/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2659666]

Who else is readying himself for the Singularity?

>living as healthy as possible to be sure to make it
>meditation to rid oneself of attachment of experiencing life as this particular self and ridding oneself of preconceptions about how it will be
>living austerely but putting all your money in health insurance
>preparing oneself to defend augmentation as a human right, not merely an extra gimmick for the rich

Let's do it.

[Benny Profane !!muO1YE/mn/J No.2659667]

>>2659666

Is there any peer-reviewed science on this? Or is it purely speculative?

[Anonymous No.2659673]

>>2659666
>>2659666
It wont happen in your life time

[Anonymous No.2659676]

>>2659667
Strictly speaking it's still speculative, but the logic behind is is very sound. Technological progress increases exponentially, therefore it most go through the roof at some point.

That said, even leaving such an event out of the equation, it would still be very reasonable to prepare oneself for a world where implants and such become a viable options. People anticipate the future in many ways, why not technologically as well?

[Anonymous No.2659678]

>>2659673
Why not? Life expansion and medical science are advancing too. If I can keep getting fixed up for a while I may have a nice shot.

[Anonymous No.2659682]

Would you take advice on the utopia from this man?

[Anonymous No.2659684]

>>2659666
you are going to die. just like everyone else who has ever lived, you are going to die. they are gonna put you in the ground and worms are gonna eat your flesh and your bones will become dust and your memory totally forgotten a hundred years after your death.

don't waste your precious few days on this earth preparing for a salvation that will not come.

[Anonymous No.2659689]

>>2659684
That is a good point. I guess it's like Pascals Wager in a way. Luckily, it is possible to enjoy life and still keep an eye out for immortality.

[Anonymous No.2659692]

>>2659678

most examples of exponential growth follow an s-curve, and by most indications we're actually starting to flatten out. which completely deflates the idea of a singularity.

it's exactly the same misconception that occurs re: world population. everyone projects exponential growth forever, but the true model is an s-curve

another good example is developing economies. see: brazil. growth takes a while to kick off, but once it does, the economy grows exponentially for a while before slowly cooling down again.

i'm pretty tired, so i'm having trouble explaining this over text, so i drew you a picture.

[Anonymous No.2659696]

Transhumanism is nice, but Kurzweil is a bit of a faggot and I'm not sure about the wholy singularity thing. Give me robot arms to drink bourbon with and then we'll see about the rest.

[Anonymous No.2659698]

>>2659692

just to be clear, this isn't pure conjecture on my part, the s-curve is the most commonly accepted model of human technological growth (even if you accept the idea of the singularity, you still have to admit that it's, for the moment, a fringe idea - growing, maybe, but still fringe); regarding the examples i gave, world population and developing economies, it is absolutely the best model, beyond almost all dispute.

[Standard Toaster !RQTOASTvfI No.2659705]

>implying there's such a thing as the human soul

[Anonymous No.2659707]

>>2659705
Why would there need to be?

[Standard Toaster !RQTOASTvfI No.2659711]

>>2659707
I mixed up my tabs and posted that in the wrong one. My apologies.

[Anonymous No.2659722]

>>2659667
"Speculative" doesn't even begin to capture how far fetched the Singularity it. Never going to happen.

[Benny Profane !!muO1YE/mn/J No.2659723]

>>2659722

my thoughts exactly.

[Anonymous No.2659725]

>>2659722
Would that mean that there is an absolute ceiling to technological development or that it would merely be impossible to happen before we self-destruct

[Anonymous No.2659734]

>>2659723
>>2659725
I shouldn't have been so flippant in my post.
I believe it will never happen becuse studies have been done in the attempt to develope practical AI. I mean very limited AI like telling oil companies where to drill given masses of data. These studies concluded we don't really understand how we make decision. They just seem to float up from our subconscious. We rely far more than we realize on intuition and common sense. And there is no understanding of how these things work.
This is my understanding anyway. I certainly wouldn't mind being corrected.

[Anonymous No.2659735]

>>2659734

What a faggot.

[Benny Profane !!muO1YE/mn/J No.2659738]

>>2659735

nice argument, bro

[Anonymous No.2659742]

>>2659738

Is there need for further argument? Arguing with faggots is for faggots, faggot.

[Anonymous No.2659767]

>>2659734
Oh holy shit, you were that retard in that Ayn Rand thread who proudly declared himself an anti-intellectual, weren't you? And then threw a hissy fit when people told you you should do even wikipedia-level research on political subjects before forming an opinion? Then accused everybody in the thread of being marxist?

You said it was a dam in that thread though, not an oil company.

[Anonymous No.2659770]

the idea of the singularity doesn't take human stupidity into account. weakly superhuman = human stupidity x 1000

and nobody has any idea what strong superhumanity might be. it won't happen. even charles stross believes this now.

[Anonymous No.2659774]

>>2659767
>Oh shit I masturbated and came all over my own face and now I want validation by proclaiming to the world that I'm invalid and therefore valid in my tiny little brain

[Anonymous No.2659778]

>>2659774
>>>Oh shit I masturbated and came all over my own face and now I want validation by proclaiming to the world that I'm invalid and therefore valid in my tiny little brain
haha what

[Anonymous No.2659782]

Are Brits just now getting into the office?

[Anonymous No.2659789]

>>2659734
if you have enough data points, a "subconscious" will happen, you just need enough input

[Anonymous No.2659811]

Nobody noticed, heh.

[Anonymous No.2659818]

>>2659667
>>implying peer-review means it is not bullshit

The singularity is advocated by thinkers who base their ideas on hugely problematic assumptions and their fans are aspie-nerds who jerk off to the idea that they can finally escape their meat prisons, so it won't matter that they don't get laid because they can't do a single pullup.

[Anonymous No.2659824]

>>2659734
The problems of AI decision making in your example are related to formal logic versus pattern recognition. Physical Symbol Systems (classical AI with discreet symbols and rigid logical rules, think turing machine) are great at formal problems like chess and horrible at 'quick and dirty' problems, pattern recognition and the like. Luckily, there are approaches such as Parallel Distributed Processing (or Connectionism) which are not only very good at pattern recognition, but in some respects are modelled after the way human neurons are connected (yes, not really, but certainly a lot more materialistically plausible than retarded functionalist algorithmystics and LOT garbage; structuralism makes me angry).

[Anonymous No.2659827]

It wasn't Kurzweil, it was Arthur Smith. Amazed noone noticed that.

[Anonymous No.2659828]

are you sure you're going to be one of the people to benefit from it?

the better technology gets, the more damning the wealth disparity.

[Anonymous No.2659830]

>>2659818
>2012
>thinks getting laid is manly

[Anonymous No.2659832]

>>2659830
>>implying I actually implyied that
>>'2012'ing

[Anonymous No.2659833]

>>2659824
I would only hedge on my belief the Singularity will never happen due to the possibility of quantum computers. If these ever become practical I guess it's unknown how powerful they will be. But... humans will still be writting the code.

[Anonymous No.2659835]

>basing your life on far flung ideas that lack any certainty
>not basing your life in your only things you know to be true, namely your sensory experience and conciousness
>not realising that the good is per definition what we pursue for its own sake, not as a means to a goal
>not realising the only thing we pursue for its own sake is pleasure
>not arranging your life as to maximize pleasure
>not realising that actual pleasure is better hypothetical pleasure
>not living happily in the moment as a work-shy little trickster
>i hope you guys are aware that i urge you to refrain from this

[Anonymous No.2659838]

>>2659832

So you're blind too? I'd ask you to take off your sunglasses so you can see, but it looks like you'd still be in the dark.

[Anonymous No.2659841]

>>2659835
>not realizing that his ego is swollen like a fat whale on the beach

[Anonymous No.2659844]

>>2659841
Why would you assume that? One doesn't have to have a firmand faulty view of same actual core to enjoy the bundle of senses

[Anonymous No.2659846]

>>2659844
*some

[Anonymous No.2659851]

>>2659844

So you're just an idiot?

[Libertine !AmNIYRdgeI No.2659891]

>>2659692
>Most examples of exponential growth follow an s-curve, and by most indications we're actually starting to flatten out.

What do you mean by "we're"? When Ray talks about moores law and exponential growth it isn't just one aspect, like processor speeds, but everything; Canonical milestones, paradigm shifts, biological evolution, RAM size, RAM price, transistors per microprocessor...

When one thing starts to flatten out it is replaced by something else, a new technology. Look at the sale of records, exponential curve then started to flatten out, then came cassettes, again exponential curve then started to flatten out, then CDs, mp3s, and now look at the distribution of music, I can download every artist I have ever heard of in a few hours.

Processor speeds will flatten out, but then we will start making 3D processors, anything that flattens out gets swiftly replaced.

[Anonymous No.2659968]

>>2659851
I'm probably too deep for you.

[Anonymous No.2660244]

>>2659968

Maybe so. Or maybe just a stuttering idiot.

[Anonymous No.2660245]

>>2659835
This is pretty sound. Still, stressfree work can be good. It gives you extra cash and you'll be able to leach off your parents longer if they think you're respectable and contributing to society.

Leaching is essential though.

[Anonymous No.2660247]

>>2659666

>>living austerely but putting all your money in health insurance
>health insurance

sorry, sane and rational people live in Canada, no need for health insurance lol

[Anonymous No.2660255]

>>2659891
Marxism 2.0

[Anonymous No.2660256]

I'm both a transhumanist and a singularitarian, but I'm not "readying" myself to adapt. If I were to do that, and it didn't happen, I'd just be sitting here with nothing to do.

I'm living life to the fullest. If I have the money with Lepht Anonym finishes the southpaw, fuck yeah, I'll go for it. If I can afford to own or rent a 3d printer when they start getting more advanced, then yes, I'm going to fucking print hardware for my body. If I eventually get the option to move my consciousness into a machine, I'll fucking go for it.

But for now, party hard, party hard, party party party hard.

[Anonymous No.2660260]

>>2660256
>But for now, party hard, party hard, party party party hard.

Yfw - You have partied so hard your organs are failing, you are laying in a hospital bed aged 52 and told you have less than a month left to live. On the little screen in your room a news presenter announces that "manipulation of stems cells allows for ALL body tissue to be regenerated, this will be available to the public in about 6 months"

[Anonymous No.2660261]

>>2660256
The idea of 3d printing parts for your body shows Cory Doctorow levels of misplaced enthusiasm and technological myopia. Even if it was a good idea to substitute non-biological components for parts of your body without medical need, you would want them to be the best quality possible. However, high-quality single pieces of expensive hardware are not the strength of 3d printers, and never will be.

[Anonymous No.2660269]

>>2659891
This theory basically has ad-hoc built in; if one curve flattens out, you can point in ten directions and say that a revolutionary technology is coming somewhere, or you can point in another direction to something that's recently been improved. Do you see how easy this is? This is just another way of phrasing optimism.

[Anonymous No.2660283]

>>2660261
We need to wait until nanotech advances to point where we can replicate objects at the atomic level. In 100 years somebody will be downloading the data for a new webbed left hand for swimming, only to find some joker has deliberately over written the file with a hoof.

[Anonymous No.2660289]

>>2660269
You really don't understand Kurzweils take on Moores law do you?

[Anonymous No.2660290]

>>2660260
>I DID IT MYYYYYY WAAAAAAY

[Anonymous No.2660294]

>Mfw people actually believe this shit even though true AI is impossible and even if it was you'll never get your pathetic mind into a machine anyway

[Anonymous No.2660299]

>>2660294
>true AI is impossible
No, it isn't.

[Anonymous No.2660302]

>having serious technological discussion on /lit/ instead of /sci/

[Anonymous No.2660311]

>>2660269
Pic related

>>2660294
>AI is impossible
My friend you are a biological computer, your neurons are either firing or not (Binary). The human brain could, and will easily interact with technology.

[Anonymous No.2660324]

Why are Jews so fucking hideous?

I mean, do Jews themselves realize how hideous they are? not only are they vermin in practice but they even look it.

Why didn't Hitler finish the fucking job?

[Anonymous No.2660332]

>>2660299

Of course it is.

>>2660311

>(P) your neurons are either firing or not (Binary).
>(C) My friend you are a biological computer.

Supposing that's true, it doesn't follow. However, the brain may, in respects, be LIKE a computer, but computation is one part of the brain's interaction with the mind.

Here we go.

[Anonymous No.2660335]

>>2660324
>Hitler was an underachiever.

I don't think Ray Kurzweil is a Jew though, i'm fairly sure he's an atheist.

[Anonymous No.2660341]

>>2660324

>Report submitted! This window will close in 5 seconds...

[Anonymous No.2660351]

>>2660324
>jews
>hideous

[Anonymous No.2660353]

There is a reason why Singularity is called "The Rapture Of The Nerds" and it got nothing to do with the respectability of the idea. It's plain pop sci wankery of the worst kind based on shaky assumptions the consistency of yoghurt. Excellent idea for SF writers, horrible idea to base your whole fucking existence on OP, you retard.

Vernor Vinge predicted that by 2020 we will have AI's superior to humans in every conceivable way. Look how that turned out. Here we are in 2012 and the best we can show is Roomba and that dancing Japanese robot. Anything resembling intelligence is so far out in the future that we have no inkling on how it will turn out.

The reason behind this frankly preposterous assumption (and others like it, either by Vernor Vinge or others like him) is that wide eyed high school infatuation with technology paired with absolutely no idea on how, to put it simply, that shit works where every problem with its application or negative aspect of aforementioned technology is swept under the rug.

Take the next big fad - drones and all manner of more or less autonomous vehicles. Already the mental masturbation has started across the interbutts. They can do everything. They will change everything. Fear the flying swarms of RC controlled drones! All bullshit of course. And why? Nobody bothered to ask the people who actually build them anything.

tl;dr People talking shit about something they literary have no idea of.

[Libertine !AmNIYRdgeI No.2660354]

>>2660332
The mind is a result of your brain. There is no magical external thing that your soul connects to creating consciousness. If I were to use an atomic replication device (as mentioned ITT) and cloned you, including your brain, and printed a copy in real time, nobody could tell the difference.

Now suppose we repeat the experiment but splice in regions of the brain from someone else. You would behave in a totally different manner depending on what parts were changed. Soon we will be enhancing our neurological functions with expansion packs, giving ourselves infared, sonar, whatever you like... using a medium to interpret the input signals to current parts of our brains.

-We can also alter the genes of an already existing person to produce different proteins. Once we increase cell division in the desired areas, we can alter our biology to easily accommodate what ever tech we want.


As for artificial intelligence: A computer parroting back set responses to certain stimuli is exactly what a human does.

[Anonymous No.2660360]

Mfw I see all these people denying the upcoming singularity.

We will transcend our ape mind and body. Why would we stop where we are? Why would anyone deny this? Everything is getting infinitly more 'better' and complex every single minute passed. Soon the whole world will be online, don't you think any of these advandcments in technology won't shift how we see ourselves in the world? Think about Virtual Reality or trancending our bodily needs for example - what the fuck will happen? Shit gonna get crazy and uncertain - that's why it's called Singularity.

Deal with it you plebs.

luddies gonna lude

[Anonymous No.2660362]

>>2660353
What are you babbling about?

I hardly think OP is wasting his life by eating healthy and getting health insurance.

If you really despise/fail to understand the logical principals behind cybernetics, i suggest taking your technophobic ass to another thread.

[Anonymous No.2660369]

>>2660353
Look at you denying the advancement of technology.

You can sit there and sneer if it makes you feel better. Alexander Graham Bell was laughed at too, for suggesting that one day every town in America would have access to a phone.

[Anonymous No.2660373]

Any believers in the Singularity want to put a date on when it will happen?
Any believers in the Singularity want to put their money where their mouths are?
Can we think of some kind of bet where I, as a non believer, won't get ripped off?
If we can, I'm ready to bet serious money.

[Anonymous No.2660380]

>>2660373
>>2660373
Kurzweil predicts 2045.

I'm more inclined to say 2150ish

[Anonymous No.2660379]

>>2660353

Congratz, you summed up your point perfectly with tl;dr.

What exactly do YOU now? Kurzweil is an award winning scientist and engineer, a millionaire. What are you? Why should I listen to you? Why?

Who are these people involved in the dozens of institutions raising awareness and tackling the problems concerning transhumanism? Who are these thousands of people working on building AI all around the world. Why are we funding robotics anyway if it's a dead end? Why do we have a humanoid on the ISS? You just fail to see the implications of upcoming technologies because you're a bitter pessimistic hermit.

[Anonymous No.2660382]

The earliest comming prediction from Kurzweil, that I can find, is that by 2029 a computer will pass the Turing test.
So, just 17 years to go before we find out how accurate his thinking has been.
I wonder if this is on Intrade?

[Anonymous No.2660388]

>>2660382
The reason the turing test has fallen back way beyond Turing's prediction is because scientists(and society) aren't as creative as they were then. We need to cut out all the money going to materialist faculities like business and marketing and bring back respectability to the creative ones. The humanities department doesn't help things with it's dedication to archaic diseased thoughts(freudian, marxist, continental philosophy) either.

[Anonymous No.2660391]

>>2660354

>The mind is a result of your brain.

Assuming you can prove that's a fact, it doesn't prove true AI is possible.

But you're looking at it the wrong way. Let's say you can create a "computer" so that it attains a mind. You proof of a mind existing without a brain. You've just -proven- dualism, not materialism.

>If I were to use an atomic replication device (as mentioned ITT) and cloned you, including your brain, and printed a copy in real time, nobody could tell the difference.

You're assuming my clone would behave the same way I do, and there's exactly no reason to believe that. There's even less reason to believe that even if no one could tell the difference between myself and my clone that we have ONE, the SAME mind. Clearly we don't as we are experiencing different thoughts at different times for different reasons. Take my clone and I, put us in two separate rooms, one Red and one White. Ask us what color it is: do we both say Red, White, or do we say our separate color? Of course it would be the latter. So, again, materialism debunked the easy way.

[Anonymous No.2660392]

Kurzweil got a lot of general predictions right.
Here's some he got wrong.

Between 2000–2010:
Translating telephones allow people to speak to each other in different languages.
"Cybernetic chauffeurs" can drive cars for humans and can be retrofitted into existing cars. They work by communicating with other vehicles and with sensors embedded along the roads.

By 2009:
Intelligent roads and driverless cars will be in use, mostly on highways.

[Anonymous No.2660395]

>>2660391

>You now have proof

[Anonymous No.2660397]

>>2660388
Do you think as the population grows, and manufacturing and working class jobs are done by machines, we will be forced to enter into some form of communism? I mean there is a shortage of jobs here at the moment and It's only going to get worse as we replace workers by machines.

[Anonymous No.2660400]

Who else is waiting for the energy crisis of 2030?
>living as healthy as possible to be sure to make it
>meditation to rid oneself of attachment to civilized life
>living austerely but putting all your money into fallout shelters and survival gear
>preparing oneself to defend yourself, not merely with a gimmick but with a rifle

[Anonymous No.2660401]

>>2660391
>Let's say you can create a "computer" so that it attains a mind. You proof of a mind existing without a brain. You've just -proven- dualism, not materialism.
If a different anon may interject, you've just proven that the "mind" is a physical process which can be achieved by different means.

Nonreductivism is not dualism.

[Anonymous No.2660404]

>>2660401 here.
Proven isn't really the right word. Strongly indicated, maybe?

[Anonymous No.2660405]

>>2660388

[Anonymous No.2660414]

>>2660362
The fucker is not "eating healthy" because he thinks it's better for him personally. He is eating "eating healthy" because he expects a reward in his technological afterlife. He sounds like a good fundie, albeit one a bit confused about the proper terms.

Why do people like you always latch to "principals" or "fundamentals" or "basic premise" of some technology to tote around? Is that easier for you? Is it because it requires almost no effort on your part when compared to actually going in-depth on some topic? How does ignoring all the complexity that arises when "principles" collide with reality work for you?

Take your pompous "logical principals behind cybernetics". What do they say about the myriad obstacles in its many fields that will have to be overcome before anything resembling AI become viable? What does it say about all those pesky, boring problems that are swept under the rug whenever someone mentions them (technophobe name slinging notwithstanding)? What about all the steps that have to be taken (not by you of course, with your demonstrable lack of knowledge) that have to be taken before some pop sci wankery turns into something usable?

And I get called a technophobe.

[Anonymous No.2660416]

>>2660379
Not that guy but there are a lot of very smart people who believe stupid things.
There are people with PHD's in physics who believe in ESP, telekinesis etc. (see research at Princton, shut down 6 or so years ago)

[Anonymous No.2660427]

>>2660400
>Who else is waiting for the energy crisis of 2030?
Not me. Technology will save us from that.

[Libertine !AmNIYRdgeI No.2660429]

>>2660391
>You're assuming my clone would behave the same way I do, and there's exactly no reason to believe that.
Your brains are identical, you are two casio calculators sat side by side.

>that we have ONE, the SAME mind.
No, think of it like taking two computers and loading the same version of win98 using one bootup cd. They will both start the same but as they are used they will change.

>Take my clone and I, put us in two separate rooms, one Red and one White. Ask us what color it is: do we both say Red, White, or do we say our separate color? Of course it would be the latter.
Obviously the one in the red room would say red, your programming has taught you that response. The one in the white room would say white. But asked about your child hood you would both give the same answers to the same questions. You would slowly differ in personality the longer time went on as you get exposed to and programmed by different experiences. If you meet up again in a year, having been separated, there would be a noticeable difference.

>So, again, materialism debunked the easy way.
Hardly.

[Anonymous No.2660434]

>>2660369
I am not denying the advancement of technology. I am making fun of people who have no idea about the development of said technology.

[Anonymous No.2660437]

>>2660400

Drop the gloom and doom bro, get money get bitches. Join the singularity. Take a look at our progress compared to 10, 50, 100, 500 years ago... We are doing better, the general public is more educated than ever. We live in comfort. We are trying to fix all the bullshit. We are clearing out the naval mines of ww2. We are gettig shit done. Less CNN, more Kurzweil bro.

[Anonymous No.2660444]

>>2660416
Let me add...
Even though statisticians at Princton looked at their data and concluded there was nothing that differed from chance the PHD's still believed in those things. They were true believers. Empirical data did not lessen their belief.

[Anonymous No.2660446]

>>2660427
>Diminishing global resource pool
>tragedy of the commons
>B-B-B-UT TECHNOLOGY WILL STOP THAT

Git out

[Anonymous No.2660447]

>>2660437
>mfw an EMP or solar flare slaps your enhanced brain's shit and I am one of the few left saying "i aint even mad."

[Anonymous No.2660448]

penis enlargement e-mail spammers were the original transhumanists

[Anonymous No.2660457]

Singularity is a bunch of krypto-kike goyim enslaving bullshit.
"Yes yes goyim implant our Israeli made nanoprocessors in your brain"

[Anonymous No.2660463]

>>2660457
>X is a bunch of krypto-kike goyim enslaving bullshit.
>"Yes yes goyim implant our Y"

[Anonymous No.2660481]

>>2660446
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-lemons-lemonade-reaction-carbon-dioxide.html

Technology WILL stop that, if we don't let the fucking megacorps stop it from spreading.

[Anonymous No.2660487]

Does anyone remember Paul R. Ehrlich and his 1968 book The Population Bomb?
Quote from book:
"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."
There have always been doom and gloom types. And they've always been wrong.
Ehrlich collaborated with James Hansen, the NASA guy, who believes in man made global warming.

[Anonymous No.2660496]

>>2660487
Except that kind of precedent is completely meaningless when you're talking about data.

Guess that one kind of flew over your head

[Anonymous No.2660504]

>>2660496
I don't follow you. Can you elaborate?

[Anonymous No.2660522]

>>2660414
>Thinks the singularity is AI
>Doesn't realize that we will hold the entire biosphere in the palm of our hands. That we will transcend the limitations of our biological bodies. That eventually there won't be a single atom on this planet that isn't part of our one collective organism.

[Anonymous No.2660561]

>>2660379
You little bitch what did you say to me? I will let you know that I am an ex-Navy Seal, etc. , etc.

What the fuck man? What are you talking about? Have you even read my post? I am not pushing for some pseudo-religious movement like transhumanism.
I am just pointing out the idiocy of that breathless infatuation with technology with no regards to the reality (and complexity) of its development. Not because I am a technophobe or a bitter pessimistic hermit but because those notions are simply wrong. Wrong in scope, wrong in execution, wrong in implications. Wrong for the simple reason that the people who talk about them have no idea what they are talking about.

Trans-humanists/ singularity seekers - fully functional, super advanced AI in 20 years, woooooooo!
Engineers stuck in reality - man it would be great if we can make an autonomous vehicle able to traverse rough terrain in 20 years without user input...

Transhumanists - sex bots NAO!
Engineers - it would be great if it could traverse terrain upright unassisted...

Do you recognize the pattern? Something that we are struggling with today.

I never said that robotics are useless and for every institution pushing transhumanism I can point out one pushing for intelligent design. Same shit different labels.

You mention Kurzweil I raise you Robert J. Marks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Marks_II).).

[Anonymous No.2660571]

As long as we're talking about science on /lit/ let me just toss this out before I go to bed.
I don't believe in man made global warming.
Why? Because I believe in the scientific method.
There's consensus on the subject in favor of it. What does the scientific method say about consensus? It says it's worthless. The ONLY thing that matters is the ability to predict results. None of the computer models or "theories" predicted what has happened over the last 10 to 15 years, temperatures have not gone up. That means... it's a bad theory.
Man mad global warming is a hypothesis, not a scientific theory. And there's a huge difference between the two.

[Anonymous No.2660576]

>>2660487
>There have always been doom and gloom types. And they've always been wrong.

That doesn't mean that they always will be wrong. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

[Anonymous No.2660577]

>>2660522
What are you talking about?
And why is bullshit always green texted?

[Anonymous No.2660601]

>>2660576
No guarantee but they have a poor track record. Poor enough not to be taken too seriously.

[Anonymous No.2660603]

>>2660571
C02 levels where up to 12 times higher during parts of the triassic era, and they didn't have hummers...

The environment is the next 'enemy' for our government to control with. It used to be communism - those viets and soviets were such a threat. this turned to muslims and the war on terror. The environment is the perfect enemy to keep us frightened, and not questioning why we are getting fucked in the ass so hard.

[Anonymous No.2660608]

>>2660522

[Anonymous No.2660617]

Nice trips, OP, but it won't happen. Saying the Singularity is close is like saying the last Singularity was during the beginning of the twentieth century.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it isn't a Singularity kind of like Clarke's Third Law applied to real life. Like when the Singularity occurs, the previous generation will basically think the current generation's technology is magic. Am I close?

[Anonymous No.2660621]

>>2660603
I suspect it's all idiology, politics and money. (and scientific fraud to boot)

[Anonymous No.2660629]

>>2660601
I don't think you can class "doom and gloom types" as though they're all one thing. They're people who have an opinion about a trend, event, etc. The source of that opinions isn't the same. They're not an organized body and they don't have, like, a condition that leads them to their analyses. They see something about the future; they may be right or wrong. We should evaluate their claims based on the data and the arguments they advance, rather than dismissing them for being "negative nancies". It is far more rational that way, to actually try and argue against them.

[Anonymous No.2660634]

>>2660617
I don't think so. It will seem like magic to laymen but not to the computer people.

[Anonymous No.2660632]

So, where's my flying car and teleporter?

[Anonymous No.2660644]

>>2660629
Besides being scientists I think they do have something in common. Something psychological that makes them doom & gloom. I'm simply a skeptic. Which in science is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.2660646]

>Transhumanists
>Racists
>Global Climate Shift deniers

And this is the "intellectual" board.

[Anonymous No.2660648]

>>2660644
if you're a skeptic, why do you believe something which has no evidence but which is calculated to make you feel good

[Anonymous No.2660651]

>>2660648
I suppose because I'm also human and operate somewhat on intuition.

[Anonymous No.2660654]

>>2660632
>So, where's my flying car and teleporter?
There are already two flying cars on the market available for the public to buy. One is a kind of plane, the other is PAL-V(pic related).

Teleportation is a tricky subject philosophically, If you break down your body to data and reassemble it you are effectively a clone.

[Anonymous No.2660655]

>>2660646

thank litmod

[Anonymous No.2660658]

>>2659666

How was Deus Ex 3?

'I didn't ask for this' influx of fucking pseuds who had no idea what 'Singularity' was before DE3.

[Anonymous No.2660666]

>>2660658
DE3 didn't have singularity. It didn't have anything, really.

[Anonymous No.2660695]

>>2660666
You nose is pointing up again anon - how's that rarefied air?
The game had a lot material concerning augmentations and it's implications. That is if you took your time to read the mails and other material and not just punch your way through (like some posters). It really added the flavor. Also fly-girl.

[Anonymous No.2660701]

>>2660695
The singularity isn't a synonym for augmentations. Its named after the first stages of the universe, where matter was confined to one point in space. Thats where its predicted we are heading, to a point where everything merges, and reality is far beyond anything we can comprehend.

[Anonymous No.2660703]

>>2660311
My problem with this graph (and the other singularity graphs) rather arbitrarily define the "events" that constitute their data set. There's also, as has been mentioned previously, limits to technological development. The first being thermodynamic limits on processor speeds and sizes. On a related note, the fundamentals of innovation (natural resources, education, previous metals/rare earth elements) are divided up by class and geopolitics.

A second limit being capitalistic distribution of innovation, such that not everyone has access to the benefits of technology. That graph does not account for differentials in the world, like the fact that a good quarter of humanity currently lives without electricity, let alone information technology like telegraphy or internet.

[Anonymous No.2660714]

>>2660703
With regard to processors, we are still cramming transistors into 2d space which is why we need vast amounts of liquid nitrogen to overclock to anything over 8GHz, once we start producing 3d CPUs we will be laughing at 8GHz.

[Anonymous No.2660717]

>>2660714
>>2660714
Why the fuck do they keep turning sideways?

[Anonymous No.2660721]

>>2660701
Actually I posted that in response to his (yours?) statement that DE3 did not have anything - singularity or otherwise.

[Anonymous No.2660726]

>>2660703
>>not everyone has access to the benefits of technology.
This +1000, always in the back of my mind when reading Kurzweil.

I'm surprised there's so much discontent with his ideas here, though; he's just making some very basic extrapolations about the near future based on historical trends and objective data, and his track record is quite good. This is the same guy who was predicting in the early 90's that you'd soon talk to a computer and it'd do the typing for you - the laptop I'm typing this on has Dragon on it..

[Anonymous No.2660734]

>>2660726
So him being wrong about dictating to some software pack is a good or bad thing in your book?

[Anonymous No.2660735]

>>2660392
;_;

There will never be a singularity, will there?

[Anonymous No.2660765]

>>2660735
>>2660392
Of course some of his dates are going to be off.
But, Google does have a car that has been driving around either LA or San Fransico without a driver, its currently done 400,000 miles.

One of the biggest problems in advancement is peoples stupidity and bias based on outdated morals. If a clinic opened now, offering to implant a stem cell sack to regenerate your limbs in an accident(similar to lizards), there would be a huge public outcry. Some advancements are going to be held back, but not because they're impossible.

[Anonymous No.2660777]

>>2660654

I WAS PROMISED HOVERCRAFT

[Anonymous No.2660794]

>>2660777
Will this do, sir?

[Anonymous No.2660802]

All I want is a sex robot that feels like a woman in every way and can perceive just what kind of personality would excite me the most and can simulate that.

[Anonymous No.2660836]

>>2660802
Well the way the things are going right now you will have to settle for K-Poop idols. They look artificial enough.

[Anonymous No.2660854]

>>2660802
You're attracted to the female personality!?

What is it with people on this website and still not being rationally gay in 2012.

[Anonymous No.2660860]

>>2660854
faggots are disgusting.

[Anonymous No.2660870]

>>2660860
You're confusing histrionic failures with rational homosexuals.

[Anonymous No.2660871]

>>2660870
Go away homofag.

[Anonymous No.2660882]

>>2660871
See? I knew you weren't rational.

[Anonymous No.2660893]

>>2660882
You just had to butt in Ru Paul style. One day science will find a cure for your condition.

[Anonymous No.2661487]

This thread is gold

[Anonymous No.2662368]

>>2659891

guy who wrote the posts about s-curves here, i thought when i made that shitty diagram it would at last elevate the discussion to a rational realm but it took half the fucking thread before someone actually acknowledged it, so thanks for that i guess

you make a good claim w.r.t. new areas of exponential growth, only fyi i'd add is that processor speed has already failed to follow moore's law, iirc it fell off in 2009, since then the industry has only "kept up" by increasing the number of processors they include in devices

this is all well and good but then here >>2660311 you've got this horrible line
>your neurons are either firing or not (Binary)

which is such an incredibly stupid (not to mention flat out wrong) description of how our brains work that it makes me want to just ignore everything else you've said.

[Anonymous No.2662518]

>>2662368
>your neurons are either firing or not (Binary)
I can only deduce from this that whoever said that wasn't actually trying to say that the brain runs on binary. But that the fact that neurons are either firing or not is similar to binary( either a signal - one, or the absence of a signal - zero) and could easily be translated into binary.

[Anonymous No.2662537]

this thread brings shame upon this board

[Anonymous No.2662538]

>>2660714
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2384897,00.asp

u wot m8?

[Anonymous No.2662544]

>>2662538
>Doesn't know the difference between 3d transistors and 3d CPU's