Re: Why will we reach the singularity?

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Sat Mar 01 2003 - 04:44:22 MST

  • Next message: Dehede011@aol.com: "Re: weapons of mass panic"

    Joao Magalhaes asked:
    <<I've been wondering on why are transhumanists so confident that we will
    reach the singularity. I'm about to finish my Ph.D. on the biology of aging
    and I've been thinking about the developments of the past few years, not
    just on aging but in other areas too. In truth, I'm disappointed with
    what's being done and I want to know why are transhumanists so confident we
    will reach the singularity.>>

    A few of us do not see a Singularity existing a few decades away, but rather
    centuries or milenia from now. Transhumanists and futurists tend to err on
    the side of optimism; although many journalists, writers, and
    politically-motivated scientists err on the side of pessimism and gloom.

    <<For instance, astrophysics and space exploration have been stagnating. It's
    been 30 years since a man walked on the moon and, though I'm not an expert, I
    don't see how our recent models of the universe--e.g. superstring theory--are
    more likely to be right than the models from Einstein's time.>>

    You can't legitimately say that space exploration has stagnated. Automated
    probes like Voyager have explored quite a bit of the solar system, flyby's of
    asteroids and comets and the discoveries made by the Keck 2 telescopes, and
    the Hubble telescope are quite phenomenal. Detetcting new planets through the
    motion of the parent star are also something that in the late 1970's would've
    have been deemed a faint hope.

    Now manned exploration has a problem with something that has slowed discovery
    and that is COST. It takes a phenomenal amount of money to spend to sustain
    human life in earth orbit and beyond. That is where the stagnation has
    occurred. If flying to the moon or a trip to Mars would be cheaper; you would
    have private industry putting people there, for the Return On Investment ROI.

    <<It's true breakthroughs have been made in biology and medicine, such as the
    Human Genome Project, but, shit, we haven't even cured AIDS, how can we
    expect to cure aging anytime soon? >>

    Please remember that HIV blind-sided medical science, and is perhaps the most
    adaptive virus, ever encountered. Its the 800LB Gorilla of infectious
    diseases. AIDS is also NEW, comparatively to humanity, unlike smallpox, or
    tuberculosis. To cure, and develop better treatments will take years and
    years more research, and also manage how the disease is spread-a social
    commitment

    <<Also, I'm disappointed with the way science is made in the academia with
    personal egos rising above finding the mechanisms of aging. If we want to
    cure aging, we need to work together, but not many do that.>>

    Welcome to the world of academia and ego's. This, I wager, you will not be
    able to change. I am guessing that the private sector might be a better
    choice for you in focus to battle aging. Perhaps an off-shoot of genetics
    study which attempts to treat progeria? A academic scholar is always hunting
    for a juicy research grant. Private sector researchers hunt for results.

    <<In the end, I would say that the basis for the singularity is Moore's law,
    for it allows not only faster computers but also developments in DNA
    sequencing and a host of other possibilities. Yet I'm sure there are
    physical limits for Moore's law. When will we reach them? Can you be sure
    Moore's law will continue for long enough to develop a smarter-than-man
    artificial intelligence?>>

    As a biologist, you may wish to realize there may be no practical limit, at
    least for 100-200 years, in a "Moore's Law" for DNA-based computing. This may
    be were Super Intelligent-Artifical Intelligence will arise-not in mere
    silicon. As author, Stuart Kauffman noted, its all about complexity. His
    example was, that there are 10^80 number of particles, estimated in the
    visible Universe. But that for all molecular chains of proteins, on Earth,
    that extend out to 3 sequences, or more; its 10^1300.
    Again, the complexity of electrons flowing one hundred ways, simultaneously,
    through DNA goop, may be much better than ballistic electrons through
    silicon.

    <<When I found transhumanism, already several years ago, I thought it set an
    optimistic but plausible scenario. Now, I'm starting to wonder if we're not
    just another cult willing to sacrifice reality towards a fairer image of
    the world. Please prove me wrong. Or does anyone here thinks we're
    descendant from aliens?>>

    The plausibility is still there, but nobody ever said it was easy. In the
    field if materials science, nanotechnology seems to be keeping its pace, as
    far as innovative research is occurring. I also suspect that nobody on this
    list is putting all their efforts in flying saucer development, or have
    mortaged their homes to pay for "uploads" yet.

    As far as "sacrificing reality for a fairer image of the world" I say, you
    have to start somewhere. Also, keep in mind, what Gerard K. Oneil once noted:
    "Scientists tend to overestimate the Impacts of scientific breakthroughs, and
    underestimate the Impacts of straight-forward extentions of the sciences we
    are already familiar with."

    Or to take a note from Vladimir Illyitch Lenin: "Probe with a bayonet, if you
    find steel, withdraw, if you find mush, dig in!!" Science is an opportunistic
    endevour, no less then any other human endevour, no less then nature. Find
    the the mush and dig in.

    Yours, in Cthulu

    Mitch

    .



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 04:48:37 MST