/sci/ - Science & Math

Haha, did you right that?

How old are you, nigger?

Now that I think about it, that's not the proper picture.

Maybe something like this.

Inb4 flood of Dresden Codac...
That's not to say I don't think that transhumanism is totally awesome and that I don't want to live (Almost...) forever as a machine augmented immortal being.....

Also... Dresden Codac.

>>2844096
ITT: transhumanist feels insulted by ops wordplay

>>2844096
>right
Shit dude are you even trying?

>>2844096
>>2844096
>>2844096

>right

Dear god, legion of replies.

>"We are going to become Gods, period. If you don't like it, get off. You don't have to contribute, you don't have to participate but if you are going to interfere with me becoming a God, you're going to have trouble. There'll be warfare." - Richard Seed

>>2844119
>>2844119
>>2844111
>>2844111

I'm not quite in my right mind right now, haha.

That age question was certainly not an insult.

I want the transhumanist vision of the future to come to be so badly, but it just seems like one of those things that will be always be "just around the corner," yet never actually come.

>>2844130
>I'm not quite in my right mind right now, haha.
Get the fuck out right now you piece of shit failure.
You can't even troll for shit.

Man made machine in his image and they shall become one.

>>2844082
transhumanism/singularityism is the rapture for white nerds, humans love the idea of becoming god, through prayer or magics or bullshit, now its technology

>>2844148
>>2844148

It seems that you're speaking out of ignorance. Simpletons have a rather strong inclination to put forth nonsense assertions that are skeptical in order to seem "intellectual".

>Sadly, a lot of the underpinnings of transhumanism are based on a sort of blind-men-at-the-elephant thinking -- people assuming that because it can be imagined, it must be possible. Transhumanism is particularly associated with figures in computer science, which is a field that is in some ways more math and art than a true experimental science; as a result, a great many transhumanists tend to conflate technological advancement with scientific advancement; though these two things are intimately related, they are separate things.

>The example of the singularity is instructive; for a great many people, at least part of the singularity hinges on being able to create a true artificial intelligence. While it's reasonable to contend that the complexity inherent in the human brain is within our technological reach, singularitarians tend to assume that having the capacity to emulate human intelligence means having the ability to. However, singularitarians hit the wall when confronted with the realities of brain development research -- though a true AI may in fact be possible, there simply is not enough known about the brain to understand its functions to the degree necessary to create a workable emulation, meaning a prediction of such a creation is meaningless at best, dishonest at worst. In fact, though transhumanists strenuously deny it, a great number of their arguments are strongly faith-based -- they assume because there are no known barriers to their pet development, that it's inevitably going to happen. Seldom is the issue of unknowns -- known or otherwise -- factored into the predictions.

>>2844148

Transhumanism is an ideology, a goal to work towards. Singularitarianism is a belief.

I'm calling the mod police now.

>>2844206

Another example of idiots not knowing the difference between transhumanism and singularitarianism. Brilliant.

>>2844170
but it uses the problem of INFINITE PROJECTION/Power law curves to project godhood. This problem is shown with the issue of razor blades approaching infinity in only 70 years or so.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ryYViptXiO8J:agrumer.livejournal.com/414194.htm
l+infinite+razor+blades&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=ubuntu&source=www.go
ogle.com

Singularityism is dumb and assumes so much dumb shit, transhumanisim rides with singularitism like flies on shit.

>Nanobots. The popular conception of nanobots, which too many cryonics advocates seem also to share, is bollocks. Drexler's computer-controlled nanoscopic miracle workers would need to violate physics. Nanobots won't resemble the popular image of macroscopic industrial robots a millionth of the size with their own built-in supercomputers — they'll be carefully designed chemicals, much like cells or enzymes (the real-life examples of nanobots). Things are different at nanoscale.

>Worst of all, some transhumanists outright ignore what people in the fields they're interested in tell them; a few AI boosters, for example, believe that neurobiology is an outdated science because AI researchers can do it themselves anyway. Debates with such people can take on the wearying feel of a debate with a creationist or climate change denialist, as such people will stick to their positions no matter what.

>>2844239

>>Nanobots. The popular conception of nanobots, which too many cryonics advocates seem also to share, is bollocks. Drexler's computer-controlled nanoscopic miracle workers would need to violate physics. Nanobots won't resemble the popular image of macroscopic industrial robots a millionth of the size with their own built-in supercomputers — they'll be carefully designed chemicals, much like cells or enzymes (the real-life examples of nanobots). Things are different at nanoscale.

This we know already. Go inform yourself. The modern idea of a molecular assembler is far, FAR apart from Drexler's original "replicator" concept, which both makes gray goo impossible and eliminates the problem of waste heat accumulation.

http://www.molecularassembler.com/Nanofactory/

Moreover, the idea here:

> they'll be carefully designed chemicals, much like cells or enzymes (the real-life examples of nanobots). Things are different at nanoscale.

There was a whole argument between Drexler and Smalley over the feasibility of mechanosynthesis, and even Ray Kurzweil explained in the Singularity book that the arguments did not stand due to misinterpretations of Drexler's idea of diamondoid mechanosynthesis.

Your mind will never be uploaded.

>>2844148
>White nerds
>Implying anime doesn't overtly use transhumans and shit.

Anyways. Is it just me or does CCM always start this thread topic?

>>2844274
Man will never walk on the Moon.

>>2844296
Everytime someone says the phrase "man on the moon" my brain defaults to this song,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hKSYgOGtos

>>2844274

This I know, or at least, I think. When will people understand that discussing this does not imply believing it will just be freely given to us in due time?

I came from /x/, my mind was already uploaded by a AI from the future after I contacted it through a disociative rite. So, there's a copy of me in the future...

PIC RELATED

>>2844296
the challenges of space exploration are nothing compared to nanotechnology, which .. put it this way, nature has had 3.8 billion year head start on nanotechology, and its in you, me, and every life form on this planet. Nanomachines would have to obey the same laws that keep bacteria in a few set shapes or else suffer from the inability to navigate the fluid physics model that is micro and below scale.

>>2844386

Respond to my posts.

>>2844270
I come from the nuclear/fluid side of physics, the biggest problem I have with nano factories is .. well its all absurdly theoretical, with absurd predictions that make Arthur Clarke look like the CNO's commands. Diamoid hyper materials which literally do not exist? Predictions for 2015 which aren't even materalising now (Its less than 8 months till 2012, they should be in beta by now), you are posting gigantic vaporware which .. well the biologists haven't even cracked how we do it NATURALLY and nature like I said, has had a huge head start, so you think you nanotech guys will do it? Ha, good luck!

(also that website reads like a 1990s geocities/ad page)

>>2844386
>the challenges of space exploration are nothing compared to nanotechnology

I agree. I was poking fun at the naysayer attitude.

>nature has had 3.8 billion year head start on nanotechology, and its in you, me, and every life form on this planet.

And in a few thousand years of civilization, we have closed the gap remarkably well, don't you think?

>Nanomachines would have to obey the same laws that keep bacteria in a few set shapes or else suffer from the inability to navigate the fluid physics model that is micro and below scale.

True. Nanomachines are not magic.

>>2844348
NO. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE THE FIRST TRANSHUMANISM THREAD IN A WHILE INTO THAT FURRY SHIT

>>2844437
Eh, we still die of viruses, though we have managed to make viruses and bacteria so virulent they could kill off most of the human race, so we are pretty much doing what mendel did with his peas, only MUCH FASTER, computers helped, though I feel we need much more time to understand the exact implications of the * genome project(s), so 2015-2018 for SUPER DIAMOND nanotech is .. highly optimistic, I'm going to be one of those 2030s-2050s people.

I feel that the CS people will do more than nanotech, just because even if moore's law breaks down in only 5 years, our computer algorithms are nowhere as time/energy efficient as they could be .

I'm still hoping for friendly AI... even something just smart enough to free us from small drudgeries would be a big boost to human productivity.

>>2844474
Of course we still die of viruses. As long as our biology remains more-or-less human, we'll still be vulnerable to them. I agree with your more conservative estimates.

It seems that, as we reach the physical limits of miniaturization with our computing hardware, we are simply adding more processors instead of making those processors more effective for a given size. Perhaps our technology will begin to get bulkier, to accommodate the greater number of cores and the heat sinks, etc. that they require.

>>2844538
What "small drudgeries" are you talking about, exactly? We already have the capability to automate many jobs, but the technology does not tend to be cost-effective.

>>2844551
We still got a while before we start reaching the physical limits of silicon, and as I said, our code suffers from too much processing power (joke about what Intel givith, microsoft taketh away goes here)

>>2844577
We do like to brute-force things. I guess if these new challenges force us to work toward greater efficiency, it's a good thing.

>>2844566
Build me a robot that can do everything a mexican can do.
Gather crops, clean a toilet, recognize dirty laundry, wash it on the correct setting, fold it and put it away, supervise children.
Free up more human time for leisure and invention.

>>2844577
we have 3 years
>>2844474
>our computer algorithms are nowhere as time/energy efficient as they could be .

Do you even know anything about computer science?

>>2844616
>Gather crops
http://blog.tonic.com/robotics-technology-may-minimize-crop-waste/
>clean a toilet,
http://pinktentacle.com/2007/11/ladybug-robot-cleans-restrooms/
>recognize dirty laundry, wash it on the correct setting, fold it and put it away,
http://www.slipperybrick.com/2008/02/robot-helper-laundry/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5g33S0Gzo
>supervise children.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3343667/Robot-nannies-threat-to-child-care.html

>>2844616
Why a single robot? Why not multiple robots? There's no sense building an android to replace a human for domestic labor purposes. Better to use a swarm, each dedicated to a single set of tasks. That way each one is simpler in general, and the swarm could accomplish a whole lot more than an android in the same time, by "being everywhere."

I was going to say more, but Inurdaes posted some links, so I will not.

>>2844662
>>2844654
Fair enough,
The next trick will be making them cost effective. I still see human-level intelligence as a threshold for computer problem-solving ability to cross. Once we have something smart enough to raise a child from birth to adulthood, things will get even more interesting than they are now.

>>2844648
3 years? What? literally every source I have read is screaming 2020 is the END OF MOORE'S LAW just because at this point processors become the size of freaking atoms

http://blogs.forbes.com/alexknapp/2011/03/30/the-end-of-moores-law/
here we go, the most recent article I could find on this issue

>>2844662
The problem is, a good replacement robot needs to fit into my house with minimum changes, or else I won't use it. It isn't like say an automatic lawn mower which just is placed where my old one would be, in a closet or garage, this one would be in the house, which.. is a pain for most consumers to change.

Tsunami©: Delaying singularities since 2011

>>2844714
>http://blogs.forbes.com/alexknapp/2011/03/30/the-end-of-moores-law/
>Michio Kaku
>mfw

>>2844714
Agreed.
One of the reasons Asimov wrote about anthropomorphic robots was that it was more economic to have 1 robot that could operate all the existing capital built for humans, rather than have a positronic brain in each appliance and vehicle.

Of course, we have no reason to use a built-in computer rather than some kind if distributed swarm or cloud intelligence of smaller processors.

>>2844714
That's not a problem. There is no reason for robots to come in only one chassis. If space is at a premium, you can invest in a swarm that does more with less; each unit can do more tasks, but this increases complexity, which increases cost and failure rate, and because there are less robots total, they won't be able to spread themselves as widely.

That said, if your house is too small to support even a modest swarm, you probably won't be able to afford significant robotic assistance. It would be more economical for you to buy one or two bots to take some of the load off, and do some things yourself.

One thing you won't likely be short of is options. And there's always DIY, if you don't find anything you like.

>>2844714
The date as actually been moved down for the past year. Intel is currently on 28 nm process. There are two more jumps left, 22nm, and 16 nm, which we will reach at 2013. The theoretical lower bound caused by quantum tunnelling is 11nm, which could potentially create another jump in 2015. If moore's law does continue, it wont be on silicon ,or if it is, it'll at least mildly exotic enough to differentiate it from current silicon chips since silicon is useful for a number of different techniques.

>>2844855

Atoms don't tunnel as easily as electrons do, rod logic will be waiting, not after Moore's Law ends, but a few decades later.

>>2846510
I read about rod logic in Diamond Age, could you give me a brief overview of what the fuck it is?

>>2844148
>transhumanism/singularityism is the rapture for white nerds.
And the KFCingularity is the rapture for black nerds?
And the Offspringularity is the rapture for everyone else?

>>2846512

The computation is performed by moving rods.

Pic related is a diamondoid rod that is pretty much on the edge of the lowest possible size (I don't buy anything smaller). The main rod slides into a diamond bearing and the knobs act as locks: A driver keeps the rod moving back and forth, and when an input rod slides in, its knob blocks the main rod's knob, which might do the same to another rod, or basically just allow an action to happen. Alternatively, you could keep the main rod still, and have the input rods push it with sheer mechanical force, but I'm a little skeptical: It would dissipate into thermal noise in large gates.

>>2846537

A smaller, more efficient but probably more error prone rod would be made of carbyne, alternating single with triple bonds to create a mostly stiff structure. At some points the alternation would have to be broken for the fluorine knobs.

I'd show you a nanoengineer picture but I'm not on the Windows box right now ;_;

>>2846537
Seems to be a horribly convoluted way of computing. Also, that's a huge fucking diamond element right there, surely there have to be more sensible methods for computation at atomic level.

One day, anon, we will be free to choose. Not just choose what we want to do, but decide what we want to want. We will transcend our evolutionary shackles and become masters of our own destiny for the first time in history.

Maybe we'll meet others out there, floating in the void. Maybe they're all dead. Maybe they're all dreaming. Maybe they don't exist at all. But in the end, it doesn't matter. The future is there for us to seize, and no Luddite can stop me.

>>2846537
>>2846548
Interesting, but wouldn't quantum computing, if perfected, blow this out of the water?
>>2846588
Meet you there.

Conquer everything beyond our earth, while being the same we were thousands of years ago, the same people who managed to create the first fire are now travelling beyond the solar system, the most beautiful history ever.

Transhumanism is the way of the cowards.

>>2846593

Perhaps, but quantum computing is only faster for a few specific processes. And we don't know how massive the measuring apparatus will have to be.

>>2846609
Thats like saying its cowardly to light the fire in the first place.

>>2846609

Too late bro. We are not the same people who lit the first fire. Those were transhumans already.

>>2846593
Quantum computing allows you to find solutions to certain problems quicker, it's not a universal improvement to all computer technology however. That graphic card of yours for example would probably not benefit from quantum bits at all.

>>2846631
>That graphic card of yours for example would probably not benefit from quantum bits at all.
So...
It can't run Crysis?

>>2846669

Nope. A graphics card is not like a computer, it's not universal. It's a set of algorithms for drawing pretty pictures, that are embedded into the hardware for fast execution.

>>2846693
And there is absolutely no way that a quantum computer could be arranged to be a miniaturized atomic version of architectures not too alien from what we use today?

It's not that you can't build quantum graphics cards, it's that it's questionable as to whether it would have any tangible benefits over a conventional design. Next geneneration GPU designs are already set for a revolution in design, with massive numbers of minimally powerful cores instead of a single extremely fast one. Not just parallelism in the traditional "I have a quad core CPU bro" sense, but hundreds or thousands of tiny cores, each producing slightly imprecise outputs, but overall being far better.

Epic Games have been designing their Unreal Engine 4.0 to take advantage of this, however since these cards do not presently exist they put out UE 3.75 with their latest GDC tech demo (the very impressive "Samaritan" presentation) to do a next gen version of current architectures.

>>2846731
>Next geneneration GPU designs are already set for a revolution in design, with massive numbers of minimally powerful cores instead of a single extremely fast one. Not just parallelism in the traditional "I have a quad core CPU bro" sense, but hundreds or thousands of tiny cores, each producing slightly imprecise outputs, but overall being far better.

That's awesome. Do you have a link I could read?