2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal

Status
Not open for further replies.
2045?
Wasn't it supposed to be 2030 a couple of years ago?
Pfft, vapourware...
 
Dywyddyr said:
2045?
Wasn't it supposed to be 2030 a couple of years ago?
Pfft, vapourware...
Click to expand...

2030..September 21st in fact..is the date of a possible asteroid impact. Although the asteroid is only the size of a city block, it would definitely cause major regional devastation. Maybe it'll land on Ray Kurzweil's house. :)

Just so you know: an asteroid could hit Earth on 21 September 2030 | World news | The Observer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/nov/05/theobserver4
 
An asteroid could nail the earth in 20 minutes, let alone 30 years. Don't fret about it.
 
I didn’t read the whole article but I think I got the gist of it. I wont bring up the obvious points of contention regarding the plausibility of AI / computer consciousness, since I am sure that has been done to death on this forum. But regarding Kurzweil’s idea (assuming it is his own) that the brain’s data can be dumped cleanly into a digital simulation… I don’t see how this could work. It’s not like the brain is a raw processing algorithm. Your intelligence doesn’t increase when you increase the brain’s CPU speed. Neuronal activity is much more complicated than that. They merge into each other in networks that are too complex to be simulated by simple digital switches. I am no neurobiologist but I have read enough about the brain to know that there are some glaring problems with predicting the “transhuman” element in singularity theory.

I would also point out that talking about human immortality is fine and all that, but what about the disputed finite nature of the universe? When the universe ends, you end - so much for the singularity! Of course that is a whole other debate, but still something Kurzweil should consider before using such loaded language :p
 
They are just trying to cling to science to save them from death it's a phase all atheists go through most likely. *Pondering immortality within AI*.


Truth is your all going to die so get over it.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
They are just trying to cling to science to save them from death it's a phase all atheists go through most likely. *Pondering immortality within AI*.
Click to expand...

Thanks to medical and other sciences developed from atheists and believers alike, our life span is a lot longer than it used to be only a few centuries ago.

Truth is your all going to die so get over it.
Click to expand...

You're correct, but nothing wrong with extending the one life we have as long as we can, is there?
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
They are just trying to cling to science to save them from death it's a phase all atheists go through most likely. *Pondering immortality within AI*.


Truth is your all going to die so get over it.
Click to expand...

That's the exact reason why you are religious.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
They are just trying to cling to science to save them from death it's a phase all atheists go through most likely. *Pondering immortality within AI*.


Truth is your all going to die so get over it.
Click to expand...

Truth is religion has cornered the "immortalist" market for millenia promising this and that snake oil to make people live forever. But so far it's death-fearing members keep dying as quickly as non-believers. So science comes along and offers real possibilities for prolonging life and suddenly you fault IT for not being fatalistic enough about dying?
 
skog said:
I didn’t read the whole article but I think I got the gist of it. I wont bring up the obvious points of contention regarding the plausibility of AI / computer consciousness, since I am sure that has been done to death on this forum. But regarding Kurzweil’s idea (assuming it is his own) that the brain’s data can be dumped cleanly into a digital simulation… I don’t see how this could work. It’s not like the brain is a raw processing algorithm. Your intelligence doesn’t increase when you increase the brain’s CPU speed. Neuronal activity is much more complicated than that. They merge into each other in networks that are too complex to be simulated by simple digital switches. I am no neurobiologist but I have read enough about the brain to know that there are some glaring problems with predicting the “transhuman” element in singularity theory.
Click to expand...

I saw the documentary "Transcendent Man" a few days ago which explained Kurzweil's ideas in depth. He posits a trifecta of technological advancement: genetics, nanotechnology, and AI. While at our present stage of scientific knowledge the brain and consciousness remain largely a mystery, it's easy to see that if Ray's exponential growth projection is applied to these three fields, such issues may quickly be resolved. Take quantum supercomputers capable of intelligent thought for example. With these working on the problem of consciousness surely it wouldn't take long until it could be solved and technologies invented that could generate or emulate it. At the molecular level you could have hybrids of cells and microprocessors that perform operations equivalent to our own cerebral cortex. Unless we are positing some absolute limit to scientific knowledge, why couldn't such things happen down the road?


I would also point out that talking about human immortality is fine and all that, but what about the disputed finite nature of the universe? When the universe ends, you end - so much for the singularity! Of course that is a whole other debate, but still something Kurzweil should consider before using such loaded language :p
Click to expand...


Well, if the evolution of the transhuman truly launches into exponential overdrive circa 2045, I think we will have long figured out time travel and maybe even interdimensional travel just by the time our sun dies. That's a few billion years, but who knows what we will be capable of by then?
 
Why not? Because most of that is conceptual.

To use that as an accurate prediction is only a few steps better then to use star trek as an accurate prediction of the future.

Dude, your assuming that all of these problems can be solved, hell, you assume most of them actually exist.

The problem I have with science fiction is it makes people like you believe that these things are actually possible within modern physics.

And I doubt our species as we know it will last for more then a billion years.
 
Rhaedas said:
Thanks to medical and other sciences developed from atheists and believers alike, our life span is a lot longer than it used to be only a few centuries ago.



You're correct, but nothing wrong with extending the one life we have as long as we can, is there?
Click to expand...

fedr808 said:
That's the exact reason why you are religious.
Click to expand...



This thread was about being "Immortal" not increasing life span by mere years.

Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top