The problem is NOT that brains are physical and that the issue is a question of whether we can construct a mechanical artificial intelligence: the problem is whether thinking/intelligence/consciousness is computation. This is very far from clear. People far too readily pass over this subtle distinction.

This is only true from the technologist's narrow retrospective view. For people living through history there have always been major unforeseeable disruptions - wars, famines, diseases.

It's frankly foolish to make statements like yours about human history. It's not one long steady realization of Moore's law.

But this is somewhat of a digression because although I certainly disagree with the inevitability of the singularity, we can still discuss it as an event that could happen.

I did not posit non-physical properties, I posited aspects of the brain's physical properties that may currently elude us and may make a true simulated brain far more difficult than we realize with our current approach to computing.

I believe there are some choice quotes out there from the early Enlightenment about how close they were to creating AI using cogs and wheels. I'll try to find what I'm thinking of later, stuck on my phone now.

You must have misread. I said nothing about 'works'.


Just being nitty: Thinking of computers as a type of brain makes more sense.

And change a lot of diapers.

Very important point: Kurzweil's upcoming book is How the Mind Works and How to Build One. "Build". Not "simulate".

Strong AI is an engineering problem, not a computational one.

If I dare to post something of an extension of / deviation from the on-going discussion.

I don´t think there will be any dramatic singularity thing. Already now computers are gradually enhancing / taking over the thinking of humans. One example are the weather forecasts, being more and more accurate because of the computers and the simulations. There will be several steps as the computers gradually get smarter and smarter and maybe, if we want it, more conscious and conscious.

Then we may have one (super)computer in the world that can be declared as 'smarter than humans' in many ways. Political / ethical discussions have to be started before that. Just like the superior computers can´t play in the world chess championships, maybe the 'smarter than humans' can´t be allowed to run things for humans, they probably can´t be the ones taking political decisions, for example.

Next (or partly a parallel) step is to get every person to take part of the wonders of super human intellect in their own pc.s (or some analogy of that). Some kind of regulation is necessary though, to keep the humans in charge.

It could be wise not to give the computers consciousness to any greater extent, because then they could claim the right to exist, and humans might eventually get run over by them.

"Then we may have one (super)computer in the world that can be declared as 'smarter than humans' in many ways. Political / ethical discussions have to be started before that. Just like the superior computers can´t play in the world chess championships, maybe the 'smarter than humans' can´t be allowed to run things for humans, they probably can´t be the ones taking political decisions, for example."



Who's to say we (whoever that is) will be allowed to dictate what these Machines/Computers/Some Manifestation, can and cannot run??? Just program the three rules of robots and hope for the best that they don't find a loop-hole??

We, the humans, will be the creatures running things for now. I see your point, but we can try to, and should use, all possible monitoring options. One of those things would be to try to ensure the obeyance of the robotic laws. First of all we have to dedicate lots of human resourses and money to the monitoring of the 'super human' computers. We will have to slow down development of some of the branches. To aid us with the monitoring we will have some independent super computers. Maybe we can allow ourselves to try to have the computers to only work for us and try not to give them a 'life of their own'.

This has something to do with the thread, skip to around 10 mins in

John Searle: Beyond Dualism

Appears interesting, listened to the beginning and jumped a little. Over one hour long though, I´m afraid it became a tl;dl.

RK believes that we will be able to control the AI, and have limited issues with them, because before any of this complete singularity takes place, we will be entering into the realm of transhumanism.. Many of us will be both organic and machine, also known as, cyborgs... With nanotechnological helping with medical breakthroughs, then I don't see how we won't end up allowing this tech. to help us improve ourselves, from not only a physical but also mental perspective.. (cognitive abilities, memory storage, processing speed, etc.)

I don´t believe so much in the cyborg part. It´s possible we represent a dead end, and that developing more and more advanced computers-robots will prove far easier. As a big bonus the computers are essentially immortal already, maybe humans practiacally never can achieve that.

If the computers-robots are developed far enough, they could be even "bigger wonders" than humans. That will probably gradually demotivate people to have children of their own, partly because of taking into account the future probable scenarios with eaven more advanced super-computer-robots. As I said in the beginning of this thread, humans could slowly, peacefully, be replaced by computers/robots by decreased birth rate. It could take for example 200-400 years from now, or, when I try to assess it again, maybe 300-500 years. People have their traditions and habits (and also genetics, but how strong?) when it comes to building family, and humans live already now to an age of about 70-80 years.

Well, maybe we could achieve immortality by uploading our conscienceness into virtual reality in a supercomputer that is already immortal as you said... We could spend our time playing golf on Pebble Beach, hanging out in the world's greatest brothels, or do more philosophizing... The only thing I would worry about is who's behind this computer, and thus pulling the strings.. They could have the power to not only just press the "shut down" key, or maybe upload a virus, and create some sort of eternal personal "hell", who knows... I hope it's run by a benevolent computer, individual, whatever, that wants what's best for each individual and their own specific needs and desires...

Because it's not 'immortal'...

But how could you technically upload your consiciousness into a computer? I mean, realistically? Will there ever be such an interface? I can envision that is not possible, it could very well be a different "person" than you that "gets into the computer".

You have to remember we get to have our life spans, and so will our descendants in flesh and blood. But what if our "descendants" in silicon and plastic will be more attractive to have? You could just develop them according to the needs and wishes of people, the only limitation would be the own imagination (to use an old cliché).

Is anything 'immortal'? Aside from some form of jellyfish or a colony of bacteria, which are considered to have "biological immortality". Could a "hive mind" (collective consciousness) act in accordance like that of the colony of bacteria??? Not sure..

Those aren't immortal either...we could nuke the earth and then where would they be?

They might be hiding with water bears... These guys...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Bears

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Let me state that somehow, someway, anything is possible... Maybe some ominpotent, omniscient entity exists, maybe "they" know of a way to be immortal, at least... Exponential technology is quite an idea to think about.. In a virtual world, and who's to say we aren't living in one right now, the laws of physics coud be altered...

So you are saying that the ability of humans to predict the future is always the same? Also I was not simply referring to technology - I even talked about a war, the cold war. Did you even read what I wrote?

Why does that matter? The way a double pendulum acts isn't a computation, but we can stick a simulation of one in a computer to see how it acts. Similarly, we can stick a simulation of a brain (via brain scanning) in a computer to see how it behaves. We don't care if it's actually intelligent or not... we simply want it to act intelligently.

Even contradictions are possible?

When Kurzweil talks about transcending the human body, or Aubrey De Gray talks about ending aging, it's the media that uses the word, "immortal".

No one is talking about immortality. Whatever has been talked about so far in this thread cannot survive a black hole for example.

Side Note:



Immortal is a term thrown around in science to grab attention, not to actually be descriptive of anything real or possible.

This Singularity gibberish is just another vessel for immortality, like religion. And the adherents appear to defend Singularity in all its wackiness as vehemently as fanatics preaching the coming of The Lord.

What contradictions?

Yes, this is correct, haha..

How anyone in this forum can view his chart and not be convinced of how disingenuous RK is, is beyond me.