to social contracts, and tests of these are the day-to-day activity of evolutionary psychology. Journals such as Evolution and Human Behavior are not filled with speculative articles; they contain experiments, survey data, meta-analyses, and so on, hashing out particular hypotheses. And as I mentioned above, over the long run the approach called evolutionary psychology could be found unhelpful if all of its specific hypotheses are individually falsified.

Back to the article you linked to:

These results suggest that the long-held belief that AD is caused by brain cell damage inflicted by the amyloid plaques may be wrong; instead, it is beginning to appear that the disease stems from an imbalance between the normal making and breaking of connections in the brain, with netrin-1 supporting the connections and the amyloid breaking the connections -- both by binding to APP and activating normal cell programs.

Okay, let's go on the assumption that what this new research suggests is correct and the prevailing orthodoxy of a causal link between amyloid plaques and AD is incorrect. The question then becomes 'what is causing this imbalance to occur?' I see no reason why the SENS platform couldn't replace AmyloSENS with a new proposal developed using the core concept of "damage".

That's how science works. A research platform that doesn't have any flexibility in accomodating the latest research is doomed to extinction.

Finally, when you suggest that it is inane to ignore other research programs because there isn't a marketing campaign behind them, I believe you're confusing where the responsibility lies on this matter. I've noticed that there are biogerontologist, many of whom don't see eye to eye with de Grey, who still praise him for his skill as a communicator. Let's be honest here, there is a political element to scientific culture. At the end of the day, 'what works' will win out over 'what doesn't work', but in the domain of 'what might work' there will always be an element of salesmanship. In a sense, scientific laypeople are consumers who buy/buy into research programs and their foundational ideas. It is not their responsibility to put the piece together for some grand, sweeping vision which would constitute a research program. Those acts of creation are the responsibility of the experts, the visionaries. And if these visionaries are poor communicators or socially inept or hot heads who alienate potential allies (or whatever), then it is their responsibility to get someone who is more likable to represent their ideas.

[Prometheus]

That's close to ad hom.

Or too close to the mark? (no offence)

I most definitely do not view the rest of "anti-aging science" (however we choose to define it) as being at a standstill. Rather I view SENS as being a valuable "research program", IOW, a perspective that needs to be present in the debate. I think I made it quite clear in my above post that I support a diversity of opinion and initiative. Why you would choose to cast my position in a different light I am not entirely certain of. BTW, if you think there are competitive alternatives to SENS then you should feel free to list them! I'm always interested in hearing new ideas and new perspectives.

They're not hard to find so long as you don't expect the workers (scientists) to run elaborate fanfare promoting their activities. A systematic approach to covering progress in various areas would make this place much more interesting and drive traffic. But surely you know this already..

My second point. I think that you're also espousing a veiled form of elitism (no offense) which discourages popular participation and is, at the end of the day, bad for science. One does not need a PhD to make informed decisions about how s-he dedicates hir time and resources on matters of science. All one needs is some basic scientific literacy and a working understanding of the philosophy of science (which in my book goes Popper-Kuhn-Lakatos). The types of questions which should be asked by the individual include (and I am leaning heavily on Lakatos here), "What is the hard core of the research program?" "Does this research program's hypotheses lend themselves to falsification?" "What, if any, are the auxiliary hypotheses?" and "Based on these consideration would I, on balance, consider the program as trending towards progression or degression?" One of the great ironies of science is that, often, as one's level of expertise goes up, the more heavily invested one becomes in hir particular research program. So Yeay!! for the science laypersons out there.

I'm surprised you raise Lakatos given his position on the necessity for a demarcation between science and pseudoscience and given the preponderance of resident laypersons to espouse scientific concepts that they clearly have not attempted to evaluate the factual merits of, which inevitably risk morphing into pseudoscience. Let's be reminded that what people want to know is what is going on in the world of science (in aging research) and for some how they can help move things along or otherwise participate. To do such a task justice, it follows that a broad and balanced perspective should be provided. What is evident here IMO, is a lob-sided perspective, which is understandable considering the relationship between ImmInst and MF but it begins to get weird when the same cheer squad turns into a lynching mob at the mention of Kurzweil..

There are things that are working, things that aren't working, and things that could potentially be working. Any determination on which of the three categories something falls into should be left for the individual to decide.

And this raises an interesting point. How are laypersons meant to determine the 'category', when clearly they do not have the skills to do so? When someone like myself decides to post comments regarding such categorization, rather than seeking to address my argument on technical merits (with the exception of Michael and in some cases Elrond)), it is shelved as negative, etc.

[DJS]

A systematic approach to covering progress in various areas would make this place much more interesting and drive traffic. But surely you know this already..

Lead the way brother.

[Prometheus]

A systematic approach to covering progress in various areas would make this place much more interesting and drive traffic. But surely you know this already..

Lead the way brother.

Touche. lol

[eternaltraveler]

If the findings are confirmed then AmyloSENS could be a dead end.

eh...

how do you figure?

Of course amyloid precursor protien has a physiological function. No one has ever suggested otherwise. Fibrillar amyloid beta is an entirely different animal. All you need to do is look at it under a microscope to see that it is nothing other than a big pile of garbage (which I have done). If you can find a physiological function for fibrillar amyloid beta I'll eat my hat.

[valkyrie_ice]

Alright, this may annoy some of you, but let me play the "average person" for a moment.

I am ignorant of 95% of science. I think a logical arguement is trying to determine whether Coors or Bud is better, then deciding for Coor's because their label changes color so I know when it's gone warm. I think Oprah is the final word on everything, and I get 3/4 of my opinions about any "fringe group" from Jerry Springer. My political views are shaped entirely by what I think are the views of my party, which I am part of because my daddy, and my daddy's daddy was that party. I voted for Bush in 04 because he was against them damn queers getting married and my pastor told me he was on God's side. I think going down to the bar with my buddies and hanging out is intellectually fullfiling.

Stereotype, yeah, but I live in the South, and I'm surrounded on all sides by these people.

And these people wouldn't know a singularity from a hole in the ground. They know what they know, and they blindly accept what the media tells them about everything else.

So before you dismiss Kurweil as "out there" realize that he's not appealing solely to those of us who actually understand what the Singularity could mean. He's not in Rolling Stone, or making movies to educate US. We already know what's going on. And we all saw it for ourselves.

But the more people he can reach with the possibilities, the more "Joe Average" knows that the future isn't going to be the same old same old, but that everything that he takes for granted right now is potentially subject to a change so dramatic in scope that he might have no hope of even understanding it, but that people who do are working on it, and thinking about it, and trying to ensure that HE doesn't come out as Soylent Green, then the less he will fear it, and the less he will fight it.

And whether everything good Ol' Ray predicts comes to pass exactly as he says it or not, the fact that he is getting the average person to think about the future and understand that our world is changing is a good thing.

Take it from a demoness. Temptation will lead the average person a lot further than all the logic in the world, and Ray is tempting them with hope for a better tomorrow. It doesn't have to be 100% correct, it just has to get them to starting to think in the right directions.

[Putz]

Predictions Kurzweil made for 2010:

Supercomputers will have the same raw power as human brains (although not yet the equivalently flexible software).

This may not come true.

Computers will disappear as distinct physical objects, meaning many will have nontraditional shapes and/or will be embedded in clothing and everyday objects.

This is already true today, but it's not that mainstream yet.

Full-immersion audio-visual virtual reality will exist.

This part had me confused. Does he mean matrix style VR? Otherwise we already have pretty realistic VR devices.

I've heard that the human brain is 32 petaflops? How can someone estimate the number of operations a second the human brain is capable of? The best single supercomputer coming out 2012 is 20 petaflops.

By the way I posted a link to the new trailer for Kurzweil's Transcendent Man documentary in the AI & Singularity forum, check it out.

[Ben Simon]

It doesn't have to be 100% correct, it just has to get them to starting to think in the right directions.

While I take your point - the truth still matters, and we should strive for it in all of our endeavors, especially those that aim to educate an uneducated public.

Couldn't it be argued that your kind of logic causes a lot of the worlds problems? After all, people have to be led by the nose right? What's wrong with being a little liberal with the facts? We have to get the idiot masses to jump through the right hoops, don't we? Who cares how we get them there? Let's go to war on the backs of lies. Let's fear-monger on the subject of climate change. And yes, lets miseducate the public about science.

I have to object. ...I completely take your point about the positives. But I have to object on account of the negatives.

[JLL]

It doesn't have to be 100% correct, it just has to get them to starting to think in the right directions.

While I take your point - the truth still matters, and we should strive for it in all of our endeavors, especially those that aim to educate an uneducated public.

Couldn't it be argued that your kind of logic causes a lot of the worlds problems? After all, people have to be led by the nose right? What's wrong with being a little liberal with the facts? We have to get the idiot masses to jump through the right hoops, don't we? Who cares how we get them there? Let's go to war on the backs of lies. Let's fear-monger on the subject of climate change. And yes, lets miseducate the public about science.

I have to object. ...I completely take your point about the positives. But I have to object on account of the negatives.

True, but Kurzweil is not really lying is he? Those are just his predictions, and I think he himself believes they will happen more or less like he says they will. That's not the same as deliberately spreading propaganda and trying to "get the idiot masses to jump through the right hoops". And I don't mean that simply because someone believes in a lie makes it okay to lie, I just think that predicting the future (whether accurately or not) is not the same thing as lying about the current state of things or the past.

I'm a strong advocate of the truth, even when it hurts, but we don't know what the truth will be in the future.

[Prometheus]

If the findings are confirmed then AmyloSENS could be a dead end.

eh...

how do you figure?

According to the study, netrin-1 negatively regulates amyloid-beta 1-40 and 1-42 concentration, it interacts with amyloid beta peptide and clears it, and provides neurotrophic effects*...

* Cell Death & Differentiation (2009) 1-9

[valkyrie_ice]

It doesn't have to be 100% correct, it just has to get them to starting to think in the right directions.

While I take your point - the truth still matters, and we should strive for it in all of our endeavors, especially those that aim to educate an uneducated public.

Couldn't it be argued that your kind of logic causes a lot of the worlds problems? After all, people have to be led by the nose right? What's wrong with being a little liberal with the facts? We have to get the idiot masses to jump through the right hoops, don't we? Who cares how we get them there? Let's go to war on the backs of lies. Let's fear-monger on the subject of climate change. And yes, lets miseducate the public about science.

I have to object. ...I completely take your point about the positives. But I have to object on account of the negatives.

I quite agree the truth matters, but in order to find the truth, first there has to be the concept that there is a truth, and an interest in finding it. For many people, Kurzweil is giving them an interest, and from there, many are finding the truth. Yes, some of them find untruths instead, but that sadly is true of everyone. Even Ray Kurzweil.

And as Jll pointed out, none of us can predict the future with 100% accuracy. Just because we don't feel he is correct about everything doesn't mean he won't be, just that we don't beleive he will.

As for the the rest, you are making assumptions over and above what I stated, and then attacking them. I never said people have to be lead by the nose, but they do have to be informed that things exist outside of the tiny little circles of their daily lives, and that there is a world beyond their neighborhood. We as a species tend to ignore anything that does not directly affect us. And this is something that too many people don't realize will affect them all too directly.

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 02 March 2009 - 08:15 AM.

[Ben Simon]

It doesn't have to be 100% correct, it just has to get them to starting to think in the right directions.

While I take your point - the truth still matters, and we should strive for it in all of our endeavors, especially those that aim to educate an uneducated public.

Couldn't it be argued that your kind of logic causes a lot of the worlds problems? After all, people have to be led by the nose right? What's wrong with being a little liberal with the facts? We have to get the idiot masses to jump through the right hoops, don't we? Who cares how we get them there? Let's go to war on the backs of lies. Let's fear-monger on the subject of climate change. And yes, lets miseducate the public about science.

I have to object. ...I completely take your point about the positives. But I have to object on account of the negatives.

I quite agree the truth matters, but in order to find the truth, first there has to be the concept that there is a truth, and an interest in finding it. For many people, Kurzweil is giving them an interest, and from there, many are finding the truth. Yes, some of them find untruths instead, but that sadly is true of everyone. Even Ray Kurzweil.

And as Jll pointed out, none of us can predict the future with 100% accuracy. Just because we don't feel he is correct about everything doesn't mean he won't be, just that we don't beleive he will.

As for the the rest, you are making assumptions over and above what I stated, and then attacking them. I never said people have to be lead by the nose, but they do have to be informed that things exist outside of the tiny little circles of their daily lives, and that there is a world beyond their neighborhood. We as a species tend to ignore anything that does not directly affect us. And this is something that too many people don't realize will affect them all too directly.

Like I've already said I agree in principle up to a point. I do think Kurzweil stimulates curiosity, and its certainly true that the public should be aware of accelerating change. I'm sorry if you feel I was attacking you via strawmen. My comments were based on an honest extrapolation of your views as I understood them, and were not intended as an 'attack', but rather as an alternative possible outlook. Perhaps I could state my ultimate position like this: It's good that Kurzweil attracts some measure of public awareness to important ideas. As his predictions are arguably inaccurate however, there is nothing wrong with vigorous, well intended critique of all he has to say, even for widespread public consumption.

[valkyrie_ice]

It doesn't have to be 100% correct, it just has to get them to starting to think in the right directions.

While I take your point - the truth still matters, and we should strive for it in all of our endeavors, especially those that aim to educate an uneducated public.

Couldn't it be argued that your kind of logic causes a lot of the worlds problems? After all, people have to be led by the nose right? What's wrong with being a little liberal with the facts? We have to get the idiot masses to jump through the right hoops, don't we? Who cares how we get them there? Let's go to war on the backs of lies. Let's fear-monger on the subject of climate change. And yes, lets miseducate the public about science.

I have to object. ...I completely take your point about the positives. But I have to object on account of the negatives.

I quite agree the truth matters, but in order to find the truth, first there has to be the concept that there is a truth, and an interest in finding it. For many people, Kurzweil is giving them an interest, and from there, many are finding the truth. Yes, some of them find untruths instead, but that sadly is true of everyone. Even Ray Kurzweil.

And as Jll pointed out, none of us can predict the future with 100% accuracy. Just because we don't feel he is correct about everything doesn't mean he won't be, just that we don't beleive he will.

As for the the rest, you are making assumptions over and above what I stated, and then attacking them. I never said people have to be lead by the nose, but they do have to be informed that things exist outside of the tiny little circles of their daily lives, and that there is a world beyond their neighborhood. We as a species tend to ignore anything that does not directly affect us. And this is something that too many people don't realize will affect them all too directly.

Like I've already said I agree in principle up to a point. I do think Kurzweil stimulates curiosity, and its certainly true that the public should be aware of accelerating change. I'm sorry if you feel I was attacking you via strawmen. My comments were based on an honest extrapolation of your views as I understood them, and were not intended as an 'attack', but rather as an alternative possible outlook. Perhaps I could state my ultimate position like this: It's good that Kurzweil attracts some measure of public awareness to important ideas. As his predictions are arguably inaccurate however, there is nothing wrong with vigorous, well intended critique of all he has to say, even for widespread public consumption.

None at all. It is my hope that his latest movie will increase interest in the future and in finding the truth, and lead to a larger number of people into honestly examining where we are going and what will have to be done.

To summarize my views let me repost something I wrote almost nine years ago:

We are at the verge of a future that has undreamed of possibilities, and there is truly no way to say for certain what it will be. All we can do is use our knowledge of the past and the present to make our best guesses as to the future. Many writers and scientists have attempted to envision the future, and over the years, some of their visions have emerged as reality, some haven’t. Heinlein saw a future where massive clunky analog computers drove ships across the stars, and people traveled across the country on slideways. Asimov saw a world where robots were often more human than their makers. Clarke envisioned an elevator to the stars. For their time, these were plausible futures, and as the future has taken more definite shape, some of these futures have come closer to reality, some have fallen by the wayside.

Obviously, forecasting the future is never going to be 100% accurate, but many of our best minds have spent considerable thought on how it might develop, numerous books have been written on the subject, and many stories told about Futures Past. I’ve read so many that at times my head has spun, but I've gradually realized that there was something that bothers me about them all.

Every book that attempted to predict the future always seemed to be more of the same old same old. Yes, there were a few new items, a few strange quirks, some new technologies that had revolutionized something, but it was all very hit and miss. A few elements might be touched on while others might be completely ignored, or some mumbo jumbo told about such and such being a pivotal technology that changed this and this, but left everything else alone. Serious books on the future were even worse at being single-minded. They all seem to miss three things that looking at history shows me are some of the most important things that should be considered for any real concept of the shape of things to come.

The first thing that gets missed is the fact that Everything Connects. It’s actually a very simple concept, but it’s one many futurists have utterly failed to take into account. We’ve divided knowledge into so many separate categories for so long that very few people look outside their field of specialization to see what else is out there. Physicists see a future that’s all about quarks and nuclear forces, biologists see a world of biotech, Engineers see cybersystems. They’re all possible futures, but none of them really take into account the concept of Everything Connects. No science is truly separate from any other science, and every advance is tied to a score of prior advances, and can lead to a score more. Technology begets technology. And with every advance there is a social impact, and an adjustment to the new technology. Everything ties together. Some of these can be so small that they are never noticed, while others are so overwhelming that they warp our entire concepts of who we are, and what we are. Case in point, take the Apollo program. The goal was to create a rocket that could go to the Moon, but what we got was far more. From the Apollo program, we got miniaturized electronics, which led small step by small step to improvements in medicine, engineering, biology, physics, and so many other sciences that I could write a book just on the fallout developments from this one advance.

This leads to another concept that many writers overlook: The Law of Unintended Consequences. It’s an economic principle that when applied to technology essentially states that every invention will have uses and effects unforeseen by their creator. I seriously doubt Alexander Graham Bell ever envisioned cell phones or the World Wide Web. Many writers out there show quite well what some technologies can do, then fail utterly to go beyond that first bright idea to extrapolate what other uses might develop. Star Trek is a prime example, a show that tosses in such technologies as teleporters, replicators, and nanites, then ignores all of the implications of these very same technologies. Face it, for every technology, there is a use, and there are abuses, and only time will tell which is which.

This leads us to the last element that often gets forgotten: One Man’s Evil is another Man’s Good. So many writers seem to possess a skewed vision of the future that completely ignores human nature. Cynical as it sounds, you have to anticipate that people are going to misuse, abuse, and destroy any technology, no matter how beneficial it may seem. For everyone who drives according to the speed limit, how many others break it? For every person who drives a stock model, how many customize? Any true picture of the future can’t ignore the fact that not everyone will follow the most conservative path, the most minimalist uses of new technologies. The bad has to be observed side by side with the good, and until we look back with hindsight, no-one will truly know which is which.




Regardless of whether I agree with all of his predictions or not, Kurzweil at least makes an attempt to not make these three errors.

[Mind]

2009 is a big year for Kurzweil. Many of his predictions have 2009 as a general date. If we don't have at least one system capable of full immersion audio-visual virtual reality by the end of the year, I am sure a lot of haters will be dumping on him (even though the trends are still there).

Samsung and LG show-off 3D HD TVs

Avatar to debut in December

While I wouldn't consider these developments to be Matrix style VR, they are good enough for me to give Kurzweil a nod for being close, which I suspect many of his predictions will be.

[opendoor]

While I wouldn't consider these developments to be Matrix style VR, they are good enough for me to give Kurzweil a nod for being close, which I suspect many of his predictions will be.

Back in 2005 when his book came out I thought many of his predictions were closer to 2012. (I first heard of him in spring 2004 stumbling on what I think is his most interesting Singularity talk , still on his kurzweilai.net page in the Singularity section under. Expos 1 Expos 2....Expos 5. For anyone interested, Expos 1 is a long intro you can skip, Expos 2 and Expos 3 are the speech and Expos 4 and Expos 5 are a decent Q and A. )

Anyone think he hedges on cancer cures? At one point he said 2009, but then seems to have qualified that. Cheating.... I thought in 2002 that death from cancer would end in 2013 since the human genome project was completed and we'd see 10 more years of better computer models, more knowledge and more researchers. Out of luck, Ill do better than him on that one. I also have him beat on machine translation since he thought 2005 back in 1999. I figured in 1996 it would take to 2006 before really good MT is out for European languages but the tough three-- Arabic , Japanese and Korean, would take longer. There, I figured in 2002 it would be 2010-2015.

The spooky one is that I predicted for a friend in 1996 that she would have mild brain repair starting in 2016, and explained while her neurologists said "never" 100%, it will happen. (She appears fine to someone unless you knew her well and that she was foirgetting some things normal people wouldnt.) But while 10 years of computer power wouldnt be enough, 20 years of exponential modeling, knowledge in memory would offer a cure at her mild level around 2016. In 2005, Kurzweil said mid 2010s for mild brain repair, but 2025 for the more serious brain injuries. I never thought of that later one.

In 1990 I told friends in engineering email would be everywhere by 2000, and they laughed that I was just a 'theorist' But again, all it was was seeing email on the vax that almost no one used and assuming "they can figure it out with far faster computers over 10 years" I also thought there would be phone booths acting as email centers. oops. I think that was a pretty easy prediction, but some tech friends still laughed.

If you think in terms of exponentials, then it isnt surprising to sort match Kurzewil from the late 1980s. Where I still think differently is that 2030 and 2040 always seemed to powerful or strange to try to predict details as kurzweil does. To me, those decades still look really, really foggy. OK, pitch black.

Edited by opendoor, 02 November 2009 - 12:51 PM.

[KalaBeth]

While I wouldn't consider these developments to be Matrix style VR, they are good enough for me to give Kurzweil a nod for being close, which I suspect many of his predictions will be.

It seems to me the hold up on "Matrix style" VR isn't the software, it's the interface. So long as you don't mind using a keyboard to walk around, games like WoW seem to fit the "immersive VR" model fairly handily. Granted they're comparatively crude, but seeing what movies are doing these days it's only a matter of time before the desktop systems can get the same level of detail on-the-fly as it takes server farms in the movie houses days to render out now - and prolly not much time.

Heck, middle school age kids have been making all kinds of models and suchlike to customize their game content for at least ..what? A decade now?

I'd definitely have to give him the "checked" on this one.



But for "Matrix-like" you need to be able to tell a wham-jillion nerves that something is happening, and override their normal inputs.
Conceptually it doesn't sound so hard from a middleware perspective - you're only saying "put X amount of current on Y nerve location" instead of "turn X pixel on the screen Y color value" - but actually physically *doing* that sounds like a nightmare to untangle. And I'd sure want to see the medical reports on what happens with continued use before trying it myownself, thank you.

[ben951]

Even kurzweil himself imply that his prediction cannot be 100% accurate, for instance when he says:

" I believe the exponential grow of information technology is inevitable but what we do with it is not inevitable, so it's not that the future as been written already"

If when Moore's law end it's not replaced by another exponential paradigm like 3d chips or if another important information technology stop from being exponential i think then we could really say Kurzweil was wrong.

Personally i think he's very intelligent and i believe in most of his theories, i really liked the singularity his near.

Many people complain that he's just repeating the same thing over and over witch is often true, in "closer to truth" he speaks about various scientific subjects.
You can see the videos here: http://www.closertot...t...&fulllist=0

[opendoor]

Even kurzweil himself imply that his prediction cannot be 100% accurate, for instance when he says:

The other point... is that he can't make point predictions. I'd do the same thing over the years as different topics interested me: email everywhere (2000), good machine translation (2006), early brain repair (2016) and end of death from cancer (2013). But all of those, as with Kurzweil, have a span of a few years. I still think many of his "2009 predictions" will look good around 2012. And that is far better than what many assume -- "never" for machine translation, "2050 for cancer" etc.

He was also right to slam the Newsweek article that said "who didn't think back in the mid 1980s that the internet wouldnt be everywhere?"
As Kurzweil said "virtually no one" I wiffed on that one as well, only thinking of email and attachments everywhere by 2000.

I still have a hard time with him predicting the 2030s and 2040s , though. I think a lot of us in comp sci/physics in the late 80s would have predicted excellent virtual reality by 2025 or so, but he is really specific. brain downloading? that is where I get off the Kurzweil Express.... Maybe he'll be right.

[forever freedom]

I still have a hard time with him predicting the 2030s and 2040s , though. I think a lot of us in comp sci/physics in the late 80s would have predicted excellent virtual reality by 2025 or so, but he is really specific. brain downloading? that is where I get off the Kurzweil Express.... Maybe he'll be right.

Congrats on your predictions, i suppose it wouldn't be very easy to understand the possibilities..

But thinking that these technologies are mostly exponential, do you still have a very hard time believing in predictions for 2030-2040 that may seem outlandish now? A few decades are a lot of time for exponential growth. What's your say?

[niner]

He was also right to slam the Newsweek article that said "who didn't think back in the mid 1980s that the internet wouldnt be everywhere?"
As Kurzweil said "virtually no one" I wiffed on that one as well, only thinking of email and attachments everywhere by 2000.

Virtually no one? By the mid 80's, virtually everyone in the crowd I hung out with could see that the internet was going to be huge. I suppose we were "no one" compared to the population of the US... At that point in time, I don't think many people would have predicted exactly what the internet would look like today. I wonder what Kurzweil's conception of the net was back then. Did he envision the spawn of Berners-Lee?

If anyone wants to see an amazing prediction from 1945, take a look at As We May Think by Vannevar Bush. It appeared in the July, 1945 edition of The Atlantic.