Astrology is a mainstream idea.

The trouble with Kurzweil is that his ideas are not unique, and they are tainted by the fact that he appears totally nuts and unable to come to terms with death in a dignified way. As some prominent computer scientist said in reviewing it, his book is a handful of reasonable ideas put in a blender with dog poo until you can't tell which is which.

Why talk about Kurzweil and 2045? The date is absurd and so it the guy.

If you want to discuss this, start a thread about the future of computing capabilities. I daresay the minds here could do better than this clown at coming up with interesting and probable predictions.

Lolz @ you. Kurzweil is a first-order genius and astoundingly creative. ('98 MIT Inventor of the Year, '99 recipient of National Medal of Technology, '01 recipient of Lemelson-MIT prize, '02 inductee of the National Inventors' Hall of Fame, etc.)

I still have no idea why TomCowley et al. feel so certain they understand the psychology behind Kurzweil's involvement in futurism. For example: maybe he just enjoys writing these books and the accompanying income/notoriety. Why is that so absurd?

to be honest i'm talking out of my ass, and haven't even read anything by him or know any of his specific predictions. lol i just like to argue, and sound smart.

Exactly. And when he engages in pervasive intellectual dishonesty to fraudulently maintain the income and notoriety, there's no limit to the amount of hate and derision that he deserves.

There are geniuses who think the guy and his ideas appear nuts, too. The dog **** review was written by a genius also.

Because of things like this:
http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/m...?currentPage=1
I can't find the one where he talks about resurrecting thorugh AI his father who died some time ago...it's really scary how he seems unable to accept grief and loss...if anyone finds please post.

Anyway, if you can't join the dots here...I don't know what to say. This is more than some guy stirring the pot or making money, although it looks like he's out to do that too, given the fees he charges and his intellectual dishonesty about his own predictions. Any plain reading of his books and public pronouncements shows he deeply believes in the singularity with religious and irrational fervor.

Is that really someone you want to defend?

If you say so. Btw, I still you even if I don't understand the harshness here.

Maybe I'm just naive.

I don't understand why Tom has such a hard-on for Justin.

Is there any history here that I'm not aware of?

You're thinking of Douglas Hofstadter, who is obviously a first-order genius as well but can't touch Kurzweil's resume. (Unless you have mad respect for the literature Pulitzer or something.)


My entire point is: I don't see what needs defending. He may well have a very idiosyncratic relationship to death, but so what? And perhaps you consider his marketing strategies morally bankrupt...but that's just like, your opinion, man.

Yes, but it´s on the way out, the singularity idea is on the way in. Ultimately mainstream often is right. But only when it´s right


And about Kurzweil:
I´m still disappointed, like I was in the previous singularity thread, that this discussion goes around some single predictor, Kurzweil. This theme is too important to be spent on that. But maybe having a specific figure gives some structure to this, so be it.

I've always been impressed by Kurzweil and these futurists probably because I love sci-fi. The inventions and predictions make for good reading, but I don't seem to hear about the moral implications of the increasing rate of technological progress.

As a young computer science student I was exposed to the idea of the technology gap in information/computer literacy quite a bit. If technological progress and scientific advancement increase even close to exponentially and one field bolsters another continually is there not a point where larger groups of people get left behind so to speak in an ever increasing way?

Disregarding strong AI and all the above predictions, the whole idea causes me to feel somewhat sad. Older demographics are slow to adopt technology even though general adoption rates increase. Many people are distrustful of science to say the least or illiterate when it comes to science and math. Or they refuse the help of medicine based on faith.

I haven't read any books by this Kurzweil though I should like to read them if he ends with a moral philosophy discussion rather than predictions of nanobots inside my head. Has there been discussion of the ethical implications of these trends here?

.

When a thread starts with the claim "humans will become immortal in the year 2045," where do you expect the discussion to go?

His marketing strategies make it hard to have any kind of meaningful discussion about the issue. He makes the rest of us who have hope for technology look like crazies.

Can you blame anyone for this? How is anyone expected to ever come to terms with death?

Yeah, it calls into question his convenient predictions of immortality, but come on...

Hard to know, but being stuck in "denial" at advanced age is probably not it.

Generally, coming to terms with something involves accepting it, which at least involves acknowledging it.

dying helps

Well, it generally leads to the end of discussion, but I doubt that it leads to a satisfying argument.

@ all:

Unless you have a theory of motivation that makes smartness/self-awareness = desire to survive and win and destroy competition, it isn't a problem that we could create machines that could do better than us in figuring things out.

Agreed.

<- Fully paid up transhumanist here. The alternative to me is ultra-depressed nihilism. Interested to know how you guys deal with life quite frankly.

To me, finding meaning and value in life under no matter which philosophical implications is a piece of cake. The tough part is that everyone else seem to have such extreme difficulties with it that I just can't discuss this topic with anyone I know. At all. Shame.

Please enlighten me. If you are 100% sure you are going to die and there will be no afterlife, why are you not on hard drugs right now, or randomly shooting up a school or something. I just don't get it at all.

Because violence isn't a rational response... killing people and spreading fear and grief is wrong, regardless of the fact that everyone involved will eventually perish. And hard drugs are never a long-term good choice.

Why is violence not a rational response? What exactly is your definition of 'rational' here?

Wrong according to what?

Right according to what?