Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

5498 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Dec 2013 at 3:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 40 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report