No and no.
People do not understand reproduction, and people do not think understanding reproduction allows for reverse engineering. Read the post.

If you don't find it fascinating, you are a dull person.
The fact that the laws of physics are so "short" in length to provide a description of reality is absolutely bizarre.
In a sense, it's the greatest information compression achievement in the history of civilization.
Unless we're mistaken, you can "derive" most human knowledge from about two very short laws and the standard model. It's obviously unfeasible at the moment (right now we're stuck somewhere in the quantum chemistry realm), but the "faith" of science is that the extremely short set of laws is could derive everything from the formation of worlds to the biochemistry of the brain.
Furthermore, the fact that the particles obey laws at all is interesting.

The cellular environment is essentially exploiting the laws of physics to become what is essentially an extractor, slowly unpacking the 3 gigabases into a human.
As an example, protein folding basically relies on two things - electrostatic interaction between functional groups and entropy. The "entropy compiler" side of this information extraction is stored external to the DNA - it's the intracellular fluid (or chaperone) which the protein resides. The function relating the entropy-compiler to the three dimensional shape of the protein has amazingly chaotic behavior mapping to a massive number of unique forms. This allows a tiny number of aminoacids to generate an amazing diversity of proteins.

To top it all off, the proteins and lipids arrange themselves into ever-larger compilers with amazingly chaotic and diverse outcomes (tissue layers, organs, etc). Myers' touched upon this while trying to invent his pathetic ad hominem and used it as evidence as to why genomic data won't let us reverse engineer the brain (when he referred to cell:cell interactions). He probably didn't use the words "emergent" or "compiler" because the terms are used by people he dislikes.

To think that this microscopic bag of fluid (when in the environment of the womb) emerges into the brian - the most complicated thing in the universe - is pretty fascinating. To top it off, the regulation and methodology of development seems not only to be intimately tied to chaotic functions, but they are all fed stochastic data.

A microscopic stochastic regulatory network of chaotic functions which emerges into a living organism capable of thinking is leagues ahead of what human design and purpose can effect.

So yeah, it's fascinating.

Analysis != rhetoric.

Nice posts Plancer.

Ummmm. The thread is still here.

Have enjoyed Plancer's posts itt.

I still want the people mocking Kurzweil to lists books by futurists they do respect. I still don't understand why the mockery isn't at least prefaced by, "Obviously Kurzweil is a brilliant technologist, but..."

And if the SMP consensus were that all other futurists sucked ass too, that would mean what for your argument? Replace futurist with astrologer and you'll see your fallacy more easily.

Isaac Newton is one of the smartest people to ever live, surely he didn't believe in a lot of really crazy ****. Smart people clearly are incapable of these things.

I am willing to concede Kurzweil is the best futurist out there. I do not like Kurzweil.

I'm happy to take up this challenge. Here is an excellent book about the singularity:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Singular-Poi...2217460&sr=1-2

The singularity it refers to are singular points of complex hyersurfaces - that is it considers the solution in C^2 to an equation f(x,y)=0. It focuses on where the solution is singular (e.g. where it crosses itself or it forms a cusp, a rhamphoid cusp etc.)

One of the key techniques for investigating these curves is the Puiseaux expansion of the solution, a technique which Newton discovered. The behviour of the singularity under small deformations is considered, known as "blowing up" the singulairty. Another technique for investigating the singularity is to intersect the curve with a small sphere. The result is a knot, and the topological properties of the knot give information about the curve.

The book then goes on to consider the Milnor fibration. (There are more chapters beyond this, but I've not read them yet.)

I'm happy to take up this challenge. Here is an excellent book about the singularity:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Singular-Poi...2217460&sr=1-2

The singularity it refers to are singular points of complex hyersurfaces - that is it considers the solution in C^2 to an equation f(x,y)=0. It focuses on where the solution is singular (e.g. where it crosses itself or it forms a cusp, a rhamphoid cusp etc.)

One of the key techniques for investigating these curves is the Puiseaux expansion of the solution, a technique which Newton discovered. The behviour of the singularity under small deformations is considered, known as "blowing up" the singulairty. Another technique for investigating the singularity is to intersect the curve with a small sphere. The result is a knot, and the topological properties of the knot give information about the curve.

The book then goes on to consider the Milnor fibration. (There are more chapters beyond this, but I've not read them yet.)

OK, here is my top 5 list of books by futurists that I respect:

1. -
2. -
3. -
4. -
5. -

This gets to the point.

To clarify, I expect Kurzweil's predictions to fail. And I have not read any other futurist, so I have no standard of comparison here. Nonetheless, given how very few people alive can match Kurzweil's understanding of present technology, I will be shocked if anyone links me to his master.

So it seems the only relevant question is whether one feels futurism == astrology. Unless we assume this, it's absurd to mock Kurzweil-as-futurist, since he appears to be the best around.

And once we've disqualified mockery of Kurzweil-as-futurist, that pretty much leaves mockery of Kurzweil-as-person. Since he's accomplished 1000x more than anyone in this thread will, I'm not really feeling that.

I'm surprised it took 28 pages itt before someone went this direction.
I'm even more surprised that no one tried to do something along the lines of Re(Kurzweil) = 0.

Edit: Damn! You snuck in on post #8. My mistake. I have underestimated 2p2.

Oh, I think we could give the futurists a notch up on astrologers and put them in the same category as stock market analysts and mock them on those grounds.

There is a lot of room above astrology where one can safely mock.

Being a dwarf among midgets doesn't mean you're actually tall.

What is this, proof by assertion? There's plenty to mock.

Cliffs: There are very few valid arguments of the singularity present in this thread. The invalid arguments tend to be ad hominem attacks. Of the valid arguments, futurists have powerful arguments - mainly, modern AI doesn't have the same weaknesses as the old Strong AI. Our claim is that Searle's argument inadequately deals with the brain simulator reply. Also, we predict brain research will allow brain simulation without an understanding of the brain. Lastly, the critiques of transhumanism by MM / Rollos are both powerful and relevant.

The thread so far (in chronological order)

1. Extrapolation makes this concept invalid. (hardball47, durkadruka, PrinceOfPokerstars)
   
2. Kurzweil resembles an eschatological cult, and will be immune to evidence. (durkadurka)
   
3. Kurzweil's nontech predictions are bad (econophile, Tom Crowley)
   
4. Kurzweil is beyond absurd (jb9)
   
5. Kurzweil is a product of survivorship bias (dd33)
   
6. Kurzweil is a delusional liar with arguments worse than those given by creationists (TomCrowley)
   
7. Kurzweil underestimates political, economic, and social developments. (one sentence itt. Seriously, one sentence)
   
8. Kurzweil's ideas are as refutable as the FSM (dd33)
   
9. There is a difference between computers and machines (dd33)
   
10. Strong AI might be impossible. (dd33, jb9(?), river_tilt, hardball_47, vixticator)
11. Understanding of the brain will delay the singularity (or make it impossible). (ctyri)
    
12. Kurzweil's predictions had a different probability of occuring than his prediction of the singularity (Max Raker, MM).
    
13. Futurists and science fiction writers tend to extrapolate existing technological trends too aggressively while missing unforeseen developments (MM)
    
14. Cybernetic totalism has become too powerful of an ideology among the worlds technocrats, and it has terrifying consequences. (Jaytee, who linked an excellent essay)
    
15. Kurzweil is friends with a homeopath and believes in whack-job medicine.
    
16. The singularity is not desirable (Ironlaw, Rollos)
    
17. The singularity is just Rapture for atheists (A_c_slater)
    
18. Kurzweil is intellectually dishonest, as demonstrated by his charts (Jaytee)
    
19. Futurists provide an intellectually lazy way of evading the human condition. (MM, Rollos, endorsed by me (Plancer))
    
20. No one is qualified to predict technology, but people who lick Kurzweil's testicles make an exception for him. (dd33)
    
21. Computational complexity will be a relevant hurdle to arriving at the singularity (Max Raker)
    
22. Kurzweil's tech track record is terrible (Tom Cowley, Jaytee)
    
23. The world's governments will prevent the singularity (Skeletori)
    
24. Gains in AI aren't AI, technologism is faith based, and technologism will worsen the alienation the third world feels when faced with modernization. (econophile, brandx)
    
25. PZ Myers doesn't like Kurzweil (dd33, jb9)

Obviously valid arguments against the singularity: 1,7,10,11, 21?(I disagree),23?
Valid arguments against futurist philosophy: 12,13,14,16,19

The Standard Reply to Rational Arguments:
1) (Exponentials) We have evidence that Moore's law has a few more doublings left (prototypes exist for transistors of appropriate size), allowing supercomputers to breach the singularity threshold with great ease. There are many avenues of research to move to a new substrate when we exhaust silicon. Very little discussion in this thread has been on the likelihood that Moore's law will continue, but it's a valid criticism.
7) (Political / Economic / Social changes)This argument is undeveloped from both camps.
10)(Strong AI) Searle's argument doesn't answer the brain simulator reply. Modern AI advocates are radically different from the Strong AI crowd that Searle was attacking - Searle was showing that the plan to bypass studying the brain and skipping straight to a conscious machine was suspicious. Modern AI advocates (among whom is Kurzweil) want to reverse engineer the brain. In short, a great deal of modern AI thinkers are looking to gains in neuroscience to progress their field.
11) (Understanding the brain is a major hurdle) Good point, but we disagree on how solvable this problem is. We expect gains in brain research to generate a connectome in our life times. We plan to brute force brain simulation using data acquired via imaging, without necessitating an intuitive understanding of how the brain works. Although I don't know if we've explicitly stated it, I think it is safe to say that futurists do not anticipate an understanding of the brain in our lifetimes, nor in any lifetime. We don't need to understand it, in the same sense that we don't need to understand the mathematics of complexity regarding networks in order to evolve them.
12) (the probability of Kurzweil being correct about the singularity is very different from him being correct about a technical development) Good point, but Kurzweil is the cheerleader, not the football team. He coined the term and mobilized interest, but the possibility of a singularity is independent of him.
13) (Futurists exaggerate existing trends and are blind to unexpected changes). This is true, but the basis of modern futurism is a prediction of exponential growth in IT, whereas past futurism expected the technologies of the elite to become mainstream (space travel) and aggressively expected automation to replace all forms of labor (an extrapolation of "profession x was automated, so all professions will be automated). Modern futurism's Achilles Heel is Moore's Law, not the social acceptance or economic viability of technology.
14) (Critiques of Cybernetics) This is an excellent point, but aside from a few posts by Rollos and MM, has largely not been discussed in this thread.
16) (The Singularity is not desirable) This may be true, but the word "singularity" captures the ambiguous nature of the event. Information doesn't escape a black hole, and hence we can't form judgements. The fact some people are predicting a transformative future with consequences we can't predict is adequate to form a critique of it, but it might be as powerless as a critique of the internet (a powerful disruptive technology which is fundamentally remolding human civilization and the balance of power between the 1st and 3rd world, but is beyond control).
19) (Futurism is a form of escapism, allowing you to evade the human condition) Good point.
21) (Complexity) Singularity-types don't predict a solution to computational complexity, and we don't have any developments contingent
23) (The singularity will be prevented) Interesting, but this area hasn't been discussed


Responses to less reasonable arguments
2) (Eschatological Comparisons) ad hominem predicated on something he didn't do yet
3) (Nontech predictions) irrelevant
4) (Kurzweil sucks, yo) ad hominem
5) (Survivorship bias) irrelevant (attacks Kurzweil, not idea) Furthermore, I (plancer), Karganeth, and a few others claim to have shown that his predictions are distinctly different from those which could be a product of survivorship bias. The crux of the argument is that survivorship bias is an artifact of the binomial theorem when the probability of a bernoulli trial's failure is high enough to be relevant. Karganeth, myself (Plancer), and a few others claim the bernoulli trials, when generated randomly, should have a probability that vanishingly small due to combinatorics (monkeys typing Shakespeare argument).
6) (Delusional liar) ad hominem, beyond the pale
8) (FSM) irrelevant groundless vitriol
9) (Difference between computers and machines) Brain simulator reply
15) (Kurzweil is bad at medicine) irrelevant (though true) ad hominem
17) (Rapture) Nu uh.
18) (Kurzweil's charts). You said that the charts could be constructed at any point in human history. Kurzweil would agree, because d/dx e^x = e^x. ZING.
20) (Testicle licking) We need the salt. I mean, uh, that's an irrelevant ad hominem that's beyond the pale.
22) (Tech predictions) irrelevant to singularity. That being said, this is VERY controversial.
24) (Gains in AI aren't gains in AI, technologism is faith based). The first is a true but irrelevant statement, and it does not apply to futurists. It applies to science journalists, who I'm pretty sure we all dislike. I think I refuted the second point.
25) (PZ Myers) I think I obliterated this argument.

Dismissing that comment as an ad hominem is missing the point. I wasn't saying "kurzweil is a delusional liar, therefore everything he says about the singularity is false." I was saying "kurzweil is a delusional liar because of x,y,z. The end." That's it. That was the entire point. I haven't stated an opinion on the singularity here, or ever. Do you think the evidence I gave is not supportive of my claim of intellectual dishonesty?

Ah, the Wall of Text defense.

The thing is that I think we will have real AI in like 60-100 years. It may turn things upside down some, but life and international relations and politics will continue to be a struggle for scare resources taking place against a backdrop of religion and idealogical commitments.

I have spent a lot of time thinking about how to get real AI, including education and experience with well known leaders in the field. I how no real idea how we get from here to there because the brain is so fundamentally shaped by intra-brain conditions (particularly during development) and environmental stimuli. Our DNA is like a rough sketch of a Ghery building--the trick is making real blueprints and actually building the thing (though the initial sketch does at least give some direction to the endeavor).

I wrote Cliff notes just for you, but apparently those are too long as well. So here are Cliff's Cliffs.

PZMeyers = bag of ****
Searle's argument = applied to a drastically different case
Survivorship bias = doesn't apply when trials are unlikely
Everything else = ad hominem

epic thread. great read so far!

Sorry, that's my mistake - didn't realize you were silent regarding the singularity.

I do not think the evidence you gave supports the claim of intellectual dishonesty. You pointed to Kurzweil's reponse to criticism: I don't think Kurzweil was out of line, and this seriously doesn't look like intellectual dishonesty. Kurzweil was in the right - the blogger listed several failures then basically said "I don't think Kurzweil's predictions will come true in 2009, but probably around 2015ish." Using the words "all false" and saying "his predictions won't come true in 2009" certainly warrants a response from Kurzweil.

You listed a lot of Kurzweil's predictions and graded their accuracy. There's nothing intellectually dishonest about being a bad prognosticator.