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