Substrate-independent minds

[smcder]

From the opening of Lanier's Semifesto ... a very good point about one thing leading to another:

"During the last twenty years a stream of books has gradually informed the larger public about the belief structure of the inner circle of Digerati, starting softly, for instance with Godel, Escher, Bach, and growing more harsh with recent entries such as The Age of Spiritual Machines by Ray Kurtzweil.

Recently, public attention has finally been drawn to #6, the astonishing belief in an eschatological cataclysm in our lifetimes, brought about when computers become the ultra-intelligent masters of physical matter and life. So far as I can tell, a large number of my friends and colleagues believe in some version of this immanent doom.

I am quite curious who, among the eminent thinkers who largely accept some version of the first five points, are also comfortable with the sixth idea, the eschatology. In general, I find that technologists, rather than natural scientists, have tended to be vocal about the possibility of a near-term criticality.

**I have no idea, however, what figures like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett make of it. Somehow I can't imagine these elegant theorists speculating about whether nanorobots might take over the planet in twenty years. It seems beneath their dignity.

And yet, the eschatologies of Kurtzweil, Moravec, and Drexler follow

directly and, it would seem, inevitably,

from an understanding of the world that has been most sharply articulated by none other than Dawkins and Dennett.

Do Dawkins, Dennett, and others in their camp see some flaw in logic that insulates their thinking from the eschatological implications? The primary candidate for such a flaw as I see it is that cyber-armageddonists have confused ideal computers with real computers, which behave differently. My position on this point can be evaluated separately from my admittedly provocative positions on the first five points, and I hope it will be."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@ufology

This was my original post with this emphasized:

"**I have no idea, however, what figures like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett make of it. Somehow I can't imagine these elegant theorists speculating about whether nanorobots might take over the planet in twenty years. It seems beneath their dignity."

My comment was about one thing leading to another ...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

Prosthetic limbs that can be controlled by an amputee’s thoughts or muscle movements already exist. But what if they could also sense the environment and then send that information back to the amputee’s nervous system?

In order to create prosthetics that can function more like real body parts, scientists are designing artificial skins that pick up on tactile information. So far, these skins have gotten very good at sensing pressure—in fact, a skin designed by Stanford engineers is 1,000 times more sensitive than human skin. Another is self-healing.

But a new skin built by researchers in South Korea may be the smartest artificial skin yet. It’s stretchy, like real skin, and it can sense pressure, temperature, and humidity. It even has a built-in heater so it feels like living tissue. The researchers tested the artificial skin on a prosthetic hand, and they hope that some day, it will interface with a patient’s nerves so amputees can feel everything the fake skin feels

Stretchy Artificial Skin Lets Prosthetic Hand Sense Heat, Humidity, and Pressure | Richard Dawkins Foundation

 

[smcder]

I'm going to start a new thread for the discussion around Transhumanism and the politics there of if anyone wants to move that discussion over there.

Transhumanism ... What it means to YOU or some such .,,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Randall]

... the distinction between what Lanier calls ‘real computers’ and ‘ideal computers’ is detailed in his technical analysis of the inherent difficulties encountered in computer development itself, a subject he is eminently well qualified to analyze. If you read that part of his presentation, it would be interesting to hear how you respond to it.

The point I was making is that 100 years ago those people most "... eminently well qualified to analyze ... " the idea of a computer as sophisticated as today's desktop computers, would have had only the foggiest clue what you were talking about, and the reality of todays super-computers would be nearly incomprehensible, if not deemed impossible. Given the rate at which computer science has been progressing, it's not unreasonable to propose that the computers in use in 2114 could be equally mind boggling to Lanier.

I should also point out that Lanier's assertion that computers "break for reasons that are not always analyzable" cannot be accurate, that is unless the computer is irretrievable. I've analyzed literally hundreds of computers to determine why they have failed. Provided that you have physical access to the computer, no component is exempt from analysis. They can all be tested, and the broken part identified and replaced.

 

[smcder]

Do you mind if I move this to the new thread? Or do you prefer to leave it here?

If prefer to have @mike 's imprimatur to continue on his thread.

In the meantime, I am going to post an unanswered question I posed to you as an opening for the new thread if you want to answer it over there.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Randall]

@ufology

This was my original post with this emphasized:

"**I have no idea, however, what figures like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett make of it. Somehow I can't imagine these elegant theorists speculating about whether nanorobots might take over the planet in twenty years. It seems beneath their dignity."

My comment was about one thing leading to another ...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK. So one thing leads to another, and advancements in computing are no exception, I think we can all agree on that. Hey did you get to try the Mag Smart yet?

 

[smcder]

OK. So one thing leads to another, and advancements in computing are no exception, I think we can all agree on that. Hey did you get to try the Mag Smart yet?

What was interesting to me at the moment when I posted this originally was Lanier's question about whether Dawkins and Dennett realized the consequences of their ideas:

"I am quite curious who, among the eminent thinkers who largely accept some version of the first five points, are also comfortable with the sixth idea, the eschatology. In general, I find that technologists, rather than natural scientists, have tended to be vocal about the possibility of a near-term criticality.

I have no idea, however, what figures like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett make of it. Somehow I can't imagine these elegant theorists speculating about whether nanorobots might take over the planet in twenty years. It seems beneath their dignity.

And yet, the eschatologies of Kurtzweil, Moravec, and Drexler follow directly and, it would seem, inevitably, from an understanding of the world that has been most sharply articulated by none other than Dawkins and Dennett."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

OK. So one thing leads to another, and advancements in computing are no exception, I think we can all agree on that. Hey did you get to try the Mag Smart yet?

I haven't tried it yet ... Had forgotten about it, but I'm having some tests done this morning and I'll ask the doc ... I'd like to be off the other if possible ... thanks for reminding me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

 

[smcder]

What is it ... ?

The quality of internet is not streamed
When droppeth the gentle rain from heaven

i.e. it's raining and my internet is SLOW

 

[Soupie]

Its the trailor for an upcometh movie about an AI android, Ex Machina.

Ex Machina — Coming 2015

 

[smcder]

@ufology

A New Kind of Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Living a Paradigm Shift: Looking Back on Reactions to A New Kind of Science—Stephen Wolfram Blog


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

That's actually the second post I'm the series but it links to the first.

I think you and Mike would like Wolfram's book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

In addition to Wolfram's here's the books from the 90s that I mentioned on the Hansen thread - this was about the time computing power allowed graphic presentation of a certain level ...

I was fascinated with VR (Tron) then and computer animation - this era still holds a lot of visual appeal to me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Fun book that just came across the library desk ...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Also came across the desk today ... what you do is just read the first three chapters, the publisher will make sure all the good stuff is in there ... because that's the bit book reviewers read.

The Signal and the Noise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




The book emphasizes Silver's skill, which is the practical art of mathematical model building using probability and statistics. Silver takes a big-picture approach to using statistical tools, combining sources of unique data ... with historical data and principles of sound statistical analysis, many of which are violated by many pollsters and pundits who nonetheless have important media roles.

The book includes richly detailed case studies from baseball, elections, climate change, the financial crash, poker, and weather forecasting. These different topics illustrate different statistical principles. For example, weather forecasting is used to introduce the idea of "calibration," or how well weather forecasts fit actual weather outcomes. There is much on the need for improved expressions of uncertainty in all statistical statements, reflecting ranges of probable outcomes and not just single "point estimates" like averages.

Silver would like to see the media move away from vague terminology like "Obama has an edge in Ohio" or "Florida still a toss-up state" to probability statements, like "the probability of Obama winning the electoral college is 83%, while the expected fraction won by him of the popular vote is now 50.1% with an error range of ±2%". Such statements give odds on outcomes, including a 17% chance of Romney winning the electoral college. The shares of the popular vote similarly are ranges including outcomes in which Romney gets the most votes. What is highly probable is that the voting shares are in these ranges, but not whose share is highest; that's another probability question with closer odds.

From such information, it's up to the consumer of such statements to use that information as best they can in dealing with an uncertain future in an age of information overload. That last idea frames Silver's entire narrative and motivates his pedagogical mission.

@ufology Chapter Nine is on chess playing machines ...

 

[boomerang]

The quality of internet is not streamed
When droppeth the gentle rain from heaven

and sendeth the accursed windows update on the just and on the unjust.

 

[mike]

Fun book that just came across the library desk ...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They also promised us the paperless office, experts now say you can expect the paperless office at about the same time we get the paperless toilet...... Having said that the japanese are working on a thing thats a cross between a car wash and a bidet, Sit on it at your own peril

 

[smcder]

They also promised us the paperless office, experts now say you can expect the paperless office at about the same time we get the paperless toilet...... Having said that the japanese are working on a thing thats a cross between a car wash and a bidet, Sit on it at your own peril

Lol




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

Came across this one today and was reminded of some of my earlier comments about can it be done