/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6154690]

So /sci/ what do you think to transhumanism? Is the singularity coming? How long will you live?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTMS9y8OVuY

[Anonymous No.6154697]

>>6154690
If someone has invented a computer program to post the same useless speculation on /sci/ every day I'd say we're over halfway there.

[Anonymous No.6154739]

>>6154697
>implying

[Anonymous No.6154744]

>>6154697
halfway there
halfway there
halfway there
halfway there

[Anonymous No.6154751]

>>6154697
>transhumanism
>thorium
>consciousness
>lava/ice sun

[Anonymous No.6154758]

>>6154697
I'm sure it could be javascripted

[Anonymous No.6154993]

>>6154690
>Transhumanism
Pretty good, and inevitable at some point. 70% of that stuff is really good
>Singularity
99% won't happen
>Living longer
We'll gain probably 10+ years than usual, only billionairs are going to have the money to really afford immortality

I'm just afraid that this will lead to a strongly dystopic world

[Anonymous No.6155012]

>>6154697

Does that mean 0.999... is pretty much halfway there to becoming 1?

[Anonymous No.6155017]

>>6154993

>We'll gain probably 10+ years than usual, only billionairs are going to have the money to really afford immortality

The only reason I want to get money

[Anonymous No.6155021]

>>6154993
>99% won't happen
heh. it's already happening but people won't see it until it's too late.

[Anonymous No.6155025]

>>6155017
I can understand it bro, but keep in mind that these are only predictions. Very reliable, ok, but what if you spent all your life in order to get the money to live forever, and then you wouldn't have that chance?

[Anonymous No.6155026]

>>6155025

What if I didnt and end up missing it?

[Anonymous No.6155035]

>>6155026
I'm just saying, don't go mad for that. Stay focused on it, but enjoy your life too, right now. We like to think to these future things, but death is fucking random and even Ray Kurzweil could die in a disastrous car accident and say goodbye to all of his dreams.

[Anonymous No.6155070]

>>6154690
Transhumanism
>Excellent, and is almost certainly coming, but won't turn us all into gods or anything, and will only widen the gap between rich and poor.

Singularity
>Probably not. Moore's law is already struggling to continue pushing exponential development forwards, and . We'll still probably reach a Vingean singularity, though, where over a long (multi-century) period the accumulation of new and stranger tech makes predicting or even imagining the future from our current vantage point impossible. (We've already gone through a Vingean singularity from the point of view of , say, 1713.)

>How long will you live

Potentially, a very long time.

[Anonymous No.6155087]

>>6155035

Gotta risk it for the biskit

[Anonymous No.6155927]

It will happen eventually, and its happening faster.

Someone plucked from the year 1600 and dumped in 1700 wouldn't be out of place at all.
Someone transposed from 1700 to 1800 might be a little surprised at some things but no biggie.
Someone from 1800 to 1900 would be very surprised at things like steam engines, trains, telegraph, massive ships and basic automobiles, but might be able to deal, especially if they are in a rural area.

Take someone from 1900 to 2000 and they'd be blown away by the culture shock. Here we see the start of the exponential curve. It only gets steeper. Hell, take someone from 1950 to now and show them a smart phone, GPS, solar panels, the Space Shuttle, Formula One, Oculus Rift, Google Glass etc etc and he'd be utterly flabbergasted.

Lets see what happens in 2050. Also, food for thought: Its now closer to 2060 than to 1960. Chew on that.

[Anonymous No.6155956]

>>6154690
Not necessarily
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/06/reality-check-1.html

[Norris No.6155969]

Alright, in the very distant future, if transhumanism gets to the point of actually turning into machines and putting people onto chips and stuff, what happens to the people who just want to live in their human bodies?

[Norris No.6155977]

>Guide our evolution!
>Consider the future!
>ETC ETC
Smells like the same shit eugenics was back in the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.6155980]

>>6155927
I have the best one yet. Take someone from 2013 to 2020 and they will not believe they are even on the same planet.

A change is coming that will devastate imagination and confuse even the smartest minds humanity has to offer.

[Anonymous No.6155979]

I'm not sure whether transhumanism is degeneracy or not.

I assume I'll figure it out in my lifetime.

[Anonymous No.6155986]

>>6155980
And I happen to think that you're wrong.

For one thing, Moore's law is actually slowing. It's getting harder and harder for chipmakers to meet each new node, and the cost of new chip-fabricating plants is INCREASING at Moore's Law rates. I expect to see it break down entirely by 2020.

AI of anywhere near human levels is still a long way off, and you're frankly delusional if you think we're going to have science-fiction tier nanotechnology or biotechnology in just seven years.

Take someone from 2013 to 2020, and they'll find a world basically similar to our own, but with different fashions, different politics, and a couple interesting new gadgets.

[Anonymous No.6155993]

>>6155986

>what is parallel computer
>what are 3D chips
>what is graphene substrate
>what is quantum computing

Are you like....*trying* to look ignorant?

[Anonymous No.6155994]

>>6155969

Same thing that happens with people who want to live vegan, hippie lifestyles free of guv'mint and teknologees.

They have their own little villages and retreats somewhere in the mountains where they can look down at the shining edifices of progress and advancement and think they're the ones who are better off.
You can't win everyone, just let them go off and do their thing. They'll die out eventually.

[Norris No.6156000]

>>6155994
There are far more people whod rather remain human than who want to live like bumfuck farmers from the 1600s

[Anonymous No.6156001]

>>6155993
>Parallel computer
You don't even know what these are, do you.

>3D chips
Are hard, and there's been very little research done on them, unless you're talking about shit like FinFETS, which are little more than a stopgap. I agree that fully-3D chips could keep Moore's law going for a good while, but they're still a ways off and there are very real unsolved problems with implementing them.

>Graphene Substrate
Within seven fucking years?

>Quantum Computing
Again, rolled out on an industrial scale? Within seven fucking years? D-Wave's adiabatic quantum computer is little more than a co-processor- that kind of quantum computing is simply not useful for most of the stuff we use our computers for today. Gate-based quantum computing holds promised, but that's still a long way off - I'd expect decades, plural, before we have quantum computers of capacity that would rival a flip-phone.

[Anonymous No.6156002]

>>6156000

define human. And nice trips

[Plato's ghost conducts the Ult(...) No.6156004]

Brain activity only correlates to mental activity, but does not cause it. Fire is an image of the process of combustion. Consciousness will not be reduced to matter ala transhumanism.

Transhumanism/materialism is populist garbage for the masses.

[Anonymous No.6156006]

>>6154690

there some similarities between transhuman and a religious movement:

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/06/the-materialistsrsquo-rapture

[Norris No.6156008]

>>6156002
Biological beings in the bodies of hairless apes employing prosthesis if they lose something. Perhaps that die after a long enough time, but maybe im the only one who really doesnt like the idea of immortality.

[Anonymous No.6156011]

>>6154690
morally i think it's probably wrong, because you are kinda just being greedy. but i still wanna partake - i don't want to die mang

[Anonymous No.6156019]

>>6154690

Does anyone else feel that if (and that's a big if) our technology were to drastically change us at a biological level, that it would be in a way that turns us from individuals into a hivemind? Think in terms of how single celled organisms became multicellular.

[Anonymous No.6156021]

>>6155969

They're going to have an easier time of it because the competition for resources will have diminished. You can bet they'll be in the minority. Even if they're not, removing even, say, 30% of the population from needing everyday human mk1 maintenance would make a huge difference in resource availability.

[Anonymous No.6156028]

>>6156006
So true.

[Anonymous No.6156032]

>>6156019
>Think in terms of how single celled organisms became multicellular.

Very interesting thought.
I enjoy my individuality a lot but I gotta admit the cells in our bodies live much better lives than those going it alone in pond water.

[Anonymous No.6156040]

>>6156021
>Less competition for resources
>Power required to run a human being (metabolic power) - 100 watts
>Estimated computing power to emulate a human brain - 1 exaflop
>Most efficient supercomputer - 0.5 nanowatts/FLOP
>477 megawatts to emulate a human-brain in real-time with current technoogy

>Less competition for resources

Emulating a human is MUCH more expensive, resource-wise, than just being a human.

[Anonymous No.6156052]

>>6156040
To illustrate, at this level, the entire power production of our civilization would be enough to emulate 25,127 humans.

You'll note that that is considerably less than the current number of humans.

Competition for resources will be INTENSE,

(Of course, there's Koomey's Law - if that keeps up, then by 2023 the total energy resources of our entire civilization might be enough to simulate 25 million humans. Which is still considerably less than 7 billion humans, and you'll note that that's with all of that power going to us and none of it going to emulated humans. Competition for resources will only increase, not diminish.)

[Anonymous No.6156058]

. We have no reason to believe that a computer smarter than a human is going to suddenly grow a survival instinct, have personal opinions, love music, have ambitions, be curious or have any of the other weird traits that humans and other animals have.
It could read every work of fiction humans ever created, be able to do literary analysis and discern a writer’s influences and still not “like” or “dislike” any of it.
You could of course program it to fake it, like you might a sex toy robot but that’s it.

Nanotech might take off in a big way or it might not. Medical nanobots fixing shit on a cellular level would be nice.

[Anonymous No.6156101]

>>6154690
Based on my beliefs and some reasonable numbers, I'd give the probability of human-level neuromorphic AI existing by 2070 a mere 5%.
(I used theuncertainfuture.com for these calculation)

So probably no Singularity.

But I'd say transhumanism is definitely coming, and we'll see it within 30 years. Just not brain-uploading transhumanism, but stuff like brain-computer interfaces, and people getting cyborg parts for augmentation rather than for prosthetics.

[Anonymous No.6156125]

>So /sci/ what do you think to transhumanism?
If humanity can be improved then I see little reason not to improve it.

>Is the singularity coming?
Yes, but its effects on the world are by definition impossible to know or completely understand therefore it seems silly to let the singularity influence real world decisions. I live life as if it will never happen.

>How long will you live?
Eighty years seems like a good guess, but I'm shooting for one hundred. "Transhumanists" who think that the Singularity will happen in their lifetime and save them from otherwise inevitable death often seem emotionally compromised. Fear of death will do that to people.

[Anonymous No.6156132]

>>6156040
Aren't you using current technological standards? Obviously any such limitation won't apply in the distant enough future unless the standard is an actual physical limitation.

Furthermore, running the human mind in a human body requires a lot more than 100W. You must also include the power needed to build and maintain the physical world around the human.

[Anonymous No.6156134]

>>6156008
>but maybe im the only one who really doesnt like the idea of immortality

Yup, pretty much. Enjoy being wormfood. Oh wait, you'll be dead and eventually forgotten.

[Anonymous No.6156138]

>>6156040

>current technoogy

There's your problem. Thats an unfair comparison. Imagine trying to run a modern city with the power supply of 100 years ago. Modern requires modern tech to run.

[Anonymous No.6156137]

>>6156134
Death has benefits. It helps ensure humanity doesn't culturally and technologically stagnate. Can you imagine a world full of stubborn old people?

[Anonymous No.6156143]

>>6156137

How many libraries of knowledge burn everyday from the best and brightest people dying. What if Einstein was still doing physics? Jonas Salk (developed polio vaccine and refused to patent it) still doing biology? How about Feynman, Fermi, Schodinger, DeBroglie? The list goes on forever.

"Lets torch this repository of knowledge so we can build another one in that spot. Chances are it will be inferior but it needs to come down because its been there too long."

Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous No.6156145]

>>6156132
Taking the entire power output of world civilization and dividing it by world population gives a power-per-human of about 1.7 kW to maintain the average world standard of living.

This is still a lot more than 477 MW.

>>6156138
I'm assuming that the Moore's-law-equivalent of power-per-computation, Koomey's law, is in effect. Koomey's law states that power consumption for a given amount of computational capacity halves every 2 years or so.

This gives us an estimate of 15 MW by 2023, 466 kW by 2033, and 14.5 kW by 2043.

Even if Koomey's Law keeps up, emulated humans will STILL be more expensive than actual humans for quite a while.

[Anonymous No.6156146]

>>6156143
If Einstein was still doing physics, he'd be irrelevant because he refused to believe in quantum mechanics, and he'd be intimidating any new researchers from coming into the field, because who wants to compete for tenure with Einstein?

You see the problem.

[Anonymous No.6156148]

>>6156143
I'm not saying a relatively moderate increase in lifespan wouldn't have benefits. In fact I would agree with you in that it would probably do more good than harm. Immortality on the other hand scares me. I don't believe we would have made as much progress over the last few millenia if the same people who thought fire was spirits escaping from wood weren't replaced hundreds of times by successive generations.

[Anonymous No.6156151]

>>6156134
>>6156143
Im the one you originally replied to.
You strike me as an little brat, anon.
But whatever, ill stop with this.

[Anonymous No.6156152]

>>6156146

>implying Einstein was so bad that he wouldn't change his mind when presented with empirical evidence disproving his position

You think he was that bad a scientist?

>>6156148

>Immortality on the other hand scares me.

Well there you are. You are making a value judgement based on emotion rather than logical projections and thus intrinsically come to a negative outcome. Impartiality is essential.

>>6156151

>You strike me as an little brat, anon.

Ad hominem. You lose.

[Anonymous No.6156154]

>>6156152
>Ad hominem. You lose.
I wasnt arguing with you. I was insulting you.

[Anonymous No.6156157]

>>6156145
A) Stop using current computation standards.
B) You are not taking into account the increase in demand for land and resources in the distant future and the increased productivity of those in a virtual world.

But in all honesty I don't see the point of speculating about this subject. By the time we can create machines that can think like humans humans will be obsolete. The transhumans or our creations will be the ones shaping our continuity.

[Anonymous No.6156162]

>>6156152
The biggest breakthroughs are made by those who are only just reaching the theoretical frontier. The longer one sticks in a field the longer one reinforces what one's conception of the field, both good conceptions and bad conceptions. After correcting an undergrad for the billionth time, one becomes so assured in one's knowledge that one has to be beat over the head with competing theory before one will change one's mind.

[Anonymous No.6156167]

>>6156152
>Well there you are. You are making a value judgement based on emotion rather than logical projections and thus intrinsically come to a negative outcome. Impartiality is essential.
No. I meant the repercussions of immortality scares me, and that is what we were talking about.

You seem eager to dismiss so you probably want to call it a night. Good night.

[Anonymous No.6156164]

>>6156154

Not that guy, but thats not better. You sound bitter and buttfrustrated. Just stop posting and head back over to /b/ where you belong.

[Anonymous No.6156168]

>>6156164
I was just annoyed because he interpreted my post as trying to compete in a debate and got smug over 'winning' it when it didnt exist in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6156171]

>>6156162

>one has to be beat over the head with competing theory before one will change one's mind.

Thats not always a BAD thing, that means the competing (and assumingly) correct theory has to overcome the most determined opposition, to produce results that are so conclusive that they overturn the paradigm by sheer force.
But, that already happens without immortality. There are some genuine scientists who do not accept anthropogenic climate change, I'll give you an example:

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature was set up by Richard Muller who was a noted sceptic. BUT he was also a good scientist. He redid a complete study of over 1.5 billion temperature readings from the 1850s onwards to clear up the matter to his own satisfaction. The right wing and fossil fuel companies gleefully predicted that he's blow up the whole 'climate change' thingy. Lo and behold, he found that it actually held up and he'd proved to himself and a load of other genuine sceptics that it was a real effect. Predictably the fundies and coal companies then dropped him and wrapped themselves in knots to try and say 'oh we knew it'd never be fair' but the results are pretty damning.

Also, you really don't give GOOD scientists enough credit. The Thorne–Hawking–Preskill bet over the Black Hole information paradox. Hawking conceded the bet and changed his mind. Preskill didn't, yet, but he might. People CAN change their minds, nothing is set in stone.

[Anonymous No.6156184]

>>6156001
bro calm down. they exist now, don't they? that's pretty fucking neat in of itself.

[Anonymous No.6156186]

>>6156011
>also, please like and subscribe!

[Anonymous No.6156197]

sure is joe rogan in here

[Anonymous No.6156223]

>>6156184
I was mostly just shocked at the audacity of claiming 2020 as the date by which the world would be unrecognizable.

[Anonymous No.6156244]

A recursively self improving program is possible and mathematically valid. That would be the singularity.

[Anonymous No.6156257]

>>6156223

Yeah the timetable isn't realistic, I reckon by 2030 the tech world will have gone through some huge changes. Sure, the house down the street will still there, the Chrysler building won't budge etc etc.

But look at 13 years ago, I was still on crappy dial up ffs and had a nokia 3310. Now in only a decade a bit the tech sitting in front of me is orders of magnitude more powerful. In another 15 years...well you do the math. Exciting time, bro.

[Anonymous No.6156265]

>>6154690
It's going too slow to happen in my lifetime if it has to rely on incremental growth. There's great cultural resistance against modifying people, and sapience isn't going to magically descend into a machine just because it has more FLOPS than a human: a single human is smarter than a hundred cats thinking at a hundred times their regular rate, which are smarter than ten thousand cats.

A singularity is possible with a hard takeoff AI; an AI which is designed to be sapient and capable of problem-solving can improve upon its own situation, and because it isn't stuck with neurons and ion channels, it can become billions of times more efficient per gram than humans in the end.

I think I'm gonna make it. It's not a hardware problem (if it were, you could run a human at 1/1000th normal speed right now), but a software problem, and people have six decades to figure that shit out.

>>6154993
Immortality is post-singularity technology, since you need to create sapient beings. Extreme longevity for billionaires, up till the point the singularity does occur, is plausible, though.

>>6155956
That guy's an idiot. 95% irrelevant ethics and simulation arguments, and once nonsensical dismissal of the possibility of building "human-level intelligence", "because human intelligence is a product of human physiology".

>>6155969
If the computer is a monster, they'll be destroyed with the rest of us. If the computer is a dick, they'll just get forced into the simulation, and maybe their minds will get altered so they won't complain anymore. If the computer is nice, it'll try to convince them, very probably succeed, and on the off chance that some of them refuse, just give them some patch of land where they can play Amish.

>>6155977
Eugenics would have worked, wouldn't it? It's just that the methods have been deemed immoral.

>>6155979
>degeneracy
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.6156269]

>>6156000
>>6156008
You really think people are that principled? To medieval people, the idea of living without God's guidance would have felt like the same inconceivable affront to the natural order of things. Have you never dreamt of flying - of having wings and soaring through the sky under your own strength? Have you ever wanted to explore the universe, visiting planets with toxic atmospheres or none at all? Or have you wondered what it's like to live in five dimensions, or what it's like to *be* a rabbit or a dolphin? Our organic bodies are so limiting.

>>6156019
It is not a necessary consequence, though it's of course a very real possibility. I would prefer to stay an individual, though, or at least have certain copies of myself be individual.

>>6156021
Competition is irrelevant. The post-singularity computer can take whatever it wants, and it can use every single atom in the universe if it considered that the right thing to do.

>>6156125
>Eighty years seems like a good guess, but I'm shooting for one hundred. "Transhumanists" who think that the Singularity will happen in their lifetime and save them from otherwise inevitable death often seem emotionally compromised. Fear of death will do that to people.

>there are people who reason this superficially

>>6156137
Old people are the way they are because of the physical structure of their brains: they can't adapt to change easily on a neurological level. This can be remedied.

>>6156146
>implying quantum physics is correct
>implying Einstein occupies more than one spot for tenure
>implying mental rejuvenation won't also make people more capable of change

>>6156162
So you redesign the system to select for continual open-mindedness.

>>6156171
I don't know what Preskill bet on exactly, but Hawking only conceded because he believes string theory to be correct and because black holes are hairy in string theory.

[Anonymous No.6156273]

>>6155986
This is where quantum computing comes into the picture.

[Anonymous No.6156280]

>>6156273
Quantum computing won't be ready for commercial applications within seven years.

[not that guy No.6156343]

>>6155986
>It's getting harder and harder for chipmakers to meet each new node
...while using conventional techniques.
> the cost of new chip-fabricating plants is INCREASING
...while using conventional techniques.
> I expect to see it break down entirely by 2020
...if chipmakers were stupid enough to keep using conventional techniques. Fortunately there are several different technologies being developed for the next stage.

Sure, there probably will not be drexlerian nanotech in a decade, but have you seen what biotech has been doing in the last five years? It already IS science fiction level.

[Anonymous No.6156358]

>>6155994
Am i the only vegan who makes science for living and has faith in progress then? I feel like you're feeding some stereotype right there dude

[not that guy No.6156369]

>>6156358
Of course not. But the stereotypical vegan is like that, and that stereotype is STRONGLY established.

I, personally, like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but you can only do that so many times before you just expect every vegan to be the worst kind of stereotypical hipster shit.

[Anonymous No.6156460]

>>6155017
why not volunteer, at worst you'll only become a living mass of cancer.

[Anonymous No.6156479]

>>6155927
We already do this with immigrants, I rent to people that think that indoor plumbing is a luxury. If we transport someone from 1900 to 2000 they'll just end up washing our dishes.

[Anonymous No.6157844]

I'm ready, OP.

[Anonymous No.6157861]

>>6155986
Didn't IBM just release a Watson API or something? Sorry been away from /sci/ for a while.

http://www.slashgear.com/ibm-watson-api-makes-supercomptuer-available-as-a-service-for-apps-14305416/

It's happening, bro.

[Anonymous No.6157870]

>>6156019
There are those that would argue that humanity already is a superorganism.

[Anonymous No.6157901]

>>6156052
You're thinking in the wrong direction. The goal is to build more powerful computers, not build gigantic supercomputers to emulate current day desktops.

[Anonymous No.6158011]

>>6155986
why people talk so much about moore's law, and not the limitations of a Turing Machine?.

[Anonymous No.6158059]

>>6154690

[Anonymous No.6158097]

>>6158059
What're you a conspiracy theorist? You think something will happen taking us back to stone age level of tech?

[Anonymous No.6158106]

>>6158097
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that. "Conspiracy" implies someone is planning it.

I just think it's likely to happen. Between nuclear weapons, the possibility of a meteor strike, and the increasing possibility of bioweapons - did you know that the smallpox genome is publicly available, and there's a DIY "biohacking" movement which could quite possibly put together a sample of smallpox virus in their garages? - and the possibility of peak oil, it's actually quite plausible that we'll see a major, civilization-ending disaster before the end of the century.

That's not my pic, though; it's an old troll image that's been reposted many times.

[Anonymous No.6158114]

>>6158106
I don't think it's necessarily unlikely, just much much much more likely for at least the green line to happen.
Troll image? I'm new to this board. Makes sense.

[Anonymous No.6158132]

>>6158059
That graph is false. There is potentially NO limit of technologies physically achievable. Only technologies not mentally graspable by the ignorant.

[Anonymous No.6158138]

>>6158132
Quick guess - are you subscribed to Popular Science or a fan of Kaku?

[Anonymous No.6158250]

>>6158138
>>6158138
Moore's law isn't ending anytime soon.
CERN physicist Glenn Starkman and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss calculate that the ultimate limits of Moore's law are 600 years away:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404510


We're nowhere near the 5.4258*1050 logical operations per second that 1kg of matter can theoretically deliver.

[Anonymous No.6158259]

>>6158250
Those are the ultimate theoretical limits.

Moore's Law, however, though limited by physics, is driven by economics, and the economic pressure is becoming insufficient to drive Moore's Law forward. Building better chips is getting harder faster than it's getting more profitable.

Remember, Moore's Law is fundamentally a law of computing power relative to cost.

[Anonymous No.6158322]

>>6158259
> and the economic pressure is becoming insufficient to drive Moore's Law forward

Thats a lie

[Anonymous No.6158346]

>>6156269
>Old people are the way they are because of the physical structure of their brains: they can't adapt to change easily on a neurological level. This can be remedied.
It's as much psychological as physiological.

[Anonymous No.6158351]

>>6156019
Multicellular organisms didn't form out of multiple individuals. They formed out of colonies of clones.

[Anonymous No.6158352]

>>6156269
What makes you think that Mideval people were any more religious back then than people are now?

[Anonymous No.6158358]

>>6158346

Technically that is true. The brain is a sort of port connection between the Soul and the Body. While the brain may fail over time or be damaged in an accident, the soul is still undamaged and the persons essence is preserved. When the body dies the soul is judged by The Lord and sent to either heaven, purgatory for a while before heaven, or hell.

[Anonymous No.6158361]

>>6156269

>implying that mankind exploring and conquering all of space is not what God expects from us.

You do realize he made the entire universe for us right? Also sums up why there can't be any other intelligent life, God made mankind in his image and blessed us with a soul. If there are aliens they are animals which we would have command over.

[Anonymous No.6158366]

>>6158250
>Moore's law isn't ending anytime soon.
I'm studying integrated circuits right now and I'm afraid you are wrong. We are deviating from Moore's law right now, hence multicore processors. Quantum tunneling has ended our pace down to the nanoscopic. There are of course ways to improve integrated circuits that are currently being researched, but we will not regain the pace.

>ultimate limits of Moore's law are 600 years away:
You COMPLETELY misinterpreted what they were saying. Their calculation was based off the assumption that a civilization had utter control of every bit of matter in the universe. They didn't predict anything. They simply established a physical limit on the period which Moore's Law can be sustained. We obviously will fall far short of 600 years.

[Anonymous No.6158370]

>>6158358
Fuck you, dualist.

If you are a troll, then I apologize.

[Anonymous No.6158391]

If I were to replace my heart which is essential for survival,I'm going to strongly think about replacing everything else I can.

[Anonymous No.6158437]

>>6154690
It's cool. Define "singularity". Somewhere between one second and 120 years, give or take.