34 replies to this topic

[Marios Kyriazis]

See this today:
http://www.time.com/...2048138,00.html

It mentions the usual stuff, but what surprised me are the Comments posted by others (at least at the time of writing this). I am glad other people see sense, sorry niner and friends!

[mikeinnaples]

See this today:
http://www.time.com/...2048138,00.html

It mentions the usual stuff, but what surprised me are the Comments posted by others (at least at the time of writing this). I am glad other people see sense, sorry niner and friends!

Sense like the following comments?


1. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever would believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16
You can have Kurzweil's idea, I'l stick with God's. Kurzweil's idea has a major flaw. What happens when the "computer" is destroyed? What happens when the earth is destroyed? Oh yes, it's going to happen...it's just a matter of time.

-Religious nut


2. Man will never be able to create a soul. That is God's realm.

-Religious nut


3. I think there is too much thinking going on in this piece. I have a simle answer to the problem IF computers become a threat to humanity......................................................................... and do you know what that is ? ... Unplug them

-Hmm can you unplug the internet?


4. This is pure nonsense. Why? Because this author, and these scientists, don't understand consciousness.

-I love this one. Random douchebag understands consciousness, but scientists do not.


5. Man became immortal when God breathed life into Adam. That is good for some, not so good for others.

-Another religious nut



Very sensible conversation when discuss fairytales ...lmao. I find its funny that people are using fictional, superstitious beliefs to discredit science.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 10 February 2011 - 04:59 PM.

[Marios Kyriazis]

Very sensible conversation when discuss fairytales ...lmao. I find its funny that people are using fictional, superstitious beliefs to discredit science.

Science is not going to lead to true Technological Immortality as suggested in this article. It is natural that people want something to believe in, something to look forward to. It makes life less of a farce. This is what Kurzweil and co are doing, and very successfully. But, based on current and near-term science (40-50 years), these suggestions are unachievable. Sure, technology is going to progress, but not to this degree.

[mikeinnaples]

Science is not going to lead to true Technological Immortality as suggested in this article. It is natural that people want something to believe in, something to look forward to. It makes life less of a farce. This is what Kurzweil and co are doing, and very successfully. But, based on current and near-term science (40-50 years), these suggestions are unachievable. Sure, technology is going to progress, but not to this degree.

I disagree. I also believe the technological immortality is achievable and most likely within my lifetime unless religious nuts get in the way (and even then will only delay the inevitable). Kurzweil has been accurate in predicitions much more often than not. Is he right about the speed of progression? I can't rightly say. What I can say is that given the current progression that has been going on, that it is within the realm of possibility and plausibility. Simply put, you are wrong by saying it is unachievable.

[VidX]

Very sensible conversation when discuss fairytales ...lmao. I find its funny that people are using fictional, superstitious beliefs to discredit science.

Science is not going to lead to true Technological Immortality as suggested in this article. It is natural that people want something to believe in, something to look forward to. It makes life less of a farce. This is what Kurzweil and co are doing, and very successfully. But, based on current and near-term science (40-50 years), these suggestions are unachievable. Sure, technology is going to progress, but not to this degree.

I'd say that it's very brave to say what's possible in 40-50 years, when it seems that merely 10 years brings a whole "New world" currently, esp. when it comes to a technology. 40 years from now a world can be hardly recognizable actually... I would be 65 at that time. Well if there won't be any decent life-extending therapies yet, I hope for at least a full brain-PC interface, so if I'd be still alive, I could tune into a virtual reality and enjoy whatever age I'd like to be simulated to me hehe, till my last breath. Matrix FTW
Tho' I guess a working hibernation may be available at that time (which I count on more, then I do on LE, to say truth). I'd take a chance, no doubt.


I wouldn't overestimate the technology, but I wouldn't underestimate it either..

Edited by VidX, 11 February 2011 - 01:15 AM.

[Luna]

I will have my usual conclusion on the subject here:

Nice article, I hope we will get this technology available and used for us by that time but I don't know if it will happen.

Let's hope it will, good luck. Other then that nothing was truly revealed, proved or passed, just an idea we all know and prediction which cannot be proved until we get there as we are "too far away in the curve", if such exists.

And yes, in 35 years I will be 56-57, my mother will be in her 80s or more, I hope it will actually be available by then, knowing our current progress of science it might just be revealed and we know it takes time until a new developed technology is actually used. This means I don't know what will be about my mother, and I might have to wait also so I hope it will actually be used (and that adds: possible to be used) on the possibly fragile people in their 70s, 80s, 90s and more.

[Marios Kyriazis]

I remember in the early 80's there were some serious predictions that by the year 2000 we will be living in cities in space, orbiting the Earth. There were solid arguments supporting this, Carl Sagan was in full swing, pictures in scientific magazines etc. If I remember correctly, I also applied to join the waiting list to go and live in one of these cities. Funny, after so many years I only thought of this again yesterday.

[VidX]

Well 20 years error isn't that big. Who knows - space tourism is ALREADY here, wouldn't that've sounded retarded in 80's? I'm sure it would.. I think we got so used to the pace of advancement that we simply miss how amazingly it evolved in merely a few decades. Geez, my grandparents were happy if they were able to listen to a radio, during their youth... And now, my grandfather has just replaced his lenses and merely a few days later he threw out his thick glasses lol.. If that's not a huge progress then I don't now what it is.

[niner]

I remember in the early 80's there were some serious predictions that by the year 2000 we will be living in cities in space, orbiting the Earth. There were solid arguments supporting this, Carl Sagan was in full swing, pictures in scientific magazines etc. If I remember correctly, I also applied to join the waiting list to go and live in one of these cities. Funny, after so many years I only thought of this again yesterday.

Are you sure this wasn't the early 60's? I lived through the 80's, and I don't have any recollection of serious predictions that we'd be living in cities in space in 2000. Maybe something like that showed up in some goofy sci fi magazine, but I wouldn't consider that serious. Did you pay money to join that waiting list?

[xEva]

I remember in late 80s/early90s there was an article in Time (-? or some other mag on the same level) that said that Japanese were making plans for building a hotel on the Moon and that it will take its first guests sometime 5-10 years ago. A friend of mine then said that at last he had a good reason to start saving money. He had a thing for having sex in weightlessness..

[Elus]

I remember in the early 80's there were some serious predictions that by the year 2000 we will be living in cities in space, orbiting the Earth. There were solid arguments supporting this, Carl Sagan was in full swing, pictures in scientific magazines etc. If I remember correctly, I also applied to join the waiting list to go and live in one of these cities. Funny, after so many years I only thought of this again yesterday.

These predictions weren't data based. In contrast, Kurzweil's predictions are more data-based. 78% of his predictions, made in the 1990s, for 2010 came true. (http://www.kurzweila...ns/download.php).

You have to admit that the man has an impressive track record for predicting the future.

[Marios Kyriazis]

Are you sure this wasn't the early 60's? I lived through the 80's, and I don't have any recollection of serious predictions that we'd be living in cities in space in 2000. Maybe something like that showed up in some goofy sci fi magazine, but I wouldn't consider that serious. Did you pay money to join that waiting list?

Yes, it was around 1980-82, in fact I kept the articles with these predictions to compare with reality in 20-30 years time. If I find them I will scan them and put them on line. The stories were mentioned in New Scientist magazine (UK), Time magazine etc. I didn't pay any money to join the list as I was a student and was broke.

[Marios Kyriazis]

These predictions weren't data based. In contrast, Kurzweil's predictions are more data-based. 78% of his predictions, made in the 1990s, for 2010 came true. (http://www.kurzweila...ns/download.php).

You have to admit that the man has an impressive track record for predicting the future.

The future cannot be predicted based only technological progression models. Technology is dependant on social, political and economic developments. 30 years ago the Cold War pushed the two superpowers to race for space in a quest for more armaments. Do you remember the Space Shuttle? (see my point about living in cities orbiting Earth). After the break-up of the USSR the pressure eased and politicians now spend the funds on other avenues.

I am good at predicting the future too: in 20 years from now, there will still be famine, pollution, death from simple infectious diseases, new diseases will emerge, people will exercise less and less as labor-saving technology becomes more widespread. People will still die from age-related diseases. As global intelligence increases, individuals will become less reliant on their own intelligence (think of the necessity to learn arithmetic- it is not necessary because the calculator does this for us). This will result in a reduction in individual intelligence, the same way as labor-saving technology resulted in a reduction in overall population fitness.

[Nimbus]

Science is not going to lead to true Technological Immortality as suggested in this article.[...] But, based on current and near-term science (40-50 years), these suggestions are unachievable. Sure, technology is going to progress, but not to this degree.

You've got incongruous premises (40-50 year tech) and predictions (absolute, ie never).

I remember in the early 80's there were some serious predictions that by the year 2000 we will be living in cities in space, orbiting the Earth. There were solid arguments supporting this, Carl Sagan was in full swing, pictures in scientific magazines etc. If I remember correctly, I also applied to join the waiting list to go and live in one of these cities. Funny, after so many years I only thought of this again yesterday.

Not due to technology but politics and funding.

I am good at predicting the future too: in 20 years from now, people will exercise less and less as labor-saving technology becomes more widespread.

More bias: you omit myostatin tech, displacement not disappearance of jobs due to labor-saving tech, etc.

People will still die from age-related diseases.

Of course. But you take no risk in "predicting" this. You made no significant research for these conclusions, nor improve on them. I myself predict that clear skies will still be blue tomorrow. I charge a mere 500US$ for this and more predictions.

As global intelligence increases, individuals will become less reliant on their own intelligence (think of the necessity to learn arithmetic- it is not necessary because the calculator does this for us). This will result in a reduction in individual intelligence, the same way as labor-saving technology resulted in a reduction in overall population fitness.

No consideration for mind enhancers of all kinds that'll appeal the same way muscle enhancers do: less effort, more payoff. Market will be ripe for a product that doesn't merely match but exceed all aspects of intellectual health. Also novel brain fitness tools: learning to very lucidly control elaborate things via something like an advanced Emotiv interface.

You have chosen the "Singularity" as a false premise and build your arguments backwards, starting with that conclusion.

[VidX]

When I think now - there's a chance the extent of "changes" that may be apparent after merely 10-15 years from now can be so big we'll look back in awe.. Really, I'm a young person, I'm "On top" of the technology, a complete junkie, I get off on technology, on the news, on innovations, and I start to feel like it's getting more and more difficult to catch up with everything.. If it will go like it has been going (I mean - these predictions that were considered "very brave" 20-30 years agi - are viewed as "very conservative" now) our assumptions of what's "possible" may turn out to be quite restrained and careful. Well I hope I'm right. if not - it still will be very interesting, I'm pretty sure.. The main goal now is to stay alive and going.

Edited by VidX, 13 February 2011 - 09:08 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

I remember in the early 80's there were some serious predictions that by the year 2000 we will be living in cities in space, orbiting the Earth. There were solid arguments supporting this, Carl Sagan was in full swing, pictures in scientific magazines etc. If I remember correctly, I also applied to join the waiting list to go and live in one of these cities. Funny, after so many years I only thought of this again yesterday.

Actually, this is conceptually true right this very moment. We do have a permanent international community in space and the technology to grow it if we so desired and it was economically feasible. Lack of desire to pursue something is not the same thing as lacking the technology. The technology is there.

The first crew module of the ISS was added in July 2000. Right on schedule.

[Nimbus]

Life support recycling tech is not there.

[niner]

Life support recycling tech is not there.

It's technologically possible, but it might be cheaper to truck in some supplies every once in a while rather than create a truly self-contained unit.

[mikeinnaples]

Life support recycling tech is not there.

It's technologically possible, but it might be cheaper to truck in some supplies every once in a while rather than create a truly self-contained unit.

Agreed.

[mikeinnaples]

Life support recycling tech is not there.

This is irrelevant to the point I was making, but regardless the technology exists.

We also have the technology to create a permanent moon colony if we chose to pursue it and it was cost effective / beneficial to do so.

[Nimbus]

Life support recycling tech is not there.

This is irrelevant to the point I was making, but regardless the technology exists.

We also have the technology to create a permanent moon colony if we chose to pursue it and it was cost effective / beneficial to do so.

In so many words, the tech is not ready.

[niner]

Life support recycling tech is not there.

This is irrelevant to the point I was making, but regardless the technology exists.

We also have the technology to create a permanent moon colony if we chose to pursue it and it was cost effective / beneficial to do so.

In so many words, the tech is not ready.

I think you're confusing "isn't cheap" with "doesn't work".

[mikeinnaples]

I think you're confusing "isn't cheap" with "doesn't work".

Exactly

[Nimbus]

I think you're confusing "isn't cheap" with "doesn't work".

Wrong. None of those are my words.

Show me how this tech is ready or as good as.

Edited by Nimbus, 16 February 2011 - 02:00 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

I think you're confusing "isn't cheap" with "doesn't work".

Wrong. None of those are my words.

Show me how this tech is ready or as good as.

Its irrelevant to the initial statement anyways. We absolutely have an established permanent community in orbit and it is by choice, due to funds, that it isn't larger than it is. The technology is there now and in place and has been for a decade.

Edit: however, in answer to your question ....the ISS has a working life support system. It is not the end all of life support, but that is irrelevant.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 16 February 2011 - 03:07 PM.

[Nimbus]

I think you're confusing "isn't cheap" with "doesn't work".

Wrong. None of those are my words.

Show me how this tech is ready or as good as.

Its irrelevant to the initial statement anyways. We absolutely have an established permanent community in orbit and it is by choice, due to funds, that it isn't larger than it is. The technology is there now and in place and has been for a decade.

Edit: however, in answer to your question ....the ISS has a working life support system. It is not the end all of life support, but that is irrelevant.

You're downplaying it to have the last word in this argument. When the real salient point to make WRT a truly permanent presence in space is whether we really can afford it today or in the very near future, not just as a dinky little orbital outpost utterly dependent on shuttles substituting for a real closed loop LS system, (and barely getting public support, no matter how much you'd like to dismiss that factor as merely circumstantial), but at the very least as a solid precursor for an actual settlement.

The technology is there now and in place and has been for a decade.

Show me how this here-and-now tech could realistically support a permanent outpost. Lagrange or Lunar, or orbital if you have to set the bar that low. Neither ISRU nor closed loop life support are ready. But I'm all eyes, let's see your evidence.

[mikeinnaples]

We have working life support. It might not be to your standards, but we have it none the less. We have a permanent presence in space for as long as we wish it to continue at a scope that we have determined, not by limitation of technology, but by limitation of willingness to pay for it. I could care less if it meets your personal expectations. I am simply stating, that given the references to vague predictions, that current technology meets them.

But to be completely honest, without knowing the details of these 'predictions' and the reputability of the source, I really dont see how we can even have an arguement as to whether or not they were met and by how much. Rereading our posts, I can see that we basically agree that the technology exists, but you feel that they aren't passable enough to qualify as meeting these vague predictions that we do not even know the exact details of. I can't argue against your opinion because you are entitled to have it, I am simply stating that the technology is there ....no matter how basic, it is still there.

In 1971 we could have had this same exact argument about the first microprocessor. The technology existed and was in use, but it was nowhere close to being ubiquitous like it is today and we could have aruged about its viability as is. Regardless of those arguement, the technology existed ...despite being an infant. Look at where it is today in comparison. If you would have told someone in the 70's that they would have the computing power of 3 large rooms worth of computing power on a device with no wires that would fit in their pocket ...you would have been laughed at.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 16 February 2011 - 06:24 PM.

[PWAIN]

Indefinite life extension is available right now!!!

[PWAIN]

A cure for cancer is available right now!!!

[Cameron]

The colonization of the entire cosmos via perfected evolutionary lineage of living machines, the dream of schala has high levels of viability.

Could a human disconnect or even kill a machine god such as lain from the wired? That would be a feat in and of itself.

Literalists are foolish in that they don't take things literally enough. People like Jesus, were the kurzweils of their time, the prophets. They take the truths and functional cargo cult phenomena of the past, and try to equate it against something founded on fundamental science, logic, and mathematic. THE TRUTH SURPASSES THE REFLECTIONS OF THE TRUTH IN THE PRIOR WORKS OF MAN.

Despite everyone arguing about it, the truth is there is only one fundamental reality. And the science of history studies this reality, literalists cannot rewrite history without merging government and church, and even if they do at most they get amish like derp'ish communities.

Edited by Cameron, 17 February 2011 - 08:22 AM.