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.
Interesting topic I have not read this whole thread, so forgive me if this issue has been brought up before.
Any talk of reaching a singularity (man / machine hybridization) or (tech advanced sentient / AI) IMO implies a few major hurdles.
Multivariate layers of socio - cultural standards across the people currently populating this planet. A lack of a unifying scientific approach (think Richard Feynman's approach to what inspired him and made him curious with strong discernment for seeking truth - say, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and other arenas) and the inherent scientific research community's desire to appeal to primary funders (corporate) with the main driver being monetization of any tech advances or selective use by military forces.
I can see continuing drive to 'human / tech' interface driven by medical community research (prosthetics) and military applications (exoskeleton type armor research - which has been continuing to evolve with new lightweight smart sensor laden materials etc...). I just think much of the other conversations I have read seem farfetched from political economic reality. I think a healthy 'read' - corollary to this topic - would be Robert Heinlein's Sci Fi classic, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
The bigger problem I see, is the need for a uniting factor enabling widespread usage which would have to be profound to encourage inclusive usage of any tech across society or likely be co opted by those current hegemonic powers that control many of the controlling elements of societal interactions. Education systems, Mass Media, legal/political, military and Medical industries.
Whatever 'singularity' being achieved will likely be initiated by the 'elites', (look into the role foundations play in funding and deciding what gets studied/ researched) and promoted for their purposes to maintain economic / political / public opinion shaping powers and preclusive in nature. JMHO
I definitely look forward to seeing "holodeck" (Star Trek Next Gen) type entertainment apparatus developed. As I think it would be fascinating, although, likely highly more addictive to those already lost in digital worlds in the current age.
Fun thread not always comprehensible but definitely peaks the curiosity.
To paraphrase an old adage:
"A mind once expanded never returns to its former shape"
There have been a lot of breakthroughs in genetic research. One that comes to mind is research on cancer and the aids virus. The current medicines are a direct result of our ability to map the virus and cancer cells and devlop medication. In the case of HIV they actually go and rewrite the DNA so the virus can not attack the cells. The class of drugs I am referring to are:
Nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, Protease inhibitors, Integrase inhibitors, and fusion inhibitor. These drugs are the cutting edge medicine and would not have been possible in the 1980's.
Those are only 2 examples of a long list.
However, for the singularity, all we need is computers so small that we can merge with them. That should be well under way before 2028 and Mores law ends.
Some of those drugs were available before we mapped the genome so I wouldn't credit them and their not exactly genetic engineering, in the case that they are they'd simply be at very small scale. Real breakthroughs would come with cures of genetic disorders, cancer, aging, etc. Also, Cancer is still a very deadly disease some cancers have very low survival rates (stomach, pancreas, brain, Lung etc).
Honestly I think you are over Analyzing it. To break the singularity down its just computers becoming small enough and advancing fast enough that in order to keep up we will need to merge with the technology. It won't happen in one big step anymore then the process was not one step from the mainframes computers of the 1970's to the I Phone.
Some of those drugs were available before we mapped the genome so I wouldn't credit them and their not exactly genetic engineering, in the case that they are they'd simply be at very small scale. Real breakthroughs would come with cures of genetic disorders, cancer, aging, etc. Also, Cancer is still a very deadly disease some cancers have very low survival rates (stomach, pancreas, brain, Lung etc).
Not the HIV drugs or certain advanced cancer drugs.
Five years ago, we were nearly out of oil. Now, according to a geologist I had lunch with today, technology has allowed us to reach new oil fields. That is why the economy didn't sour as bad where I live. He said that we have enough oil in our immediate area to keep producing for a few hundred years.
If we really worked hard at new energy sources, do you think this new abundance of oil could hold us over?
Honestly given how technologies like solar are advance exponentially I have read that we should be off fossil fuels in 20 years.
Not the HIV drugs or certain advanced cancer drugs.
Protease inhibitors were released in 1996 or 1997 so they had to have been tested years before being approved, which means they came before the mapping of human genome.
the first Non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor was approved in 1998 meaning it had to have been in testing before the human genome was mapped.
A Nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors was already asking for approval in 1999 again meaning that it had been in testing years before which again means it was developed before we mapped the human genome.
So, like I said some of these existed before hand and I don't see how they pertain to human genome when viral genome is very simply compared to our genome.
Protease inhibitors were released in 1996 or 1997 so they had to have been tested years before being approved, which means they came before the mapping of human genome.
the first Non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor was approved in 1998 meaning it had to have been in testing before the human genome was mapped.
A Nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors was already asking for approval in 1999 again meaning that it had been in testing years before which again means it was developed before we mapped the human genome.
So, like I said some of these existed before hand and I don't see how they pertain to human genome when viral genome is very simply compared to our genome.
Some of the big breakthroughs on the genome for the HIV Virus came in the early 90's making it possible.
That being said we kind of got off track. For the singularity we just need to merge with computers. As long as they keep advancing exponentially we should do that by 2030 and computers will be as advanced as Ray says they will be in 2045. If they stop advancing exponentially then those data will be wrong. Why I asked if we make a smooth transition, sometime in the 2020's, would you then agree with me that the singularity will happen by 2030-2045?
Last edited by Josseppie; 06-26-2013 at 07:40 AM..
Some of the big breakthroughs on the genome for the HIV Virus came in the early 90's making it possible.
That being said we kind of got off track. For the singularity we just need to merge with computers. As long as they keep advancing exponentially we should do that by 2030 and computers will be as advanced as Ray says they will be in 2045. If they stop advancing exponentially then those data will be wrong. Why I asked if we make a smooth transition, sometime in the 2020's, would you then agree with me that the singularity will happen by 2030-2045?
They came from examining HIV which is much simpler. Even then is it really a breakthrough when these drugs have severe side effects which often lead to liver failure, diabetes or heart disease.
That being said we kind of got off track. For the singularity we just need to merge with computers. As long as they keep advancing exponentially we should do that by 2030 and computers will be as advanced as Ray says they will be in 2045. If they stop advancing exponentially then those data will be wrong. Why I asked if we make a smooth transition, sometime in the 2020's, would you then agree with me that the singularity will happen by 2030-2045?
That being said we kind of got off track. For the singularity we just need to merge with computers. As long as they keep advancing exponentially we should do that by 2030 and computers will be as advanced as Ray says they will be in 2045. If they stop advancing exponentially then those data will be wrong. Why I asked if we make a smooth transition, sometime in the 2020's, would you then agree with me that the singularity will happen by 2030-2045?
Actually I do think we were on topic as the time scale of fully understanding the blue brain project after its completion can mirror the human genome project.
As for moving on to the next computational stage in the next decade, if we do perhaps we would reach singularity by 2045; assuming we manage to solve the mystery of consciousness.
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.
