If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Some believe the path to immortality is through their work; others, their children. Then there's this computer-scientist/inventor who believes he has an 80% chance of achieving it by not ever dying   (slate.com) divider line 140
    More: Interesting, Ray Kurzweil, cheat death, old humans, emerging technologies, paths, inventors  
•       •       •

5494 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Dec 2013 at 3:38 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-01 12:31:45 PM
hands up who's never heard of Ray Kurzweil? just curious.

TFA missed the bit where in a bid to slow aging and function at peak capacity he takes 150 supplements a day, which he employs an assistant to manage. he is looking pretty good for 65.
 
2013-12-01 12:53:10 PM
QA?  Is that you?
 
2013-12-01 01:53:31 PM

the801: hands up who's never heard of Ray Kurzweil? just curious.

TFA missed the bit where in a bid to slow aging and function at peak capacity he takes 150 supplements a day, which he employs an assistant to manage. he is looking pretty good for 65.


Kurzweil is a pretty big name for anyone who follows computing/tech news, and he's been going on and on about this singularity business for a long time.  Who knows, maybe there's something to it, but we still have a lot to learn about what consciousness and sentience actually are and how it works.  There has to be more about what makes life than just the firing of neurons in the brain.
 
2013-12-01 02:00:09 PM

TuteTibiImperes: There has to be more about what makes life than just the firing of neurons in the brain.


Well, yeah.  Trees don't even HAVE brains.
 
2013-12-01 03:07:02 PM
beyondmediaonline.com

What's he got in his swimming pool?
 
2013-12-01 03:28:16 PM
My life isn't shiatty, and I don't hate myself, but living forever sounds awful.
 
2013-12-01 03:32:36 PM

Calmamity: My life isn't shiatty, and I don't hate myself, but living forever sounds awful.


I'll take whatever you don't wanna use.  I'd be quite happy with being able to pick whenever I felt like checking out.
 
2013-12-01 03:40:35 PM
That's my point. I'm going to use it all up.
 
2013-12-01 03:44:40 PM
Glad I wont be around when this technology is perfected and implemented.
The immortal ruling elite will no longer have any use for the unwashed masses.
 
2013-12-01 03:47:53 PM
Is he calculating the probabilty of his attempt at immortality offending religious fanatics who might consider it an offront to God and thus making it their mission to kill him?

/sorry, I tried parsing that down
//and I'm against any such action as well...
 
2013-12-01 03:57:57 PM
Fallacy:  Appeal to Authority
 
2013-12-01 04:03:58 PM
.

Damn thing is still too far away for most to see it. Would be one of the solutions to interstellar travel, but we would at least need FTL communication or humanity would fracture across the stars.
 
2013-12-01 04:10:43 PM

Tax Boy: [beyondmediaonline.com image 400x226]

What's he got in his swimming pool?


I'll tell you what he doesn't have in there:  3D printers.

"I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even five hundred would be pretty nice."
CEO Nwabudike Morgan, Morganlink 3D-Vision Interview
 
2013-12-01 04:20:11 PM
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying." ~Woody Allen
 
2013-12-01 04:20:50 PM

TuteTibiImperes: There has to be more about what makes life than just the firing of neurons in the brain.


Why?
 
2013-12-01 04:23:56 PM
What we really need to decide is what kind of Singularly race we will be. Don't want to end up like some of the science fiction examples.
 
2013-12-01 04:27:08 PM

ArcadianRefugee: TuteTibiImperes: There has to be more about what makes life than just the firing of neurons in the brain.

Why?


It just seems like there would be.  When you think about perception, consciousness, sentience, etc, your entire concept of self and existence, and the fundamental aspects of life it just seems right that there's some force beyond the basic biology that exists.  I don't have any training in neuroscience, and I could be completely wrong, but I do believe there is a 'soul' or inherent essence that is part of who we are.

That being said, the world soul is tricky because it obviously immediately brings up religious connotations, and I'm not saying that any particular religion is correct on that matter, but if we were able to create a computer program that modeled the human brain exactly, and transferred all of the data from a brain to that program perfectly, I don't believe that the person's consciousness would suddenly transfer into that program.
 
2013-12-01 04:28:41 PM

mrlewish: Fallacy:  Appeal to Authority


The second law of thermodynamics is more of a guideline than a rule, but the way animal life gets around it is by constantly reintroducing variation by sexual reproduction. Plus, the ironic death of people like this is a source of constant sport and satisfaction for the universe.
 
2013-12-01 04:30:07 PM

mrlewish: Fallacy:  Appeal to Unqualified Authority


Fixed.

Appeal to Qualified Authority isn't a fallacy.
 
2013-12-01 04:31:58 PM

whither_apophis: Is he calculating the probabilty of his attempt at immortality offending religious fanatics who might consider it an offront to God and thus making it their mission to kill him?

/sorry, I tried parsing that down
//and I'm against any such action as well...


Methuselah lived 969 years.

principlesforlifeministries.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-01 04:31:59 PM
Follow up: guy who thought he was going to live forever dies. Not a repeat from always.
 
2013-12-01 04:34:56 PM
img.photobucket.com

img.photobucket.com
Peter Bogdonovich?
 
2013-12-01 04:37:11 PM
that's one thing that wears some of the Wealthy out.  they can buy eveything except immortality and that drives them bonkers.   they rarely ever hear the word 'no'.


course, they don't mind having tax money spent to find the fountain of youth.  not that anyone else could afford it if it was found.
 
2013-12-01 04:38:49 PM
Kurzweil is a kook.

The idea that we can stop the aging process, or even reverse it, is still science-fiction. We're a LONG way away from that. He won't live to see it.

He's one of those people that doesn't really understand that this stuff takes an INSANE amount of research/discovery to achieve. Or at least, he ignores that fact, because it means he is going to die like the rest of us.

Just because we are able to manipulate genes a little bit, doesn't mean we are close to immortality. That's like saying because I can talk to Siri on my iPhone and get relevant answers, that a working Artificial Intelligence is just around the corner. It's not that simple. Not at all.
 
2013-12-01 04:38:53 PM
want immortality?   become a republican.  they have a knack for seemingly hanging around forever.

or at least what seems like forever.
 
2013-12-01 04:39:41 PM
The way I see it is this.

When you're asleep, you're not aware of it.  Hell, you're not aware of falling asleep, until after you wake up and think about it for a bit.

Why is dying any different?  Once you've died, it's not like you're going to be sitting back and thinking "Damn, now I'm dead.  That sucks."  You just won't exist anymore, just like in all that time before you were born.
 
2013-12-01 04:41:00 PM

Mister Peejay: Why is dying any different? Once you've died, it's not like you're going to be sitting back and thinking "Damn, now I'm dead. That sucks." You just won't exist anymore, just like in all that time before you were born.


And I do not remember enjoying that time one bit.
 
2013-12-01 04:41:55 PM
Quick, someone mention 3D printing and get QA to this thread STAT!
 
2013-12-01 04:43:52 PM
When it comes to computer based artificial intelligence and the like; unless you *can* do it already, you can't.

This guy is making the exact same claims the best and brightest were making in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s.  The first generation of Computer Scientists that made any progress started grossly over-selling what would be accomplished and it's been cyclical ever since.  It becomes trendy, the do some research, get more funding, make wild claims....make no real progress....and kind of fade into the background.  Some years later, rinse, repeat.
 
2013-12-01 04:45:02 PM

the801: hands up who's never heard of Ray Kurzweil? just curious.

TFA missed the bit where in a bid to slow aging and function at peak capacity he takes 150 supplements a day, which he employs an assistant to manage. he is looking pretty good for 65.


Not really. My dad is his age and looks better (and he drinks and smokes cigars). He is a fool to pursue this and will never achieve immortality through Google or vitamins.
 
2013-12-01 04:46:32 PM

whither_apophis: Is he calculating the probabilty of his attempt at immortality offending religious fanatics who might consider it an offront to God and thus making it their mission to kill him?

/sorry, I tried parsing that down
//and I'm against any such action as well...


It's amazing how afraid to die atheists are, all the while reflecting their fear off on an imaginary religious conspiracy.
 
2013-12-01 04:49:25 PM

SomethingToDo: mrlewish: Fallacy:  Appeal to Authority

The second law of thermodynamics is more of a guideline than a rule, but the way animal life gets around it is by constantly reintroducing variation by sexual reproduction. Plus, the ironic death of people like this is a source of constant sport and satisfaction for the universe.


Actually, we get around the Second Law by using energy from the giant ball of incandescent plasma 150 million km away.

Which isn't really getting around it at all.
 
2013-12-01 04:52:10 PM

Nemo's Brother: whither_apophis: Is he calculating the probabilty of his attempt at immortality offending religious fanatics who might consider it an offront to God and thus making it their mission to kill him?

/sorry, I tried parsing that down
//and I'm against any such action as well...

It's amazing how afraid to die atheists are, all the while reflecting their fear off on an imaginary religious conspiracy.


It makes sense - if you believe that when you die that it's lights out and nothing more, that's pretty scary.  If you believe there's an afterlife, or that you'll be reincarnated and live again, it's substantially less scary.
 
2013-12-01 04:57:41 PM

Nemo's Brother: whither_apophis: Is he calculating the probabilty of his attempt at immortality offending religious fanatics who might consider it an offront to God and thus making it their mission to kill him?

/sorry, I tried parsing that down
//and I'm against any such action as well...

It's amazing how afraid to die atheists are, all the while reflecting their fear off on an imaginary religious conspiracy.


Painting with an awfully broad brush there, ain't ya skippy?

I knew of a tbeist that killed someone. It's amazing how all theists are killers
 
2013-12-01 05:10:15 PM

TuteTibiImperes: There has to be more about what makes life than just the firing of neurons in the brain.


why?
 
2013-12-01 05:12:05 PM
I watched a documentary on Kurzweil once. What I took away from it wasn't so much that he wants to live forever, but that he is really, really terrified of dying. He was traumatized by the death of his father, and a big part of his Singularity work is to find a way to bring his father back to life, or at least create a virtual consciousness using his memories of his father.

I am doubtful that the Singularity will happen in Kurzweil's lifetime (although- ceteris paribus- it will happen eventually). He needs to come to terms with his fear of death. He can choose to do so now of his own volition, or he can be forced to when death arrives. I'm betting it will be the latter.
 
2013-12-01 05:12:18 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Nemo's Brother: whither_apophis: Is he calculating the probabilty of his attempt at immortality offending religious fanatics who might consider it an offront to God and thus making it their mission to kill him?

/sorry, I tried parsing that down
//and I'm against any such action as well...

It's amazing how afraid to die atheists are, all the while reflecting their fear off on an imaginary religious conspiracy.

It makes sense - if you believe that when you die that it's lights out and nothing more, that's pretty scary.  If you believe there's an afterlife, or that you'll be reincarnated and live again, it's substantially less scary.


Then how come every funeral I go to, it's the religious ones who are the weepiest?
 
2013-12-01 05:29:50 PM
50 years ago, Ray Kurzweil would have been considered a science fiction writer with some neat ideas, much like a Isaac Asimov, a Ray Bradbury or an Arthur C. Clarke. But instead, he gets titles today like "renowned scientist," "futurist" and "inventor."

The truth of the matter is that Kurzweil doesn't understand a lot of the science that he cites, and he's not that different from Deepak Chopra in the way he takes ideas that are grounded in reality and then mixes then with his own thinking, but presents both as if they're absolutely true and founded in research. Many real scientists have called him out for this, and while it's a common consensus that he's a smart guy, there are good reasons to be skeptical of him.

I recently read Michio Kaku's  Physics of the Future and rolled my eyes through a lot of the chapter on human longevity whenever the idea that "we might be the last generation who will die" came up. That sort of stuff sounds great, but it's not founded in the science that's currently being undertaken. It's likely that we'll find ways to extend human lifespans significantly within this century, but chances are good it's going to be more of a "reverse the cosmetic effects of aging and keep organs from failing" sort of thing, not a "never die" scenario.

Plus, I'd argue most human beings don't need a longer life, given what they're doing with the one they currently have. Nature designed us to live for a set amount of time and then to die for many good reasons. Overpopulation is one such problem, but there's also the need for our genetics to continue to grow and evolve rather than to remain stagnant. I tend to think societies also need to have frequent change in leadership and thinking, and that only happens when the older generations die off and leave the newer ones in control.
 
2013-12-01 05:31:39 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Nemo's Brother: whither_apophis: Is he calculating the probabilty of his attempt at immortality offending religious fanatics who might consider it an offront to God and thus making it their mission to kill him?

/sorry, I tried parsing that down
//and I'm against any such action as well...

It's amazing how afraid to die atheists are, all the while reflecting their fear off on an imaginary religious conspiracy.

It makes sense - if you believe that when you die that it's lights out and nothing more, that's pretty scary.  If you believe there's an afterlife, or that you'll be reincarnated and live again, it's substantially less scary.


I'm not afraid to die and I'm an atheist. *shrug*

I don't mean I'm thrilled about the prospect, but I'm at peace with it. The price of having life is death, simple as that. So I'm going to enjoy the hell out of what I have while I can.

I went through a period of mourning after I realized I was an atheist because I was sad that I wouldn't go to heaven and see my loved ones again, but I'm fine about it now.

I'm honestly much happier now that I'm not exerting all that mental energy on twisting logic to fit my religious beliefs and worrying about whether my ordinary life was good enough for God.

Back on topic though: I think this Kurzweil or whatever guy is blowing his life on something that will never happen, and it's sad. When I read this story it made me feel exactly the same way as when I see people on televised church services.
 
2013-12-01 05:46:08 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Nemo's Brother: whither_apophis: Is he calculating the probabilty of his attempt at immortality offending religious fanatics who might consider it an offront to God and thus making it their mission to kill him?

/sorry, I tried parsing that down
//and I'm against any such action as well...

It's amazing how afraid to die atheists are, all the while reflecting their fear off on an imaginary religious conspiracy.

It makes sense - if you believe that when you die that it's lights out and nothing more, that's pretty scary.  If you believe there's an afterlife, or that you'll be reincarnated and live again, it's substantially less scary.


"First you have to know - not think, know - that some day, you will die.  Until you know that, you are useless."
 
2013-12-01 05:53:53 PM
Cyrus Jones, 1810 to 1913, made his grandchildren believe you could live to 103. 103 is forever when you're just a little kid, so Cyrus Jones lived forever...
 
2013-12-01 06:00:19 PM
ecx.images-amazon.com

I read the free sample from amazon -- too much backlog to read the book -- it looked interesting. Not just a sci-fi howto, also talks about the politics and ramifications of.
 
2013-12-01 06:02:56 PM
Horcrux?
lh5.googleusercontent.com

Don't bother.
 
2013-12-01 06:03:56 PM

TuteTibiImperes: ...if we were able to create a computer program that modeled the human brain exactly, and transferred all of the data from a brain to that program perfectly, I don't believe that the person's consciousness would suddenly transfer into that program.


I don't either, but for wholly different reasons.
 
2013-12-01 06:08:18 PM
Seems about as delusional as believing in any form of afterlife.
 
2013-12-01 06:12:36 PM

ArcadianRefugee: TuteTibiImperes: ...if we were able to create a computer program that modeled the human brain exactly, and transferred all of the data from a brain to that program perfectly, I don't believe that the person's consciousness would suddenly transfer into that program.

I don't either, but for wholly different reasons.


crtl + c, crtl +v, crtl + v, crtl + v

I'd take over the world with an army of me


/ organ printing is the way to go. The next step, anyways
 
2013-12-01 06:14:40 PM

secularsage: The truth of the matter is that Kurzweil doesn't understand a lot of the science that he cites, and he's not that different from Deepak Chopra in the way he takes ideas that are grounded in reality and then mixes then with his own thinking, but presents both as if they're absolutely true and founded in research.


This. Chopra fleeces the MBAs, Kurzweil fleeces the PhDs.
 
2013-12-01 06:15:59 PM

SomethingToDo: but the way animal life gets around it is by constantly reintroducing variation by sexual reproduction.


Technology would work as good or better.
 
2013-12-01 06:31:31 PM
Eh, we have had the telomerase thing whipped in the lab for a long time, which was a big first step.  Do I think we are on the cusp of serious longevity - getting to 150, 200 years old without end stage dementia and bodies riddled with cancer?  Yes.  Will I personally be able to take advantage of these things?  At 37 years of age with a few minor ailments, probably not - but they may be available for Miss the Wombat's Girlfriend's kids.

Now, a computer based neural network to upload the old brainpan... that is a solid possibility, and may be how we arrive at functional AI - but I have doubts that the personality will remain intact.  There is too much interaction with how the brain functions, personal morality and our consciousness that we simply don't know the answers to.  Fascinating stuff, but right now we are at the spitwad stage.
 
2013-12-01 06:52:09 PM

Ned Stark: TuteTibiImperes: There has to be more about what makes life than just the firing of neurons in the brain.

why?


He already answered this. He desperately wants it to be true so he just believes it is true. Can't explain that.
 
2013-12-01 07:03:45 PM

LazarusLong42: SomethingToDo: mrlewish: Fallacy:  Appeal to Authority

The second law of thermodynamics is more of a guideline than a rule, but the way animal life gets around it is by constantly reintroducing variation by sexual reproduction. Plus, the ironic death of people like this is a source of constant sport and satisfaction for the universe.

Actually, we get around the Second Law by using energy from the giant ball of incandescent plasma 150 million km away.

Which isn't really getting around it at all.


It shouldn't be unsurprising though, that big factors in the death in individuals are exposure to the yellow eye that burns us, and the ways we take in and use the energy we get from the yellow eye that burns us.
 
2013-12-01 07:08:17 PM
I hate Kurzweil and his kook brigade.
 
2013-12-01 07:09:19 PM
images.moviepostershop.com
Joseph Weizenbaum (8 January 1923 - 5 March 2008) was a was a German and American computer scientist and a professor emeritus at MIT. He explains in great detail why it is that you would never want to put your soul into anything resembling current technology or an evolutionary offshoot thereof. In 1966 he programed ELIZA, an "AI therapist".  He was horrified when people in the lab started treating it as a real psychotherapist. Why? When ELIZA says "I understand" It's a lie. It cannot understand. It has no mind. It's a script attached to a database.

The movie is farking brilliant. You start out thinking hes a dottering old man who has no idea what he's talking about, then goes on to show you he knows exactly what he is talking about.

There is no intelligence behind ANY AI today. Deep blue might be able to beat Gary Kasparov in chess, but it cannot play tic tac toe.

Self driving cars cannot fly aircraft.

Siri understands language, but cannot comprehend it. Voice to text still cannot put grammar into your sentences. You have to tell it where to place punctuation. If you tell Siri you are sad, you get a canned response from a programmer at Apple, put there to make the program feel more human.

Show me an AI that can be creative. Show me an AI that doesn't need to be reset on a regular basis. Show me hardware that can contain a soul.

Show me a computer that doesn't need critical updates. Show me an OS that's never royally farked someones shiat up because of a critical update. Show me a computer that can find a bug in itself, and repair that code. That can improve upon itself without a programmer ticking away at a keyboard behind the scenes. Show me a wireless network that doesn't have a ratsnest of cables somewhere.

Show me a computer that thinks, and maybe we will have begun to take our first steps infantile towards the singularity.

A simple man machine interface is all this fool is talking about when he thinks of the singularity. Being able to quantify memories and experiences into data.

Nobody has even begun to approach creating a MIND that LEARN from those memories and experiences. All the augmentations in the world won't save your ghost from brain death.  When the meat dies, you are nothing but a pale imitation of yourself. You end up as data in a box, unable to think, reason, learn, laugh, or grieve.

/Ghost hacked humans are so pathetic. Nothing but puppets on strings.
 
2013-12-01 07:16:23 PM

theorellior: secularsage: The truth of the matter is that Kurzweil doesn't understand a lot of the science that he cites, and he's not that different from Deepak Chopra in the way he takes ideas that are grounded in reality and then mixes then with his own thinking, but presents both as if they're absolutely true and founded in research.

This. Chopra fleeces the MBAs, Kurzweil fleeces the PhDs.




When you are looking that far into the future, it often seems like magical tales.

It reminds me of the story of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who tried to convince doctors in the 1850s to wash their hands prior to delivering babies.
 
2013-12-01 07:20:42 PM

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: theorellior: secularsage: The truth of the matter is that Kurzweil doesn't understand a lot of the science that he cites, and he's not that different from Deepak Chopra in the way he takes ideas that are grounded in reality and then mixes then with his own thinking, but presents both as if they're absolutely true and founded in research.

This. Chopra fleeces the MBAs, Kurzweil fleeces the PhDs.

When you are looking that far into the future, it often seems like magical tales.

It reminds me of the story of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who tried to convince doctors in the 1850s to wash their hands prior to delivering babies.


That's just too funny, I mean seriously the babby hasn't touched *anything* yet, its probably the cleanest thing on the planet at that moment.
 
2013-12-01 07:22:03 PM

TuteTibiImperes: if we were able to create a computer program that modeled the human brain exactly, and transferred all of the data from a brain to that program perfectly, I don't believe that the person's consciousness would suddenly transfer into that program.


No, of course not. You need glands.

1-media-cdn.foolz.us
/hotter than a take away Klatchian curry
 
2013-12-01 07:28:37 PM

js34603: Ned Stark: TuteTibiImperes: There has to be more about what makes life than just the firing of neurons in the brain.

why?

He already answered this. He desperately wants it to be true so he just believes it is true. Can't explain that.


Well, sure, that's part of it, but as of yet it's not proven one way or the other.  I believe FTL travel is possible, that there are other advanced civilizations out in space, and that someday either us or them will find a way to travel across space to interact with each other.  I have no proof of this, but there's no proof it can't happen either, it's still up in the air until we figure it out.

I'd be willing to admit I'm wrong about the nature of life if someone were able to create an artificial brain and 'upload' a human consciousness into it with that person then seeing, feeling, comprehending, etc, just as they did before but with their new artificial organs.  Someday someone will try, and if any of us are still around, we'll see what happens.
 
2013-12-01 07:42:16 PM

TuteTibiImperes: ell, sure, that's part of it, but as of yet it's not proven one way or the other.


YOU CANT PROVE I WAS EVOLUTED FROM NO MONKEY!
 
2013-12-01 07:55:39 PM
John Lumic please pick up the white courtesy phone...
 
2013-12-01 07:56:44 PM

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: It reminds me of the story of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who tried to convince doctors in the 1850s to wash their hands prior to delivering babies.


You're really comparing basic aseptic practice to woo-woo pie-in-the-sky Kurzweil crazniess?

Good login.
 
2013-12-01 08:20:17 PM
lol He'll be dead before 80.
 
2013-12-01 08:22:16 PM

BumpInTheNight: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: theorellior: secularsage: The truth of the matter is that Kurzweil doesn't understand a lot of the science that he cites, and he's not that different from Deepak Chopra in the way he takes ideas that are grounded in reality and then mixes then with his own thinking, but presents both as if they're absolutely true and founded in research.

This. Chopra fleeces the MBAs, Kurzweil fleeces the PhDs.

When you are looking that far into the future, it often seems like magical tales.

It reminds me of the story of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who tried to convince doctors in the 1850s to wash their hands prior to delivering babies.

That's just too funny, I mean seriously the babby hasn't touched *anything* yet, its probably the cleanest thing on the planet at that moment.


IIRC, it wasn't specifically emphasizing washing before delivery; more the idea that say, dressing a gangrenous wound, handling corpses in the morgue and then (without a break) delivering a baby might not be a good idea...I do recall the midwives had a much lower mortality rate among their patients and that had something dto do with the aforementioned corpse-handling (which midwives did not engage in)
 
2013-12-01 08:38:24 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Nemo's Brother: whither_apophis: Is he calculating the probabilty of his attempt at immortality offending religious fanatics who might consider it an offront to God and thus making it their mission to kill him?

/sorry, I tried parsing that down
//and I'm against any such action as well...

It's amazing how afraid to die atheists are, all the while reflecting their fear off on an imaginary religious conspiracy.

It makes sense - if you believe that when you die that it's lights out and nothing more, that's pretty scary.  If you believe there's an afterlife, or that you'll be reincarnated and live again, it's substantially less scary.


Scary?  Why?
 
2013-12-01 08:44:11 PM

Mister Peejay: "First you have to know - not think, know - that some day, you will die.  Until you know that, you are useless."


Awesome.

See if we can keep it going before someone calls it out.

"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God?"

/remixed some of that speech over a radio head song, so I spotted it immediately.
//couldn't bring myself to read the book though, saw the movie too many times
 
2013-12-01 08:50:57 PM
TedCruz'sCrazyDad:
It reminds me of the story of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who tried to convince doctors in the 1850s to wash their hands prior to delivering babies.

He's trying to convince people, well, other doctors mainly, that's there's these teeny tiny invisible bad things called germs that get into your body and make you sick. Ah? He's trying to get doctors to wash their hands. What is this guy? Crazy? Teeny, tiny, invisible? What do you call it? Uh-uh, germs? Huh? What? Now, cut to the 20th century. Last week, as a matter of fact, before I got dragged into this hellhole. I go in to order a burger in this fast food joint, and the guy drops it on the floor. Jim, he picks it up, he wipes it off, he hands it to me like it's all OK. "What about the germs?" I say. He says, "I don't believe in germs. Germs is just a plot they made up so they can sell you disinfectants and soaps." Now he's crazy, right? See?
 
2013-12-01 08:57:44 PM

omeganuepsilon: Mister Peejay: "First you have to know - not think, know - that some day, you will die.  Until you know that, you are useless."

Awesome.

See if we can keep it going before someone calls it out.

"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God?"


"Listen!  You can run water over your hand and make it worse or - look at me! - or you can pour vinegar on it to neutralize the burn."

(no, that's not symbolic at all)

/made a version of Slayer's Disciple that started with that scene, starting with the "Our fathers..." speech and ending with him shouting "Listen!".  Then the guitars started.
/then that computer took an arrow to the knee
 
2013-12-01 08:59:44 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Well, sure, that's part of it, but as of yet it's not proven one way or the other.


I have a 24 inch penis.

Now, you're probably assuming that's a fiction, despite any proof one way or the other.  That's what atheists do with what, for all intents and purposes, are fabricated claims.

It's not that they're not proven false so they're possible, there's no rational process in which "religion"(as a vague stand-in term) would come about.

It's all based on either lies or wishful thinking because it comforts some people.  Same way deluded people think they're more attractive and "good" than they actually are.

There is objective reasoning that says it's all fictional.  People lie all the time to gain power, even if starts out as a white lie to comfort others.  That is not simply possible, but distinctly possible to the point of making it a very likely explanation.

Because "god", or because "soul", is not a revelation, it's a leap into the irrational.  There is literally no reason to believe.

Emotion?  Can't trust those, influenced, possibly made whole-cloth by hormones and other chemicals.

Unexplained phenomena?  To you, maybe, for most things you can think of, someone elsewhere can explain, if not in detail, in concepts that are well supported by science.

So many people treat religion as if we should believe, that it's the default stance, that they're aborting logic and reason right from the start.

Sure, every other religion was started / propagated by uneducated liars with ill intent, but mine is pure.

Poppycock.
 
2013-12-01 09:12:46 PM

Mister Peejay: "Listen!".  Then the guitars started.


Heh, I used "Slide" right before the song really kicked in(had a long mellow intro).

Only part that wasn't "the speech", or at least didn't fit into the speech.  There was a lot of sermon-esq content throughout the movie, and it's been so long now...

CSB, i wrote a short story years before I'd ever heard about it with a similar "twist".  (had an artsy group of friends).
One of them got so confused we all had to sit down and explain it.

Self improvement is masturbation, now self destruction...
/not speech, but a favorite

/on my way to bed, may pick up with a quote in the morning
//pardon any misquotes, going on memory alone
 
2013-12-01 09:32:47 PM

Relatively Obscure: Calmamity: My life isn't shiatty, and I don't hate myself, but living forever sounds awful.

I'll take whatever you don't wanna use.  I'd be quite happy with being able to pick whenever I felt like checking out.


I'll give you everything from age 88 on. You get to sit in a chair and suck your teeth forever. Lucky you.
 
2013-12-01 09:34:08 PM
Regardless of how kooky his theories are, to me the dude has something special, and its imagination and vision.

Could it be out of the realm of possibility? We may never know, but thats kind of the draw for me. Like science fiction that just teeters on possibility.

Anyway, I think he's cool.
 
2013-12-01 09:49:59 PM

Mister Peejay: TedCruz'sCrazyDad:
It reminds me of the story of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who tried to convince doctors in the 1850s to wash their hands prior to delivering babies.

He's trying to convince people, well, other doctors mainly, that's there's these teeny tiny invisible bad things called germs that get into your body and make you sick. Ah? He's trying to get doctors to wash their hands. What is this guy? Crazy? Teeny, tiny, invisible? What do you call it? Uh-uh, germs? Huh? What? Now, cut to the 20th century. Last week, as a matter of fact, before I got dragged into this hellhole. I go in to order a burger in this fast food joint, and the guy drops it on the floor. Jim, he picks it up, he wipes it off, he hands it to me like it's all OK. "What about the germs?" I say. He says, "I don't believe in germs. Germs is just a plot they made up so they can sell you disinfectants and soaps." Now he's crazy, right? See?




A more modern example would be the CEOs of Borders and Barnes & Noble wondering what all the excitement was about this new Information Super Highway and who that crazy guy Jeff Bezos is.
 
KIA
2013-12-01 09:57:21 PM
If Google can map the hundreds of thousands of miles of roads, rails, rivers and features of the United States and the world, they certainly have the capacity to fully map and access the map of a particular body.  Having that map is the first step to being able to find areas that need repair and to deploy precisely tailored repairs.

This is not only feasible, it is likely to occur.  I, for one, intend to be at the front of the line.
 
2013-12-01 10:00:00 PM
I'm thinking that not dieing will be the hardest part.
 
2013-12-01 10:03:14 PM
Well, we know who's going to be running post-apocalyptic Las Vegas.
 
2013-12-01 10:18:14 PM
"We are the Borg. Existence, as you know it, is over. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile."
 
2013-12-01 10:28:23 PM
"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index to his desires-desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance with his instincts, he will accept it even on the slenderest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way..." - Bertrand Russell
 
2013-12-01 10:33:47 PM
Oh bloody hell this guy again!?

/he's a freaking quack...
 
2013-12-01 10:37:35 PM
Dear Ray Kurzweil,

If the Singularity were real, it would have already happened sometime in the past.  Moore's Law is no longer holding firm.  It's not clear what constitutes advancement and what's just PR aymore.  Even supercomputers are bumping up against limits.

B-b-but something will come along and speed everything up, right?  It's happened before, right?  Sure has.  But it looks like this time, even if the technology's there, it will arrive too late to meet Moore's Law.  And it doesn't sound like it's going to get easier after that.

Enjoy growing old and dying.  It happens to us all.
 
2013-12-01 10:55:02 PM
I would love to live forever, given that I either A)get a GitS style cyber brain/body or B)have my aging suspended/reversed. It would be a hellish world those first 100 years or so after immortality hits though. We'd have to grow up as a species real farking quick.
 
2013-12-01 10:58:43 PM

fluffy2097: [images.moviepostershop.com image 270x366]
Joseph Weizenbaum (8 January 1923 - 5 March 2008) was a was a German and American computer scientist and a professor emeritus at MIT. He explains in great detail why it is that you would never want to put your soul into anything resembling current technology or an evolutionary offshoot thereof. In 1966 he programed ELIZA, an "AI therapist".  He was horrified when people in the lab started treating it as a real psychotherapist. Why? When ELIZA says "I understand" It's a lie. It cannot understand. It has no mind. It's a script attached to a database.

The movie is farking brilliant. You start out thinking hes a dottering old man who has no idea what he's talking about, then goes on to show you he knows exactly what he is talking about.

There is no intelligence behind ANY AI today. Deep blue might be able to beat Gary Kasparov in chess, but it cannot play tic tac toe.

Self driving cars cannot fly aircraft.

Siri understands language, but cannot comprehend it. Voice to text still cannot put grammar into your sentences. You have to tell it where to place punctuation. If you tell Siri you are sad, you get a canned response from a programmer at Apple, put there to make the program feel more human.

Show me an AI that can be creative. Show me an AI that doesn't need to be reset on a regular basis. Show me hardware that can contain a soul.

Show me a computer that doesn't need critical updates. Show me an OS that's never royally farked someones shiat up because of a critical update. Show me a computer that can find a bug in itself, and repair that code. That can improve upon itself without a programmer ticking away at a keyboard behind the scenes. Show me a wireless network that doesn't have a ratsnest of cables somewhere.

Show me a computer that thinks, and maybe we will have begun to take our first steps infantile towards the singularity.

A simple man machine interface is all this fool is talking about when he thinks of the si ...


Watching on HULU now.. fascinating!
 
2013-12-01 11:09:19 PM

andrewagill: Dear Ray Kurzweil,

If the Singularity were real, it would have already happened sometime in the past.  Moore's Law is no longer holding firm.  It's not clear what constitutes advancement and what's just PR aymore.  Even supercomputers are bumping up against limits.

B-b-but something will come along and speed everything up, right?  It's happened before, right?  Sure has.  But it looks like this time, even if the technology's there, it will arrive too late to meet Moore's Law.  And it doesn't sound like it's going to get easier after that.

Enjoy growing old and dying.  It happens to us all.


Everything that can be invented already has, right?
 
2013-12-01 11:17:36 PM

omeganuepsilon: It makes sense - if you believe that when you die that it's lights out and nothing more, that's pretty scary. If you believe there's an afterlife, or that you'll be reincarnated and live again, it's substantially less scary.

Scary? Why?


It's not like anyone would simply want to torture you forever because you wore a cotton-wool blend shirt or something.
 
2013-12-01 11:22:07 PM
For the universe to have balance this must happen to him.

www.smbc-comics.com
 
2013-12-01 11:22:45 PM
Most people think the path to immortality is believing a religious book really really hard and doing what it says.  In relative comparison this man comes out way ahead.
 
2013-12-01 11:23:00 PM

mrlewish: Fallacy:  Appeal to Authority


It's an opinion, not an argument.
 
2013-12-01 11:31:12 PM
TFA: Kurzweil says we're just approaching what he calls "the knee of the curve." That's the point at which an exponential function starts to rocket upward.

Are you shiatting me?  The KNEE of the CURVE?  He does realize that he's talking about exponential growth, correct?  There's no knee there, man.  Here, let me draw you a picture.  Here is a graph of y=2x from x=0 to x=15 and y=0 to y=10000.  As you can see, the knee of the curve is clearly somewhere between 8 and 12:

i158.photobucket.com

Now here's the same function, but with y from 0 to 100.  As you can clearly see, the knee of the curve is somewhere between 2 and 6:

i158.photobucket.com
  Funny thing about exponential curves: They don't have minima or maxima.  They don't have inflection points.  Their integrals and derivatives are in fact exponential functions themselves.  If you look at a graph, there will always appear to be a section where there is a giant plateau, but if you zoom in on that point, it will become clear that there never was a plateau, just our perception based on the later expansion.  If you're seeing a plateau, you're not in an exponential curve.

There *are* curves with knees, but exponential curves are not them.  For example, here's a graph of a logistic curve y=(1+2-x)-1.  Whether you graph it with y from 0 to 2 or from 0 to 1, the knee appears to be in the same place, somewhere between 2 and 4.

i158.photobucket.com
i158.photobucket.com


Another funny thing about logistic curves like this: they can resemble exponential curves for a while:

i158.photobucket.com


until they reach some limiting factor, and then they flatline as they approach their maximum value.
 
2013-12-01 11:39:06 PM

the801: hands up who's never heard of Ray Kurzweil? just curious.

TFA missed the bit where in a bid to slow aging and function at peak capacity he takes 150 supplements a day, which he employs an assistant to manage. he is looking pretty good for 65.


\0

i once pissed him off by asking him what he had for breakfast. I just needed him to talk to get a level.

/csb
 
2013-12-01 11:51:51 PM
static2.wikia.nocookie.net

/pfft, amateur
 
2013-12-01 11:53:34 PM
"Come on, you sons of biatches, do you want to live forever?"

Sergeant Major Daniel Daly, USMC
 
2013-12-02 12:05:28 AM

HempHead: whither_apophis: Is he calculating the probabilty of his attempt at immortality offending religious fanatics who might consider it an offront to God and thus making it their mission to kill him?

/sorry, I tried parsing that down
//and I'm against any such action as well...

Methuselah lived 969 years.

[principlesforlifeministries.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]


I always imagined there was a misquote and that "years" was the equivalent of "moons" and were actually months not full Earth revolutions and that 969 comes out to a nice 80.+ years. Which makes a lot more sense,,,
 
2013-12-02 12:14:04 AM
And with strange aeons even death may die.
 
2013-12-02 12:38:33 AM

ShadowWolf: HempHead: whither_apophis: Is he calculating the probabilty of his attempt at immortality offending religious fanatics who might consider it an offront to God and thus making it their mission to kill him?

/sorry, I tried parsing that down
//and I'm against any such action as well...

Methuselah lived 969 years.

[principlesforlifeministries.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]

I always imagined there was a misquote and that "years" was the equivalent of "moons" and were actually months not full Earth revolutions and that 969 comes out to a nice 80.+ years. Which makes a lot more sense,,,


Ah, but you go from two people to a whole bunch in those first few thousand years. It's a silly story, and doubly silly if you try to have Noah repopulate the earth with a family of about 12. Don't think about it too hard, it's a popcorn movie.
 
2013-12-02 01:08:17 AM

omeganuepsilon: TuteTibiImperes: Well, sure, that's part of it, but as of yet it's not proven one way or the other.

I have a 24 inch penis.

Now, you're probably assuming that's a fiction, despite any proof one way or the other.  That's what atheists do with what, for all intents and purposes, are fabricated claims.

It's not that they're not proven false so they're possible, there's no rational process in which "religion"(as a vague stand-in term) would come about.

It's all based on either lies or wishful thinking because it comforts some people.  Same way deluded people think they're more attractive and "good" than they actually are.

There is objective reasoning that says it's all fictional.  People lie all the time to gain power, even if starts out as a white lie to comfort others.  That is not simply possible, but distinctly possible to the point of making it a very likely explanation.

Because "god", or because "soul", is not a revelation, it's a leap into the irrational.  There is literally no reason to believe.

Emotion?  Can't trust those, influenced, possibly made whole-cloth by hormones and other chemicals.

Unexplained phenomena?  To you, maybe, for most things you can think of, someone elsewhere can explain, if not in detail, in concepts that are well supported by science.

So many people treat religion as if we should believe, that it's the default stance, that they're aborting logic and reason right from the start.

Sure, every other religion was started / propagated by uneducated liars with ill intent, but mine is pure.

Poppycock.


It's possible to have this discussion without bringing religion into it.

The question is really, is the entirety of consciousness explainable through neural function?  If you designed a neural net and copied the exact brain pattern of a person into that net, would that create a copy of the other person exactly?  If not, what other factors make a person a  person?

That's not a question of religion, that's a question of science.  Just because we haven't determined how to answer that question yet doesn't make it "hokey-pokey religion".  When people say you haven't proved that there isn't a soul, we take that to mean that they're saying that there is a soul and thus their religion is correct.  Our own biases taint the question.

The fact is we don't know the answer to the question either way.  So we should try to find out.  Research in this area can help lead to a definitive answer in the future.  If we eventually manage to create a functioning neural web and it creates an exact copy of the person's personality and consciousness, then we will have answered that question.  If we create a functioning neural web and it  doesn't then we also have evidence to show that neural function is not the sole determining factor and we can then make educated and rational inferences as to what else could lead to it.

Long story short, posing the question of "what makes a person a person" does not necessarily make one a religious fanatic.
 
2013-12-02 01:17:16 AM
hey guys...what's going on in this thread?
Oh...Immortality...yeah...got it covered.
no longer than 25 years from now...book it! done.!
/serious
 
2013-12-02 01:21:10 AM
except for for Q.A.
he won't get the treatment.
 
2013-12-02 01:40:29 AM
I can make a 100% solid prediction here, he will die, as will the rest of us. I guess he never read Hamlet. Didn't need a math degree either to figure that out. Does he look good for 65? Meh, I've seen much worse, but I've also seen people that don't obsess over it that look the same.
 
2013-12-02 01:43:08 AM

Fark_Guy_Rob: When it comes to computer based artificial intelligence and the like; unless you *can* do it already, you can't.


I dunno. It seems to me that if there is no soul, if consciousness is just the result of a biological machine clicking and whirring, it should be possible to one day synthesize it.
 
2013-12-02 01:47:40 AM

andrewagill: TFA: Kurzweil says we're just approaching what he calls "the knee of the curve." That's the point at which an exponential function starts to rocket upward.

Are you shiatting me?  The KNEE of the CURVE?  He does realize that he's talking about exponential growth, correct?  There's no knee there, man.  Here, let me draw you a picture.  Here is a graph of y=2x from x=0 to x=15 and y=0 to y=10000.  As you can see, the knee of the curve is clearly somewhere between 8 and 12:

[i158.photobucket.com image 506x486]

Now here's the same function, but with y from 0 to 100.  As you can clearly see, the knee of the curve is somewhere between 2 and 6:

[i158.photobucket.com image 494x486]
  Funny thing about exponential curves: They don't have minima or maxima.  They don't have inflection points.  Their integrals and derivatives are in fact exponential functions themselves.  If you look at a graph, there will always appear to be a section where there is a giant plateau, but if you zoom in on that point, it will become clear that there never was a plateau, just our perception based on the later expansion.  If you're seeing a plateau, you're not in an exponential curve.

There *are* curves with knees, but exponential curves are not them.  For example, here's a graph of a logistic curve y=(1+2-x)-1.  Whether you graph it with y from 0 to 2 or from 0 to 1, the knee appears to be in the same place, somewhere between 2 and 4.

[i158.photobucket.com image 495x486]
[i158.photobucket.com image 495x486]


Another funny thing about logistic curves like this: they can resemble exponential curves for a while:

[i158.photobucket.com image 472x486]


until they reach some limiting factor, and then they flatline as they approach their maximum value.


I was told there would be no math.
 
2013-12-02 01:52:55 AM
There are only two serious problems with the kind of close-enough immortality Kurzweil is talking about.

1) What happens if everybody can have it, and
2) What happens if everybody can't have it.

You can have a happy, stable, peaceful society in which people live to 500, but it requires solving problems a hell of a lot harder than physical immortality. That's why I think Kurzweil is right, and we'll figure out a way to live as ageless 20-year-olds before too long. No species has a greater capacity for self-destruction or irony than humans, and that would pretty much peg the needle on both.
 
2013-12-02 01:57:09 AM

Calmamity: My life isn't shiatty, and I don't hate myself, but living forever sounds awful.


Don't worry.  You won't.
 
2013-12-02 02:14:08 AM

Vermicious Knids: I'm not afraid to die and I'm an atheist. *shrug*

I don't mean I'm thrilled about the prospect, but I'm at peace with it. The price of having life is death, simple as that. So I'm going to enjoy the hell out of what I have while I can.

I went through a period of mourning after I realized I was an atheist because I was sad that I wouldn't go to heaven and see my loved ones again, but I'm fine about it now.

I'm honestly much happier now that I'm not exerting all that mental energy on twisting logic to fit my religious beliefs and worrying about whether my ordinary life was good enough for God.


THIS.  There is no real point is fearing the inevitable.  I understand now better that I have lost my faith that when people fear death, the fear comes from uncertainty.  The strongest "faithful" always have some doubt in their mind.  That doubt makes one ponder if they will stop existing upon dying.  Then there is the doubt that their afterlife (if it exists) will really be what they hope for.  That uncertainty gives rise to the fear of death.

As for non-theists (I will not be called an "Atheist" because I have no proof of the lack of a creator/cosmic order/etc of some sort or another yet feel certain in there being no Abrahamic deity nor afterlife) we realize that the only thing we ever had was never "life" but "time" to experience things.

The thing we call our "self" is just a program running on organic hardware...  hardware which is guaranteed to break.  Furthermore all the data present is then lost to natural biological processes (such as apoptosis and bacterial decay).  There is no chance of an afterlife/revival once the data is lost forever.  Even if you could salvage the data and copy it elsewhere it would just be a copy not "you."

Really this has already happened to an extent in all of us.  We are constantly changing as we experience/learn new things, and as we age.  For example, the "you" that once existed as a child is gone.  There is a different "you" now that has replaced many older versions of "you."  These older versions had different ideas/perceptions/even tastes and preferences.  The current "you" has (hopefully most) of the memories from many long gone "you" that once where, but "you" are not truly the same person.

And so oblivion is certain.  There is no reason for a fear response.  Fear helps us struggle in scenarios where it is possible to alter outcomes.  But this outcome is set.  Death is the high cost of living.  Death means and end of existence to our "self" aka oblivion.  Of course oblivion is where we came from and where we will return.  One quote I have always loved from Farscape is "Fear accompanies the possibility of death. Calm shepherds its certainty."  Trade out the word death for oblivion and you understand how I feel.  In loosing my faith I gained a peace I could never have imagined existed in the 25 or so years I spends as a Christian.

As for how I choose to live my life, it is really not so different from when I was a Christian.  I was raised in a Christian culture and it has permanently influenced my thinking in ways to numerous to count including ways I will never actively realize.  So I am not really a different person than before.  But my stress levels are far lower than ever.

___________________________________


While on the topic of non-theists one other extremely common misconception about former believers I would like to clear up.  We do not "hate God" as so many Christians think we do.  Do YOU hate Zeus?    Of course not - that would be silly.  There is no Zeus to hate or be angry with.  But initial stages of "loosing faith" can involve lots of anger though.  Yet the root cause is NOT related to a non-existent deity.

When I realized the falseness of my previous beliefs, I was really quite angry at myself - angry that I ever allowed myself to believe such nonsense.  I was also angry at myself for being so stubborn I could not see reality (there is a powerful instinct to fight the possibility of being wrong EVER) and for the mental gymnastics to fit my faith into reality.  It also damages the "faith" you put into yourself - your intellect, logical analysis, and general ability to tell true from false.  I think that phase hurt quite a bit.

But eventually I realized and later fully accepted that it was not a matter of intelligence.  Like most of us, I never had a chance.  It is a matter of the very evolutionary trait which really allowed us to stand above animals and our individual limits - social learning.  We instinctively trust and accept as true the things our parents and seniors tell us at a young age.  We have "faith" in them by default.

This includes not only religion, but culture, morals in general, and really EVERYTHING you might consider "common sense."  Common sense really is just about everything you "know" which you did not arrive at by means of your own reasoning nor research/experimentation.  Much of our "common sense" cannot hold up to logical scrutiny and research/experimentation.

I realized that I was not "lied to" nor "fooled" into accepting Christianity.  Christianity was the "faith of my father," and it was taught to me by my him (and reenforced by many others) as a core part of how this world worked because he (and my mother) believed it.  Thus it became the foundation of my worldview.  This was what was taught to my parents by their parents, going back many generations.  So the problem was from the start we instinctively trust our parents.  I came to believe something that was not true because my parents believed it and I believed in them.

I think those who are non-theists at an early age generally either have the sort of "Christian" parents that that they learn early on are not worthy to believe in, or parents who are believed in by the child but the parents themselves do not believe in such nonsense.  There is sort of a stereotype of Atheists who do not have close family ties and maybe there is something to that or maybe not.  Either way, nearly all of the most intelligent men to ever exist believed in whatever was commonly believed by the societies/cultures they where raised in.  They did not come to any particular faith because they where particularly gullible, but because such faith is acquired by default.

Having faith (in my view) is not a measurement of intelligence and reasoning, but a measurement of trust in people - especially those who had a large influence upon your upbringing.  Certainly exceptions do exist, but I think that is the rule.  It is this realization that allowed me to forgive myself for a life wasted on faith in the false deity of Abraham.

As for how I came to wake up to reality - that is a long post in itself and I think I have rambled out a very long WOT as it is.  But let us say that I feel the Richard Dawkins types do more harm than good in this fight and leave it at that.
 
2013-12-02 02:15:49 AM
And the day after he uploads his brain the server farm will get hit with a power outage.
 
2013-12-02 02:25:34 AM
I believe immortality is having your name used to scare children into behaving.

I'm working on it.
 
2013-12-02 02:28:26 AM

bk3k: [rest snipped] As for how I came to wake up to reality - that is a long post in itself and I think I have rambled out a very long WOT as it is. But let us say that I feel the Richard Dawkins types do more harm than good in this fight and leave it at that.


Good post!
 
2013-12-02 02:30:10 AM

SuperT: I would love to live forever, given that I either A)get a GitS style cyber brain/body or B)have my aging suspended/reversed. It would be a hellish world those first 100 years or so after immortality hits though. We'd have to grow up as a species real farking quick.


If we get immortality before interstellar travel, we would be completely farked.
 
2013-12-02 02:32:53 AM

omeganuepsilon: It's all based on either lies or wishful thinking because it comforts some people. Same way deluded people think they're more attractive and "good" than they actually are.


Not lies.  Falsehoods.  There is a difference.  Almost all people who indoctrinate others with religion do themselves believe the falsehoods they are spreading.

The same is not true for liars.  Lies are falsehoods, but are spread by those who do not believe the falsehoods.
 
2013-12-02 02:36:16 AM
I, too, hate this guy a lot because i think his theory what future will be like is wrong. DIE, DIE, DIE!!!!
 
2013-12-02 02:37:16 AM
KradDrol:

It's possible to have this discussion without bringing religion into it.

The question is really, is the entirety of consciousness explainable through neural function?  If you designed a neural net and copied the exact brain pattern of a person into that net, would that create a copy of the other person exactly?  If not, what other factors make a person a  person?


I would guess that by neural net you mean something like an electronic web of on/off synaptic connections, and by brain pattern you mean a snapshot of synaptic activity. So no, seems like there's more than that going on, like  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromodulation.And there's speculation about quantum mechanical effects arising from physical characteristics of neurons, and so on.At any rate, I'd suspect actual neurons wallowing in brain soup and connected to theinterior of a personmight behave significantly differently from just a replicated synaptic map even if the map is thorough and precise.
 
2013-12-02 02:53:52 AM
Hob Gadling is not impressed.
 
2013-12-02 03:27:36 AM

TuteTibiImperes: the801: hands up who's never heard of Ray Kurzweil? just curious.

TFA missed the bit where in a bid to slow aging and function at peak capacity he takes 150 supplements a day, which he employs an assistant to manage. he is looking pretty good for 65.


He's a J. I. Rodale or Jim Fixx waiting to happen.
 
2013-12-02 03:31:52 AM

semiotix: There are only two serious problems with the kind of close-enough immortality Kurzweil is talking about.

1) What happens if everybody can have it, and
2) What happens if everybody can't have it.
'

I had this conversation WRT My Little Pony. Apparently the Princesses and a few others can live forever, but it appears the rest of the ponies age and pass. (Although we haven't seen that in the canon). So, we have The Highlander problem. You live forever, but those around you age and perish. Even your best friends. I pointed out that the whole show is for the entertainment of the Princess, who lives vicariously through the youthful ponies.

No, I'm not over thinking it. There's the easy story for kids and stoners, and a higher level set of issues for college graduates and stoners. There's episodes about market economics, intervention bias, second order communication failures. Although, now that I think about it, most episodes don't have that deeper story, although they'll make references to things above the level.
 
2013-12-02 05:00:32 AM
smhttp.14409.nexcesscdn.net
Is amused.

/obscure?
 
2013-12-02 05:29:37 AM

KradDrol: It's possible to have this discussion without bringing religion into it.


Then why couldn't you do so?

KradDrol: The fact is we don't know the answer to the question either way.  So we should try to find out.


The fact is the question comes from irrationality and shouldn't exist.  It's like wondering if my dick really is 24 inches.

KradDrol: Long story short, posing the question of "what makes a person a person" does not necessarily make one a religious fanatic.


Hence:

omeganuepsilon: It's not that they're not proven false so they're possible, there's no rational process in which "religion"(as a vague stand-in term) would come about.

omeganuepsilon: Because "god", or because "soul", is not a revelation, it's a leap into the irrational.



I never mentioned fanaticism. The word "soul" does often come from a religious perspective, even if that religion is largely undefined or referred to as something like: "I'm very spiritual."  It's all doubletalk for the same thing, some belief or inclination to possibly believe the supernatural.

bk3k: omeganuepsilon: It's all based on either lies or wishful thinking because it comforts some people. Same way deluded people think they're more attractive and "good" than they actually are.

Not lies.  Falsehoods.  There is a difference.  Almost all people who indoctrinate others with religion do themselves believe the falsehoods they are spreading.

The same is not true for liars.  Lies are falsehoods, but are spread by those who do not believe the falsehoods.


Not necessarily.  If you want to put that out there as fact, you're going to need a citation.

I also included an "or' which stopped me from using any sort of absolute.  Also, in context, I used the term "deluded" to entail exactly what you are talking about.
 
2013-12-02 05:31:45 AM
www.wipwapweb.com
 
2013-12-02 05:55:08 AM

DrPainMD: [smhttp.14409.nexcesscdn.net image 640x360]
Is amused.

/obscure?


Nope, great movie.  It says a lot about a film if it's just a bunch of people talking in a room but you can't look away.
 
2013-12-02 05:58:45 AM

Mister Peejay: The way I see it is this.

When you're asleep, you're not aware of it.  Hell, you're not aware of falling asleep, until after you wake up and think about it for a bit.

Why is dying any different?  Once you've died, it's not like you're going to be sitting back and thinking "Damn, now I'm dead.  That sucks."  You just won't exist anymore, just like in all that time before you were born.


How do you know you are not dead yet?
 
2013-12-02 05:59:24 AM

secularsage: 50 years ago, Ray Kurzweil would have been considered a science fiction writer with some neat ideas, much like a Isaac Asimov, a Ray Bradbury or an Arthur C. Clarke. But instead, he gets titles today like "renowned scientist," "futurist" and "inventor."

The truth of the matter is that Kurzweil doesn't understand a lot of the science that he cites, and he's not that different from Deepak Chopra in the way he takes ideas that are grounded in reality and then mixes then with his own thinking, but presents both as if they're absolutely true and founded in research. Many real scientists have called him out for this, and while it's a common consensus that he's a smart guy, there are good reasons to be skeptical of him.

I recently read Michio Kaku's  Physics of the Future and rolled my eyes through a lot of the chapter on human longevity whenever the idea that "we might be the last generation who will die" came up. That sort of stuff sounds great, but it's not founded in the science that's currently being undertaken. It's likely that we'll find ways to extend human lifespans significantly within this century, but chances are good it's going to be more of a "reverse the cosmetic effects of aging and keep organs from failing" sort of thing, not a "never die" scenario.

Plus, I'd argue most human beings don't need a longer life, given what they're doing with the one they currently have. Nature designed us to live for a set amount of time and then to die for many good reasons. Overpopulation is one such problem, but there's also the need for our genetics to continue to grow and evolve rather than to remain stagnant. I tend to think societies also need to have frequent change in leadership and thinking, and that only happens when the older generations die off and leave the newer ones in control.


I think you (and a few other people on this thread) have actually missed a big point here, about Ray Kurzweil -- This man actually has invented a huge amount of technology that has touched all of our lives on some level or another.  This man is not employed by Google because he's a kook.  This man is employed by Google, because he is one of the brightest people of our time.

He may be WRONG or he may be REALLY FAR OFF on his time estimates, but he's one hell of a smart dude.  And he's definitely right about how practically everything is moving rapidly toward becoming IT related.
 
2013-12-02 06:22:11 AM

Zizzowop: I was told there would be no math.


Yeah, well, you died in 2006, so I really wasn't gearing my analysis on immortality to you.
 
2013-12-02 07:01:33 AM

ekdikeo4: He may be WRONG or he may be REALLY FAR OFF on his time estimates, but he's one hell of a smart dude.  And he's definitely right about how practically everything is moving rapidly toward becoming IT related.


His problem is that he assumes that current trends will continue forever with no real evidence - "The past century and a half or so has seen enormous technological advancement, therefore that same level of advancement will always occur. Also, it will develop in this particular way that will allow me to live forever because I really, really want to".

It's not really any different than the finance guys in the late 90's who thought the DOW would hit 50,000 by 2010. They saw a positive trend and assumed it would continue forever.
 
2013-12-02 07:31:21 AM
He'll succeed and achieve his goal of immortality, though it'll be long and arduous for him. The guy will most likely succeed in extending his life for a century or longer then what people can live now, before finally perfecting it.

Then on his way to get the process done to him.
31.media.tumblr.com

Life's a psychotic biatch and no one shall make it out alive.
 
2013-12-02 07:54:15 AM
Coocon reference was funny.
 
2013-12-02 08:15:40 AM
Engineers are notorious for having surprising percent of their number with utterly no grounding in science and reality.  They can work with a tiny range of expertise but are otherwise incompetent.  See:  Salem Hypothesis
 
2013-12-02 08:32:57 AM

andrewagill: If the Singularity were real, it would have already happened sometime in the past.  Moore's Law is no longer holding firm.  It's not clear what constitutes advancement and what's just PR aymore.  Even supercomputers are bumping up against limits.

B-b-but something will come along and speed everything up, right?  It's happened before, right?  Sure has.  But it looks like this time, even if the technology's there, it will arrive too late to meet Moore's Law.  And it doesn't sound like it's going to get easier after that.


We had this conversation back in 2000 or so, when Intel looked into our wide, innocent eyes and told us that, no, we wouldn't be seeing 10GHz Pentiums in the next few years, even though clock speeds had been increasing exponentially for a decade or two up to that point. O NOES! It's the end of all progress!

Now, look around in 2013, and see how digital progress has been thwarted because our processors are still stuck at 2-4 GHz.

There are serious conversations about the future of supercomputing, given that several avenues for progress do appear to be closing. (The Reg probably isn't the best place to follow those conversations, but that's beside the point.) New avenues are opening, though, and will continue to open. We're actually quite a long way from "running out of atoms", never mind new ways to encode information across them and hook them up.
 
2013-12-02 08:34:14 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Nemo's Brother: whither_apophis: Is he calculating the probabilty of his attempt at immortality offending religious fanatics who might consider it an offront to God and thus making it their mission to kill him?

/sorry, I tried parsing that down
//and I'm against any such action as well...

It's amazing how afraid to die atheists are, all the while reflecting their fear off on an imaginary religious conspiracy.

It makes sense - if you believe that when you die that it's lights out and nothing more, that's pretty scary.  If you believe there's an afterlife, or that you'll be reincarnated and live again, it's substantially less scary.


Why do you think people invented gods and the afterlife in the first place?
 
2013-12-02 10:09:26 AM

andrewagill: TFA: Kurzweil says we're just approaching what he calls "the knee of the curve." That's the point at which an exponential function starts to rocket upward.

Are you shiatting me?  The KNEE of the CURVE?  He does realize that he's talking about exponential growth, correct?  There's no knee there, man.  Here, let me draw you a picture.  Here is a graph of y=2x from x=0 to x=15 and y=0 to y=10000.  As you can see, the knee of the curve is clearly somewhere between 8 and 12:

[i158.photobucket.com image 506x486]

Now here's the same function, but with y from 0 to 100.  As you can clearly see, the knee of the curve is somewhere between 2 and 6:

[i158.photobucket.com image 494x486]
  Funny thing about exponential curves: They don't have minima or maxima.  They don't have inflection points.  Their integrals and derivatives are in fact exponential functions themselves.  If you look at a graph, there will always appear to be a section where there is a giant plateau, but if you zoom in on that point, it will become clear that there never was a plateau, just our perception based on the later expansion.  If you're seeing a plateau, you're not in an exponential curve.

There *are* curves with knees, but exponential curves are not them.  For example, here's a graph of a logistic curve y=(1+2-x)-1.  Whether you graph it with y from 0 to 2 or from 0 to 1, the knee appears to be in the same place, somewhere between 2 and 4.

[i158.photobucket.com image 495x486]
[i158.photobucket.com image 495x486]


Another funny thing about logistic curves like this: they can resemble exponential curves for a while:

[i158.photobucket.com image 472x486]


until they reach some limiting factor, and then they flatline as they approach their maximum value.


Kurzweil is the hero we deserve, but not the one we need right now.

/mathematical proof:

2 sqrt(-abs(abs(x)-1)*abs(3-abs(x))/((abs(x)-1)*(3-abs(x))))(1+abs(abs(x )-3)/(abs(x)-3))sqrt(1-(x/7)^2)+(5+0.97(abs(x-.5)+abs(x+.5))-3(abs(x-. 75)+abs(x+.75)))(1+abs(1-abs(x))/(1-abs(x))),-3sqrt(1-(x/7)^2)sqrt(abs (abs(x)-4)/(abs(x)-4)),abs(x/2)-0.0913722(x^2)-3+sqrt(1-(abs(abs(x)-2) -1)^2),(2.71052+(1.5-.5abs(x))-1.35526sqrt(4-(abs(x)-1)^2))sqrt(abs(ab s(x)-1)/(abs(x)-1))+0.9
 
2013-12-02 10:33:32 AM
Cure aging?  I'm in.
 
2013-12-02 10:58:12 AM

BumpInTheNight: TedCruz'sCrazyDad: theorellior: secularsage: The truth of the matter is that Kurzweil doesn't understand a lot of the science that he cites, and he's not that different from Deepak Chopra in the way he takes ideas that are grounded in reality and then mixes then with his own thinking, but presents both as if they're absolutely true and founded in research.

This. Chopra fleeces the MBAs, Kurzweil fleeces the PhDs.

When you are looking that far into the future, it often seems like magical tales.

It reminds me of the story of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who tried to convince doctors in the 1850s to wash their hands prior to delivering babies.

That's just too funny, I mean seriously the babby hasn't touched *anything* yet, its probably the cleanest thing on the planet at that moment.


dilbert.com

/A man ahead of his time.
 
2013-12-02 11:12:08 AM

KIA: If Google can map the hundreds of thousands of miles of roads, rails, rivers and features of the United States and the world, they certainly have the capacity to fully map and access the map of a particular body.  Having that map is the first step to being able to find areas that need repair and to deploy precisely tailored repairs.


LOL. You're comparing the network of roads on the Earth to the number of connections in the human body. How adorable.
 
2013-12-02 12:26:45 PM

omeganuepsilon: TuteTibiImperes: Well, sure, that's part of it, but as of yet it's not proven one way or the other.

I have a 24 inch penis.

Now, you're probably assuming that's a fiction, despite any proof one way or the other.  That's what atheists do with what, for all intents and purposes, are fabricated claims.

It's not that they're not proven false so they're possible, there's no rational process in which "religion"(as a vague stand-in term) would come about.

It's all based on either lies or wishful thinking because it comforts some people.  Same way deluded people think they're more attractive and "good" than they actually are.

There is objective reasoning that says it's all fictional.  People lie all the time to gain power, even if starts out as a white lie to comfort others.  That is not simply possible, but distinctly possible to the point of making it a very likely explanation.

Because "god", or because "soul", is not a revelation, it's a leap into the irrational.  There is literally no reason to believe.

Emotion?  Can't trust those, influenced, possibly made whole-cloth by hormones and other chemicals.

Unexplained phenomena?  To you, maybe, for most things you can think of, someone elsewhere can explain, if not in detail, in concepts that are well supported by science.

So many people treat religion as if we should believe, that it's the default stance, that they're aborting logic and reason right from the start.

Sure, every other religion was started / propagated by uneducated liars with ill intent, but mine is pure.

Poppycock.


You're assuming that existence is rational. I've seen no evidence of that.
 
2013-12-02 01:08:34 PM
This thread is a great argument for philosophical education, if only because it's the philosophical equivalent of innumerate people argument which is greater, 'many' or 'lots.'
 
2013-12-02 01:12:05 PM
 
2013-12-02 01:14:57 PM

RedVentrue: You're assuming that existence is rational. I've seen no evidence of that.


Good call.
 
2013-12-02 01:16:57 PM
...it's the philosophical equivalent of innumerate people arguing which is greater, 'many' or 'lots.'

FTFM
 
2013-12-02 01:32:56 PM

SomethingToDo: The second law of thermodynamics is more of a guideline than a rule, but the way animal life gets around it is by constantly reintroducing variation by sexual reproduction.


It's simpler than that: All life is a temporary localized reversion of entropy. Entropy is decreased by increasing the entropy of the food/energy source. You grow a baby, you eat more food. You cut your thumb, you don't suddenly fall apart, you (we hope) heal by using some of the energy and resources from your food... but your food becomes more disorganized than it was before you ate it.
 
2013-12-02 01:35:21 PM

Linux_Yes: want immortality?   become a republican.  they have a knack for seemingly hanging around forever.

or at least what seems like forever.


Like Ted Kennedy?
 
2013-12-02 01:49:32 PM

WelldeadLink: ... but your food becomes more disorganized than it was before you ate it.


Maybe your cafeteria is better than ours.
 
2013-12-02 04:14:54 PM

andrewagill: TFA: Kurzweil says we're just approaching what he calls "the knee of the curve." That's the point at which an exponential function starts to rocket upward.

Are you shiatting me?  The KNEE of the CURVE?  He does realize that he's talking about exponential growth, correct?  There's no knee there, man.  Here, let me draw you a picture.  Here is a graph of y=2x from x=0 to x=15 and y=0 to y=10000.  As you can see, the knee of the curve is clearly somewhere between 8 and 12:

[i158.photobucket.com image 506x486]

Now here's the same function, but with y from 0 to 100.  As you can clearly see, the knee of the curve is somewhere between 2 and 6:

[i158.photobucket.com image 494x486]
  Funny thing about exponential curves: They don't have minima or maxima.  They don't have inflection points.  Their integrals and derivatives are in fact exponential functions themselves.  If you look at a graph, there will always appear to be a section where there is a giant plateau, but if you zoom in on that point, it will become clear that there never was a plateau, just our perception based on the later expansion.  If you're seeing a plateau, you're not in an exponential curve.

There *are* curves with knees, but exponential curves are not them.  For example, here's a graph of a logistic curve y=(1+2-x)-1.  Whether you graph it with y from 0 to 2 or from 0 to 1, the knee appears to be in the same place, somewhere between 2 and 4.

[i158.photobucket.com image 495x486]
[i158.photobucket.com image 495x486]


Another funny thing about logistic curves like this: they can resemble exponential curves for a while:

[i158.photobucket.com image 472x486]


until they reach some limiting factor, and then they flatline as they approach their maximum value.


Never seen that before.  That was really cool.
 
2013-12-02 07:54:45 PM

TuteTibiImperes: It just seems like there would be.


It seems that a jet engine would be more complicated than a a motorcycle engine. But it's actually quite a bit simpler in a number ways.

For all you know "it seems too complicated to model" is just a false limitation that the simulator you're running in inserts into your thought stream to keep you from trying to get out of the matrix or from starting a recursive set of embedded simulations.

Until we come up with a better understanding of what we currently call "consciousness" it's all a moot point -- it could be that consciousness isn't a thing in the first place and thus comparing "computer consciousness" to "human consciousness" is as meaningless as comparing the density of the ether to the density of the firmament.
 
2013-12-02 10:54:26 PM
So Google is the new OCP? Didn't they make a movie about crossing humans and electronics/robotics?
 
2013-12-03 01:19:16 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Mister Peejay: The way I see it is this.

When you're asleep, you're not aware of it.  Hell, you're not aware of falling asleep, until after you wake up and think about it for a bit.

Why is dying any different?  Once you've died, it's not like you're going to be sitting back and thinking "Damn, now I'm dead.  That sucks."  You just won't exist anymore, just like in all that time before you were born.

How do you know you are not dead yet?


Are you saying that I'm a geewok?
 
Displayed 140 of 140 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report