Why hasn't the Singularity gone mainstream (yet?) (advance, chemistry, cable)
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.
I will be honest I don't know exactly how they will work but what I read says we will have them by 2030 and they will augment our immune system....
My augmenting the immune system, I would take that to mean assisting. I wouldn't doubt incredibly tiny machines could be in use, but just what they would be used for is very difficult to predict at the present time, much less to set a specific year. One possible application could be to remove plaque in the veins and arteries. Getting in and around various organs could be another possibility which might be less iinvasive than going under the surgical knife.
As for tiny machines, here's something that might be of interest to you. These aren't speculated objects, but actual workable devices. I don't know if I'd call them nanobots, but they're called microrobots. They don't function on their own, they're controlled remotely. As I understand, they do not use any wheels or jointed parts, because if they did, they would tend to stick to everything they touch. Instead, they sort of slide around. There are several possible applications such devices could be used for. Any way you look at it, they are incredibly small. They aren't perfect by any means, but they are truly remarkable. The images can be enlarged to see it better.
The date is easy to come up with as its just a continuation of computers getting smaller a trend we have seen for decades. The full implications of computers that small are not known. Even Ray Kurzweil admits that
The link you posted was great! Now take that technology and fast forward 10-15 years as computers advance exponentially and see what we have.
The date is easy to come up with as its just a continuation of computers getting smaller a trend we have seen for decades. The full implications of computers that small are not known. Even Ray Kurzweil admits that
The link you posted was great! Now take that technology and fast forward 10-15 years as computers advance exponentially and see what we have.
Glad you enjoyed the link. As for what happens 10, 15 or 30 years from now, we'll just have to wait and see, unless you happen to be a soothsayer with some sort of crystal ball . Sure, anyone can come up with any date they want. The problem is that unexpected events can occur that can push such dates back farther. Want an example? We've seen gasoline prices soar. Doesn't matter why. The result was that the cost of shipping goods increased to offset the increase of fuel, and that gets passed on down the line to the consumer. A lot of people cut back on things to make ends meet for their own personal budget and expenses. No one expected that to happen.
There are loads of other examples that can potentially cause a setback in projected plans. If dates are going to be set, then it has to be kept in mind that they are ideal dates, because nothing is written in stone and things can get in the way to change those projections. In the last half of the 20th century, there were thoughts that ordinary people might be able to take a vacation to the Moon. We haven't been back to the Moon since the Apollo missions. Future plans are always subject to change. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have goals to work toward, but we also have to allow for the possibility that sometimes things don't always pan out as we'd like or when we'd like.
I completely agree with you. The full implications of computers that small (nano) are not known. And evidently, even Kurzweil agrees with that. The reason is simple. We're not at that point yet. Even the microrobots in the article I posted are still very much in the experimental stage. But they are really cool and even though they're remote controlled, they look potentially promising. I think it's remarkable. And now a little history about small computers.
Interestingly, back in the 1980s, the first factory built computer I bought was a TS-1000 (originally called the Sinclair ZX-80). The amount of memory was pretty dinky (2KB), no sound and the graphics were boxy. There was a 16KB memory pack that could be added. Piggybacking the memory packs coudl give you up to 64KB. Sizewise, the TS-1000 was really small, about 7-inches wide. The main purpose behind the computer was to make one cheap enough (at the time) that anyone could afford. Average price was about $100.00. Believe it or not, but I bought 2 of them for $25.00 each at a close-out sale. Timex Sinclair 1000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Timex Sinclair 1000 - Size | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Going back even farther in the early 1960s, the very first computer I bought was a do-it-yourself unit from Radio Shack (I think). It was an analog computer that provided a set of questions (on a paper strip) and a series of answers, one of which was the right answer. An electronic stylus was used to select the answers which turned on a green light for yes, and a red light (or maybe amber) for no. Batteries were used for power. I don't remember the cost but I think it was somewhere around $10.
The point I'm making is that there's often a big emphasis on how large computers have been in the past, almost as though there was nothing any smaller. Indeed there were some very large ones, but several decades ago there was the TS-1000, a very small computer, and others, although nowhere nearly as powerful as today. They began to get larger in size (for home and office use) to increase memory and othe capabilities. True, they are shrinking again these days far more than the small ones of the past, but there were some small ones in the past. So when you talk about the trend over decades of computers getting smaller, it depends on how many decades you mean. Go back a few more decades and you can find some that were pretty small, albeit, pretty primative in memory.
We have a bright future ahead, but it remains to be seen just when things will fall into place. I think you're so eager to see things happen that you'd like to have them happen right now. Wouldn't we all? There's a lot of things I'd like to see happen yesterday, if not sooner. But it's still a process of progressing one step at a time. The difference between you and me is that I figure things will develop in whatever time it takes. I really don't know what will happen when. We'll get there sooner or later. When things are pushed too fast, that's when mistakes can happen, sometimes very costly ones. Remember the lessons learned from Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia.
Glad you enjoyed the link. As for what happens 10, 15 or 30 years from now, we'll just have to wait and see, unless you happen to be a soothsayer with some sort of crystal ball . Sure, anyone can come up with any date they want. The problem is that unexpected events can occur that can push such dates back farther. Want an example? We've seen gasoline prices soar. Doesn't matter why. The result was that the cost of shipping goods increased to offset the increase of fuel, and that gets passed on down the line to the consumer. A lot of people cut back on things to make ends meet for their own personal budget and expenses. No one expected that to happen.
There are loads of other examples that can potentially cause a setback in projected plans. If dates are going to be set, then it has to be kept in mind that they are ideal dates, because nothing is written in stone and things can get in the way to change those projections. In the last half of the 20th century, there were thoughts that ordinary people might be able to take a vacation to the Moon. We haven't been back to the Moon since the Apollo missions. Future plans are always subject to change. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have goals to work toward, but we also have to allow for the possibility that sometimes things don't always pan out as we'd like or when we'd like.
When it comes to information technology we can predict how it will advance simply because information technology advances at the same exponential rate. Does not matter if we are in a recession or a boom time or a war etc. More's law is one and the most known example of that. So when people like Ray Kurzweil say we will have computers the size of blood cells that will have more processing capability then NASA that is 100% guaranteed. Now other predictions like flying cars or when we will go to the moon or Mars is not information technology and can not be predicted with anything near 100% accuracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
I completely agree with you. The full implications of computers that small (nano) are not known. And evidently, even Kurzweil agrees with that. The reason is simple. We're not at that point yet. Even the microrobots in the article I posted are still very much in the experimental stage. But they are really cool and even though they're remote controlled, they look potentially promising. I think it's remarkable.
Once we have computers the size of blood cells with more processing capability then all of NASA in the 1960's we are sure to come up with some amazing possibilities that we cant think of now and we can think of a lot already. Just like if this was the 1990 as people like Ray Kurzweil knew we would have computers the size of smart phones by now and they knew it would impact the world but I am sure they did not know all the things it would do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
And now a little history about small computers.
Interestingly, back in the 1980s, the first factory built computer I bought was a TS-1000 (originally called the Sinclair ZX-80). The amount of memory was pretty dinky (2KB), no sound and the graphics were boxy. There was a 16KB memory pack that could be added. Piggybacking the memory packs coudl give you up to 64KB. Sizewise, the TS-1000 was really small, about 7-inches wide. The main purpose behind the computer was to make one cheap enough (at the time) that anyone could afford. Average price was about $100.00. Believe it or not, but I bought 2 of them for $25.00 each at a close-out sale. Timex Sinclair 1000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Timex Sinclair 1000 - Size | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Going back even farther in the early 1960s, the very first computer I bought was a do-it-yourself unit from Radio Shack (I think). It was an analog computer that provided a set of questions (on a paper strip) and a series of answers, one of which was the right answer. An electronic stylus was used to select the answers which turned on a green light for yes, and a red light (or maybe amber) for no. Batteries were used for power. I don't remember the cost but I think it was somewhere around $10.
The point I'm making is that there's often a big emphasis on how large computers have been in the past, almost as though there was nothing any smaller. Indeed there were some very large ones, but several decades ago there was the TS-1000, a very small computer, and others, although nowhere nearly as powerful as today. They began to get larger in size (for home and office use) to increase memory and othe capabilities. True, they are shrinking again these days far more than the small ones of the past, but there were some small ones in the past. So when you talk about the trend over decades of computers getting smaller, it depends on how many decades you mean. Go back a few more decades and you can find some that were pretty small, albeit, pretty primative in memory.
We have a bright future ahead, but it remains to be seen just when things will fall into place. I think you're so eager to see things happen that you'd like to have them happen right now. Wouldn't we all? There's a lot of things I'd like to see happen yesterday, if not sooner. But it's still a process of progressing one step at a time. The difference between you and me is that I figure things will develop in whatever time it takes. I really don't know what will happen when. We'll get there sooner or later. When things are pushed too fast, that's when mistakes can happen, sometimes very costly ones. Remember the lessons learned from Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia.
The first computer I used was in the 1970's as my dads company had a main frame that took up an entire room. To this day I remember because even though I was like 5-9, I was born in 1973, I remember going in the "computer room" and seeing the programmer's desk and being in awe of the big computer and the moving parts especially the tape that would turn so fast and stop. Then around the building we had dumb terminals and I played my first computer game, Star Trek. Then I got the fist home computer and first game, the Atari, etc. So I have seen computers get better myself. Sometime in the late 80's I knew of More's Law and knew the gaming industry used it to figure out when to release their games but I never looked at it past a few years. It was not until a few years ago I first heard of it and my reaction was the exact same as yours until I studied it and realized that while it looks pollyanish in fact when it comes to information technology its not but realistic. All you have to do is look at the trends to see it coming with the I phone to the Google glasses and already they are talking about contacts with computers with them in less then 5 years.
Look at this:
Computers have been getting smaller and closer to our faces since their very beginning.
First they were in big rooms, then they sat on desktops, then they sat on our laps, and now they're in our palms. Next they'll be on our faces.
(Eventually they'll be in our brains.)
By the way, you can bet that if Microsoft and Google are working on computerized glasses, so is Apple and Jony Ive.
I am a huge football fan and I was discussing the future of CSU Pueblo the other day and it made me realize what a interesting time we live in. Because of the coming singularity, I think it will be here in 2030 which is only 17 years away, its hard to plan for the future. I am 40 so when I think back 17 years I was 23 and just coming out. As I think about then till now it seems only like it was only yesterday so the way I look at it the next 17 years will most likely go by faster. So when I talk about the future of things like CSU Football, Pueblo or even my life plans its hard to know what life will be like in 2030 and that makes it hard to plan what I want to be doing. That is why at this point I don't care if I get a bf till after the singularity and things have settled into the new normal. In a way this is fun and exciting and in a way nerve racking. However, it is the reality we live in so I do the best and enjoy life till the singularity.
From the time I first heard of this concept it has fascinated me. I'm especially intrigued by technological singularity. Like someone above me said, I think people vastly overestimate the timeline needed for such things to occur. I brought this subject up one time at work, and yeah..they were completely lost. It was like I was speaking Greek. They only care about the current sports games. Sigh.. Anyway, barring some catastrophic event such as a meteor strike or a world wide nuclear war, I think humanity will eventually get to the point they will work together towards such a goal
Btw, can anybody recommend any good books on these subjects?
I know the timeline seems optimistic however if you look at information technology it advances exponentially and that is why Ray Kurzweil, who is a engineer, argues the singularity will happen by 2045 and technically he right if you go by the numbers and as a engineer that is what he does. However since by 2030 computers the size of blood cells will have more processing power then all of NASA in the 1960's and we will have millions if not billions inside our bodies I argue that by 2030 most people will say we have hit the singularity.
There a few good books to read. My recommendation is the singularity is near by Ray Kurzweil.
There are, also, some movies to watch.
Finally there is a movie called I's but it will not be released until February of 2014. This is the link to the web page. I think it looks good and am excited for it to be released.
TIME Talks to Google CEO Larry Page About Its New Venture to Extend Human Life
Google is the next large company to undertake the challenge of being able to live forever. Now will they be successful? That no one can tell but with so many people working on this issue and it being based on information technology advancing exponentially someone will be successful and in 10-20 years.
This is from Time Magazine:
Can Google, the technology giant best known for search and free email, tackle aging?
The Mountain View, Calif.-based company is planning to launch Calico, a new firm that will attempt to solve some of health care‘s most vexing problems. One of the independent venture’s major initiatives will be significantly expanding human lifespan. Arthur Levinson, the former chief of biotech pioneer Genentech, is an investor in Calico and will serve as its CEO.
I really think this quote is important and goes with what I say that by the time I turn 50 life expectancy should be greatly increased and biologically I should be in my early 20's.
“In some industries, it takes ten or 20 years to go from an idea to something being real. Healthcare is certainly one of those ares,†said Page. “Maybe we should shoot for the things that are really, really important so ten or 20 years from now we have those things done.â€
Another film is in pre-production about living longer and looks very good. The name of the film is 'The last generation to die".
Here is a promo for the film.......
With all the recent movies coming out about the singularity perhaps my time frame of when the singularity will become mainstream is a bit conservative....
My augmenting the immune system, I would take that to mean assisting. I wouldn't doubt incredibly tiny machines could be in use, but just what they would be used for is very difficult to predict at the present time, much less to set a specific year. One possible application could be to remove plaque in the veins and arteries. Getting in and around various organs could be another possibility which might be less iinvasive than going under the surgical knife.
As for tiny machines, here's something that might be of interest to you. These aren't speculated objects, but actual workable devices. I don't know if I'd call them nanobots, but they're called microrobots. They don't function on their own, they're controlled remotely. As I understand, they do not use any wheels or jointed parts, because if they did, they would tend to stick to everything they touch. Instead, they sort of slide around. There are several possible applications such devices could be used for. Any way you look at it, they are incredibly small. They aren't perfect by any means, but they are truly remarkable. The images can be enlarged to see it better.
I'm one of the people who's doing the basic research and helping to design these nanoscale medical devices! I think one of the problems is that people have this image of little robots in their heads, it won't exactly be like that. First of all, most of the materials will be biological or similar to biological materials because they're floating around the human body and we want them to be biocompatible, to minimize toxicity issues. Non-biological chemicals tend to be more toxic and difficult to eventually eliminate. We also like biologically derived materials because we have good models for how to use those materials to make nanoscale machines, because that's precisely how life works through biochemistry and the nano-machines we call protein complexes and organelles. Thus, these nanoparticles can be thought of as machines, as sophisticated drugs, or as artificial blood factors (if in the blood). Since they need to interact with the body to work, they by necessity look more biological than mechanical. They'r more likely to look like this:
I'm one of the people who's doing the basic research and helping to design these nanoscale medical devices! I think one of the problems is that people have this image of little robots in their heads, it won't exactly be like that. First of all, most of the materials will be biological or similar to biological materials because they're floating around the human body and we want them to be biocompatible, to minimize toxicity issues. Non-biological chemicals tend to be more toxic and difficult to eventually eliminate. We also like biologically derived materials because we have good models for how to use those materials to make nanoscale machines, because that's precisely how life works through biochemistry and the nano-machines we call protein complexes and organelles. Thus, these nanoparticles can be thought of as machines, as sophisticated drugs, or as artificial blood factors (if in the blood). Since they need to interact with the body to work, they by necessity look more biological than mechanical. They'r more likely to look like this:
I have read that we will by them by 2030. Do you agree with that date?
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.
. Sure, anyone can come up with any date they want. The problem is that unexpected events can occur that can push such dates back farther. Want an example? We've seen gasoline prices soar. Doesn't matter why. The result was that the cost of shipping goods increased to offset the increase of fuel, and that gets passed on down the line to the consumer. A lot of people cut back on things to make ends meet for their own personal budget and expenses. No one expected that to happen.
TIME Talks to Google CEO Larry Page About Its New Venture to Extend Human Life
