/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9462334]

How far are we from creating other lifeforms?

To create singularity in organic form. Would we eventually have super intellegence and superior beings that are better, smarter and stronger than us. Without brainlet or malfunction. Will this happen before technological singularity?

Things like antigravity, intergalactic space travel and general AI could be eventuality. And a spiritually guidence for the whole world.

[Anonymous No.9462352]

>>9462334
Centuries. We can't even engineer our own bacteria from scratch.
>> superintelligence
you can't have superintelligence without electronics. Electronics are orders of magnitude faster than biology, meaning that over the course of a week you could have massive changes.
>> antigravity, intergalatic space travel, spiritual guidance
Go back to reading Dune

[Anonymous No.9462389]

Almost everything you know, sense and feel is based on diminishing returns. Optimality is the reflection of perfection. The more food you eat the more you shit, and eventually you get fatter and uglier. The only way to free your mind is nirvana.

[Anonymous No.9462421]

>>9462352
>Electronics are orders of magnitude faster than biology, meaning that over the course of a week you could have massive changes.

>"Super AI, you have the intelligence of 1000 humans and have been active for ten days, why haven't you created the technological singularity yet? You're an order of magnitude faster than our biological intelligence."
>"probably for the same reason billions of humans over thousands of years combined haven't been able to create a technological singularity yet, dumbass"

[Anonymous No.9462424]

place aminoacid substitute with the same relation to the guest atmosphere as aminoacids had to pre-life earth atmosphere

literally seconds

[Anonymous No.9462426]

>>9462334
>Technological singularity
Most likely never going to happen in our species lifespan. We can't even solve the symbol grounding problem.(because logic gates can't do triadic relationships which are necessary for signs)
>Creating other life forms
We may be able to create the initial conditions for abiogenesis one day. We will never be able to create a lifeform, they assemble themselves. We can teleologically direct that Life's evolution, but no more than we do our current Life. The scaffolding to make that semi synthetic life form true cellular organisms would likely take millions of years to form.
So no. This is a brainlet bait thread.

[Anonymous No.9462427]

>>9462334
>creating other lifeforms
>technological singularity
>antigravity
>intergalactic space travel
>general AI
quit reading so much sci-fi, it's messing with your brain

[Anonymous No.9462430]

>>9462424
>> seconds to go from prebiotic chemistry to life
Lol no

[Anonymous No.9462431]

>>9462421
>the utility of intelligence grows in a linear manner

[Anonymous No.9462433]

>>9462334
how do we actually count the number of neurons in a brain?
like someone gives you a brain and tells you to count all the neurons, how the fuck do you do it?

[Anonymous No.9462441]

>>9462433
learn to use google faggot

http://blog.eyewire.org/how-do-we-know-that-there-are-100-billion-neurons-in-the-brain/

[Anonymous No.9462451]

If someone can get a biofilm to act like a qubit, we're not far away.

>>9462352
>We can't even engineer our own bacteria from scratch.
We're less than a decade away from that. Synthetic biology is about to explode in the next few decades. Bio majors will be your bosses.

[Anonymous No.9462542]

>>9462451
>> biofilm act like a qubit
Not a chance in hell. Quantum computers require cooling to as close to absolute zero as possible.
>>synthetic biology will explode
Unlikely. We don't understand shit about biology. The way even simple bacteria are organized is best described as spaghetti code:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/20/9186.full
Worse yet, there is zero documentation on this code. This makes it hard for humans to work with it.

[Anonymous No.9462555]

>>9462352
>Centuries. We can't even engineer our own bacteria from scratch.

Yes we can, it's only a matter of effort not technological limits.

[Anonymous No.9462581]

So good answers in this thread that it answers for itself.

[Anonymous No.9462590]

>>9462451
synthetic biology is about to explode?? u fucking wot m8

maybe insofar as bioengineering insulin farms and other basic compounds, yeah I can see that. But you must realize our understanding of the brain as well as how all neurotransmitters/proteins/etc all fit in to make the organism function properly is sketchy at best.

For a good example consider sleep. We don't know why exactly we need it, other than a few functions we know it does (LTP, immuno-regulation, waste clearing, etc). But we don't know why some people need more of it, some people apparently function fine without it, i.e. all the individual differences coming in to play.

I don't by any means think biology is some unconquerable field its just that it is so fucking retardedly complex that it will take a while to fully map out all structures and functions down to more than jiust a macro level.

Why it is this complex? Fucking 3 billion years thats why

[Anonymous No.9462594]

>>9462334
We're probably within a (very) few years of creating bacteria from scratch.
I wouldn't even attempt a guess at creation of intelligent life. Not anytime soon.

I'd put antigravity and intergalactic space travel (taking less than a few million years each way, as measured by the people who stay home) in the "never" category. Because, physics.
"And a spiritually guidance for the whole world"... That just starts flame wars and shouldn't be on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.9462607]

>>9462542
>Genome is analogous to a computer OS
BWAHAHAHAHA
Genetic code is not binary.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26276466/?i=3&from=/18365164/related
>biological information processing is mediated by complex interactions between genes, proteins, and various small molecules
"Information processing"
"Complex interactions"
This is vacuous and serves to obfuscate the fact that they don't understand how physical information means anything to the biological systems.
When a computer processes information, that's all it does, process. That information doesn't mean anything to the computer. What life does is genuine interpretation.
Evolutionary constraint doesn't limit the breadth of biological "transcription". Rather the breadth of biological interpretation is what sets the boundaries of evolutionary constraint. In other words adaptablity limits natural selection and not the other way around.
Systems biology will not advance until its dogma recognizes life is a phenomenonological entity.

[Anonymous No.9462614]

>>9462334
About -7 years away.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703559004575256470152341984

[Anonymous No.9462639]

Singularity is a meme.

[Anonymous No.9462643]

As you can see, op is quite the science connoisseur.
Lmao.

[Anonymous No.9462666]

>>9462334
We already have.

Look at some of the synthetics publications coming out of universities like Oxford & Cambridge.

Complex metazoan life is a long way off, but non DNA based cellular information storage and processing is a few years old

[Anonymous No.9462700]

>>9462666
>non-dna based cellular information storage + processing

Holy shit explain more pls. Is it just utilizing cells in a sort of binary logic understanding to calculate shit? or something else? I wanna know

[Anonymous No.9462707]

>>9462666
>>9462700

also check em niggers

[Anonymous No.9462722]

>>9462352
>centuries
more like MILLENNIA amirite?
but seriously, haven't we already mapped every neuron of some type of worm?

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9462731]

>>9462334

We can do it right now if we want it.

[Anonymous No.9463080]

I think you better find true meaning and purpose instead. And patience alot of patience. Because singularity is a dream scenario and not even Da Vinci or Tesla would fire it up. They would hit you with a stick instead. Guns over cowboy, time to end your bounty.

[Anonymous No.9463340]

>>9462542
>We don't understand shit about biology.
Maybe you don't, brainlet

>>9462590
We can already synthesize self-assembling genomes in yeast. We only need a few metabolic genes to be able to create organic molecules at a very low cost.

You need to move away from the idea of emulating mammalian processes.

[Anonymous No.9466086]

bump to read later