Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're calling Google's director engineering a quack?
Not only am I calling him a quack, but many top researchers agree that he is a quack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canaan-84
He's also won several awards including national medal of technology which was presented by the president.
You argument is based up the logical fallacy known as an Appeal to Authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canaan-84
As for your links, two of them were written by the same person who's a professor of philosophy; do you think someone with a philosophy background knows about computer programming and it's advancements?
There are hundreds of other links; try using Google. "Computer programming and it's advances" has nothing to do with the pseudoscience malarky that is presented by Hurzweil.
Just so you know, philosophy is the one discipline that is designed to detect bullcrap and apply reason and logic to all situations. So yes, a philosopher will see stupid in whatever arena is it presented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canaan-84
Some of his assertions...
You hit the nail on the head! Those are his "assertions", his suppositions; nothing more. And the consensus among rational educated people is that it is a bunch of specious pseudoscience nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canaan-84
Someone more credible is Paul Allen co-founder of Microsoft who also criticizes Kurzweil's predictions, though not because he doesn't think it won't happen he simply thinks it won't happen anytime soon.
Nope, you are wrong. Allen is a college dropout without any peer reviewed publications. Again, you are presenting an argument from authority, and that is fallacious reasoning.
Guess what? Albert Einstein was a brilliant physicist, but he was flat out wrong when it came to quantum mechanics. Now, do you see what you did, there?
Last edited by Thanatocoenosis; 06-20-2013 at 09:21 PM..
Reason: content
I have heard all of the Criticisms of the singularity and why it won't happen between 2030 and 2045. The biggest one I hear is that computers will stop advancing exponentially even though all the data suggest not only will computers continue to advance exponentially the rate at which that occurs will continue to go faster. For example in 1900 computers doubled every 3 years. In 1960 computers doubled every 2 years. Today they double every 11 months. In 20 years computers will begin to advance so fast that the only way we can keep up with the change will be to merge with the computers. That will be the singularity. Like I have posted this is not a easy concept to grasp especially when our brains are not wired to think exponentially. That is why I never get upset over the criticisms but listen and do my best to explain why it's wrong and why the singularity will happen.
I have heard all of the Criticisms of the singularity and why it won't happen between 2030 and 2045.
The "singularity" won't happen because it is based upon pseudoscientific quackery!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
The biggest one I hear is that computers will stop advancing exponentially even though all the data suggest not only will computers continue to advance exponentially the rate at which that occurs will continue to go faster.
You are demonstrably wrong. Some very intelligent researchers/developers tend to disagree with your assumption:
As for your links, two of them were written by the same person who's a professor of philosophy; do you think someone with a philosophy background knows about computer programming and it's advancements?
Oh, for the record, these are the credentials of that "professor of philosophy":
--Doctorate in Genetics from the University of Ferrara (Italy)
--PhD in Evolutionary Biology from the University of Connecticut
--PhD in Philosophy from the University of Tennessee
--Editor in Chief of Philosophy and Theory in Biology
--Chairman, Dept. of Philosophy, CUNY-Lehman College
--Published 8 monographs on science and skepticism
What are Ray Kurzweil's credentials? A Bachelor of Science.
So, I would say that Dr. Pigliucci("a professor of philosophy") is eminently qualified to address the pseudoscientific babbling of Kurzweil
Last edited by Thanatocoenosis; 06-21-2013 at 03:21 AM..
Reason: spelling
Thanatocoenosis, you seemed to have joined the forum just to state your agenda in this thread. I have some non-peer reviewed in a scientific journal news for you, this thread is filled with legitimate links to REAL scientific and technology discoveries, that you happen to disagree, do not believe, or choose not to believe that these are leading to a singularity is a matter of OPINION. Have you read the thread at all or just the last few pages? This thread has been going for nearly a year and a half. These forums are strictly moderated, if the admins (i.e. NOT YOU) deemed it belonged in the religion forum it'd be there. You are not so important or influential that you will get this moved. Also you are not the first to come into this thread and tell anyone who believes these things will happen that they will not happen, so you are late to the party, this thread has been going long before you and continue to go. Josseppie is likely the staunchest supporter of the singularity that posts here all the time, so if you have massive amounts of time to waste trying to discourage or convince him otherwise you are wasting your time but the links and discussion will continue.
By the way in the age of the internet, I can pull x number of links to DEBUNK just about ANYTHING, so it doesn't really mean or prove anything, if anyone felt so inclined they can go link for link debunking each one of your debunkers...it comes down to what you fervently believe, I believe something akin to the Singularity COULD occur someday and we continue to be headed more and more in that direction, and at an ACCELERATED PACE and have been doing so for the breadth of human history, nothing you say will change all of what I have read, observed, and experienced.
Apparently some people doubted pioneers like the Wright brothers, imagine that?
Back in the 70s/80s many people didn't see the purpose in owning a personal computer or what use they would ever serve the average person. It's easy to not let yourself see the forest when you allow yourself to remain amidst the trees.
Technically they are right. Mores law will come to a end around 2022 when the integrated circuit will reach a point that it can not be made smaller. That will be the end. Of the integrated circuit but not the end of computers advancing exponentially as we will go to the next paradigm. 3D self organizing molecular structures. This is not the first time this happened. In the 1950's vacuum tubes were getting smaller till finally they could not make the vacuum tube any smaller and keep the vacuum. That was the end of the vacuum tube but not the end of computers advancing exponentially as we went to the next paradigm transistors and then the current one the integrated circuit.
However one thing I have noticed is even though technically mores law only applies to the integrated circuit today most people use it generally to refer to computers advancing exponentially. So I suspect we will keep using that term for a long time to come.
The bottom line. I have been hearing people say that computers will not keep advancing exponentially since I was a kid and at first I thought that made sense. Today I realize that is not the case and when the 2020's come computers will continue to advance exponentially.
Oh, for the record, these are the credentials of that "professor of philosophy":
--Doctorate in Genetics from the University of Ferrara (Italy)
--PhD in Evolutionary Biology from the University of Connecticut
--PhD in Philosophy from the University of Tennessee
--Editor in Chief of Philosophy and Theory in Biology
--Chairman, Dept. of Philosophy, CUNY-Lehman College
--Published 8 monographs on science and skepticism
What are Ray Kurzweil's credentials? A Bachelor of Science.
So, I would say that Dr. Pigliucci("a professor of philosophy") is eminently qualified to address the pseudoscientific babbling of Kurzweil
Apparently Kurzweil has received 19 honorary doctorates
He was the principle inventor of:
-first CCD flatbed scanner
-the first omni-font optical character recognition
-the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind
-the first commercial text-to-speech synthesizer
-the first music synthesizer capable of recreating the grand piano and other orchestral instruments
-the first commercially marketed large-vocabulary speech recognition
He has been called a restless genius by the Wall Street Journal
Forbes calls him the ultimate thinking machine
PBS included him in the 16 revolutionaries who made America
and 75% of predictions he made for the decade of 2000-2009 came true.
Now why is it so hard to believe that we'll be able to create an AI? I already told you about the blue brain project which you apparently ignored even though I stated that Europe gave 1.3 billion to fund the project, they don't fund projects if they're based on pseudo-science as you call it. As for Moore's Law ending, it will only slow down if they don't find a replacement for the current chips and computer programmers are looking for such replacements as we speak.
The "singularity" won't happen because it is based upon pseudoscientific quackery!
This from Time Magazine is the best way to respond to your statement:
The difficult thing to keep sight of when you're talking about the Singularity is that even though it sounds like science fiction, it isn't, no more than a weather forecast is science fiction. It's not a fringe idea; it's a serious hypothesis about the future of life on Earth. There's an intellectual gag reflex that kicks in anytime you try to swallow an idea that involves super-intelligent immortal cyborgs, but suppress it if you can, because while the Singularity appears to be, on the face of it, preposterous, it's an idea that rewards sober, careful evaluation.
Josseppie is likely the staunchest supporter of the singularity that posts here all the time, so if you have massive amounts of time to waste trying to discourage or convince him otherwise you are wasting your time but the links and discussion will continue.
I have a lot of patience on this subject simply because everything I hear from the critics is not new to me and in fact most of it I felt at one time. Even today there are times I get blown away at the idea of exponential advancement as the numbers are just staggering. If it was not for all the data that goes back over 100 years to the first computer built for the 1890 census proving it I would laugh it off myself. So when I hear anyone tell me its not true and why I think back to how I was when I first heard about it and how people had the patience to explain it to me and I do the same with them.
Thanatocoenosis, you seemed to have joined the forum just to state your agenda in this thread.
No, I joined this forum when I came across some very obvious factual mistakes in the "fossils to oil" thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonHellLights
I have some non-peer reviewed in a scientific journal news for you, this thread is filled with legitimate links to REAL scientific and technology discoveries, that you happen to disagree, do not believe, or choose not to believe that these are leading to a singularity is a matter of OPINION.
Apparently, you don't know how science works. Peer review is, and has been, the backbone of scientific discovery for nearly 200 years, and I am sure there are links in this thread to legitimate scientific and tech discoveries; I never wrote that there wasn't. My concern is that pseudoscientific nonsense is being passed off as a legitimate scientific theory.
I am a scientist, and I have argued against pseudoscience and other forms quackery for nearly 30 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonHellLights
Have you read the thread at all or just the last few pages?
No. I haven't read the entire thread, but I have read enough of it to determine that it is based upon the absurd pseudoscience of Ray Hurzweil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonHellLights
This thread has been going for nearly a year and a half. These forums are strictly moderated, if the admins (i.e. NOT YOU)
Yes, I am aware that I am not a moderator, here. I do however moderate a science forum and a music forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonHellLights
You are not so important or influential that you will get this moved.
You have no ideal who I am, but yes, I agree that it probably won't be moved
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonHellLights
Also you are not the first to come into this thread and tell anyone who believes these things will happen that they will not happen, so you are late to the party, this thread has been going long before you and continue to go.
Ah, I hope to virtual meet the other rational contributors that you write of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonHellLights
Josseppie is likely the staunchest supporter of the singularity that posts here all the time, so if you have massive amounts of time to waste trying to discourage or convince him otherwise you are wasting your time but the links and discussion will continue.
Yes, I know that I am wasting my time with him, and you, but some opened minded person might see this thread, and recognize the absurdity of premise after reading my responses. My posts aren't intended for the dogmatic, but those searching for the truth. Belief in pseudoscience/conspiracy theories is dogmatic to the people that hold those views; no amount of rational discourse will sway the the views of those so inclined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonHellLights
By the way in the age of the internet, I can pull x number of links to DEBUNK just about ANYTHING
Yes you can, the difference between the quacks and the legitamate being the use of reason and logic; that is lacking in the quacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonHellLights
so it doesn't really mean or prove anything, if anyone felt so inclined they can go link for link debunking each one of your debunkers
See above
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonHellLights
it comes down to what you fervently believe
You could not be more wrong. Science isn't done on belief; it is the result of empirical, and repeatable, evidence
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonHellLights
I believe something akin to the Singularity COULD occur someday and we continue to be headed more and more in that direction, and at an ACCELERATED PACE and have been doing so for the breadth of human history, nothing you say will change all of what I have read, observed, and experienced.
You can hold any belief that you want, you can't, however, have your own facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonHellLights
Apparently some people doubted pioneers like the Wright brothers, imagine that?
Back in the 70s/80s many people didn't see the purpose in owning a personal computer or what use they would ever serve the average person. It's easy to not let yourself see the forest when you allow yourself to remain amidst the trees.
That's a non sequitur. In the 70s and into the 80s, computers were very large, and very expensive machines, so there was no reason for the average person to own one.
This thread is about a dogmatic acceptance of an absurd pseudoscience. I have the feeling that no amount of logic or reason will convince, those so inclined, otherwise. But don't expect me not to expose pseudoscience/ conspiracy theories where ever I encounter them.
Like I wrote, I have argued against the absurd for nearly 30 years, and I won't stop now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
