Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
Socialism and communism still have money so they are not what I'm speaking of. The future I am talking about will allow us to be MORE of an individual and we will have MORE freedom as there will be NO laws. There won't need to be when we realise that hurting each other doesn't get us anywhere. BTW, the way we live is not natural. It is the cause of all crime and mental disease.
@sneaksuit Most socialist and communist countries are very poor, so they don't have money. The only socialist countries with money are the ones with a high amount of natural resoures to sell that counters the negative effects of socialism on their country.
@firespinguy There is no communist government on Earth. And socialism still uses a monetary system which hinders growth. Money=classes=war, poverty, starvation, pollution, natural resource extraction independant of sustainability
@firespinguy There is no communist government on Earth and if there was we wouldn't want it. And socialism still uses a monetary system which hinders growth. Money=classes=war, poverty, starvation, pollution, natural resource extraction independant of sustainability
@celticcrisis So far only capitalism works, it is the one system that brought the most people out of poverty and advanced society the most. Also if you didn't know the only reason humans advanced to this point was because of a monetary system. Before then humans was still living in primitive barter societies. If you want to see a society without a monetary system today look at the amazon tribes. No human is going to do stuff for free and barter societies are inefficient.
@JefferySchmitz Scandinavia countries like Norway are not true examples of socialism working because they are cheating with a lot of natural resources and unique locations for such small countries. Norway have oil and other natural resources to counter the negative effects of socialism and Norway's population is only 5 million. So other countries can not replicate what Norways or nearby scandinavia countries does.
Also scandinavia is not known for innovation, which is a product of capitalism
alexanderkirkegaard It could be, but it is still not known around the world for innovation. I am not bashing Norway, this is just reality. When talking about location encouraging innovation or the latest inventions scandinavian countries are not the first thing people think about.
@alexanderkirkegaard that could be, but it is still not known around the world for innovation. I am not bashing Norway, this is just reality. When talking about location encouraging innovation or the latest inventions scandinavian countries are not the first thing people think about.
Civilization's seemingly inevitable result. The civilized are already embedded into the Machine, why not make em full fledged machines?...I dunno. Other people would call them Zombies, me, i call em "civilized".
This is all really amazing! However, Ray doesn't seem to be taking into account the hindrance of capitalism on technological advancement. If we can free ourselves of this inefficient, anachronistic system of resource abuse and poor distribution, we really could achieve all of these things -- even faster than he predicts. For example, Apple didn't release the next best technology in the iPad2, they released something that was just better enough to make a profit. Progress comes second to profit.
@aarongrooves Wrong. Capitalism is how we got here in the first place. The rate of growth HAS been increasing under capitalism. Collectivism or socialism is the result of small minds. Ray has belief in human innovation and a positive outlook on solving problems. Socialism, Communism, Collectivism, are all based on victim mentality and fear.
@Entropy56 Communism never existed on earth because people aren't on the right level of consciousness. If they were, the growth would be exponential. But, people wouldn't like to have harder jobs and get paid the same as a baker, street cleaner etc...
That's what makes capitalism work ---> inequality.
@Entropy56 Capatalism that is the cause of fear. People are scared what would happen if we couldn't step on another pesons face to get ahead. That is what the capitalist end goal is....to die with the most stuff in disregard to how it is done. Capitalism = inequality = poverty, starvation, war, pollution, and crimial behaviour, mental problems, and conformity. We have not helped others who suffer because people told us it is not in our interests to help them. We know now they were wrong.
@Entropy56 It does not prove we should be doing it. We are evolving beyond imaginary peices of paper we have been conditioned to worship. Humanity has always socially evolved and will continue. Put it this way, everything that any human has ever said has been proven wrong or has been updated. That trend will continue. Everything that you have ever heard (what someone told you) and which you've constructed your reality tunnel from, is not true.
@sneaksuit Your so-called progressive Socialism and Communism fantasy is regressive, oppressive, anti-freedom, anti-individual, immoral, unnatural, and possible only in a nation of estrogen saturated feminized men.
@drpeppa2357 22, turning 23. I wonder what the age cut-off is for those who won't benefit from Ray's advances??? That's a real question...at what age are you just, gonna die of natural causes with NO help like this....
Most of this stuff will probably happen sooner or later which, as per his closing remark, will "both empower our promise and our peril..." Ominous indeed considering most new technologies are first applied to weapons and military use.
Why is rocket technology an exception? We cannot put a man on the moon anymore today. Nuclear fusion is also a technology that is harder to develop than previously expected. Ray Kurzweil seems to be too optimistic about technological advancement. He extrapolates the success story of ICT to other branches of science, but reality is sometimes a bitch.
You can argue that he was right about computers disappearing, though it's just starting. The smart phones really are computers that we carry with ourselves. We do banking, browsing, paying bills, watching this very presentation on our phones now, which was NOT the case when this was filmed in 2007 or 2006.
@mesofius Actually, the devlopment of the mobile phone is a clear example of exponential development. For several years nothing much happened except the mobiles getting smaller and slightly better. The last few years the development has accelerated immensly and I find it really hard to imagine what a mobile phone (or similar device) will be capable of in 6-7 years.
Will this technology get rid of juries? If so, it will get rid of justice. Will this technology not get rid of juries? If so, then we need to fight to reinstate proper jury trials. Will this technology help us get rid of voir dire? I think so, or else smarter-than-human machines will be slaves of humanity, or in conflict with them (neither situation is likely to last long). Does RK overestimate the benevolence of collectivism? YES, but not by much. He's super-smart, love going out to him.
I'd like to think that our current economic paradigm is feasible to continue to use for the rest of eternity, however we are forgetting the elephant in the room. Automation continuously displaces human labor, thus our current system is doomed to failure. Like all economic paradigms of the past, ours will require an "overhaul" at some point in the future. The question is how much suffering we need to endure before we change.
@CrapOfTheWorld Still, he was talking about computers being embedded in clothing by 2010 and what not. Kind of compromises his entire theory about the exponential rate at which technology evolves.
@Corrupt140 They are, but it's not on wide scale consumer release. He's been wrong before, anyway, but in terms of the overall rate of technology's growth, he's been pretty dead on.
I am going into a degree for alternative energies, not because its moving in that direction, but because its an investment into my future that I'll have a job and be MARKETABLE by 2030!!!
@rspaulding But don't you understand that's why 'The Venus Project' is a joke? Technology will advance, irregardless of our unemployment and failures of government - but that's the good part. The world will become a utopia because of technology, not despite it.
Of course you won't have a job making a under-the-poverty-line salary, but you'll only need a tube of paste to sustain yourself, and you'll have robotic surgeons to fix your health problems at no cost, with solar energy at no cost to you
@areyoualizard So you're saying that we are on course to become a "utopia" in our current system? What markers have you been sniffing?We are nowhere near sustainable and are on a literal crash course towards resource depletion, and irreparable environmental damage worldwide. The Venus Project is the only viable solution to correcting this course in the time that it needs to happen. We can just sit around and hope that our system will "correct itself" has shown completely the opposite.
What is driving all the research and development for new and better technology?
The god of money (wealth and power) and the Creed of Greed.
I love technology. However it does not evolve by ITSELF. It is, just like science, a human activity. WE give it the direction. And WHY we pursue technology determines where it will take us?
The current ethos of Wealth and Power as sources of happiness leads to use technology to enrich a few and enslave the rest, materially.
the most great power is how people made to solve the problem to learn to play piano. if that idea transform to develope new technology it would awesome. se by you self how to solve all problems ever pop up
I love what he says about most of the project being done in the lost half of the time frame.
Makes me think of programming. You spend so long designing use cases, setting up programming, charting the database, doing other charts, setting up the database, and it looks like you've done absolutely nothing.
But what's the frame work is done, it sort of EXPLODES. And soon you've got something that you can actually run.
I can't wait for 2010 when I get my Computer Shirts and Glasses that shoot instant knowledge right in to my tiny, tiny brain. This guy talks real purdy like.I wonder what he thinks might happen 3 years ago? What will happen in the year 2008 Mr Scientist. You talk real purty so let's hear what you think will happen in the Past since your Future predictions are kinds off the mark.
@Discerningthetruth idk lol...God most likely has been shaking his head for a long time b/c he knows what awaits us in 100 years...after all...we humans are just 1 of trillions of creatures in his universe and he knows what happens to the intelligent ones....we fuck ourselves in the ass.
I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.
The time will come when technology becomes the power source driven economy. At this most important stage, people who realizes this will be able to adapt and succeed in this transformation decade.
While mid 20th century predictions were way off the mark, I think the technology is way more awesome than anyone predicted back then. Flying cars and jet-packs are nice but they're nothing compared to having instant access to the sum of the World's knowledge (and misconceptions) and ubiquitous, cheap communication. I look at futurists as a source of inspiration rather than information.
19:51 "by 2010 computers will disappear. They will be so small they'll be embedded in our clothes and our environment" etc... A grain of salt to be taken with the technological feast being offered
19:51 "by 2010 computers will disappear. they'll be so small they'll be embedded in our clothing and environment" etc... A grain of salt to be taken with the feast of technology Kuerzweil offers.
To be fair, most of the space is taken up by the user interface and displays. The new iPod Shuffle is 29×31.6×8.7 mm (1.1×1.24×0.34 in) and it weighs 12.5 g (0.4 oz), it decodes mp3, has a speech synthesizer, 4 gigabytes od memory and can play over 10 hours of music on a single charge. You can pretty much "embed" it in any clothing more substantial than a g-string.
The problem is that the applications of tiny computers are limited by humans, that is we need relatively large displays and elaborate user interfaces to make use of such computers. Reduce the computer to its base components (CPU, memory and power supply) and you can have 1970s supercomputer power in something the size of a coat button. Still Kurzweil is too optimistic but I like listening to him anyway.
The idea of full-immersion VR, where the nanobots shut down the signals coming from your real senses and replace it with signals if you were in a virtual environment... Shrooms been around, since the beginning of time ya know lol
@pme96 You cant be taken seriously either, if your going to continue to be held back by silly judgements. if the entireity of this mans lecture was ruined because he mentioned bono, that says more about you than it does about anything. move past those details to the truth; things are accelerating, and your a part of it all
@eziekiel9989 In terms of the future, Bono is an irrelevence so is Ray and sadly you and I too. The future will be dominated by gangsters, fanatics and, worst of all, more and more irritating and intrusive gadgets.
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Say thou: He is Allah the One. (1) Allah, the Independent. (2) He begets not, nor was He begotten. (3) And never there has been anyone co-equal with him. (4)
Kurzweil is a rapture-obsessed wacky kook. Obsessed with the techno-rapture that he thinks is coming by 2045. It isn't. I know for a fact that it isn't. Ray can shove all the charts and graphs in our faces as he wants, graphs plotting exponential progress are just as effective as testimonials on alternative medicine, they won't prove jack shit. He has been wrong regarding the year 2009, and he will be even more wrong in the future. He is going to die, like the rest of us.
in 2005 he wrote in his book: "By the end of this decade, computers will disappear as distinct physical objects, with displays built in our eyeglasses, and electronics woven in our clothing, providing full-immersion visual virtual reality."
it's 2010, my shirt is still 100% cotton. I think senility is near, for our friend Ray. He did good things in his days, but all those pills are doing nothing against the aging of his brain, sadly.
Poor Ray he desperately wants to see machine intelligence in his lifetime. It won't happen. Why? Well computers fifty years ago were large, slow and very very stupid. Today's most advanced computers are small, incredibly fast and very very stupid. Reverse engineering the human brain in under twenty years I don't think so. More chance of constructing a working starship, and that won't happen either.
@spacecowboy95 Yes you are right! Computers are really clever nowadays I often chat to mine about the metaphysical dilemmas faced by useless fleshy humans. You spacecowboy are appropriately named, you very very stupid person. Now fuck off and suck Ray's super spaceage cock.
@pme96 Computers are clever, they actually out perform human minds in many ways. Human brains however are capable of suble emotional intelligence which we have not yet replicated in machines, we will one day.
IBM managed to reverse engineer a cats brain last year and built a computer simulation of it, they dont have the processing power to simulate the 200 billion neurons of a human brain, but they forecast that we will be able to in 10 years.
If you don't mind me spamming the comments section a bit more: I have one more example. I am reminded of Star Trek where the android named "Data" is asked why does he deserve to be a creature treated with free will. He says: "because I desire to be more than I am."
The problem is that based on today's technology, Data was "hard-coded" to say that. When people can find the underlying scientific reason and principle WHY all living creatures desire to procreate, then you'll find your Data.
@mikeyo1234 Evolutionary programming has a ceiling though. The system may write it's own programs only in the way that the developer intends. It can never have that unique biological 'spark' to do otherwise.
If a programmer decides to say ok here's code 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd'. And now I want you the computer to "evolve" from that. Then all it can do is create variations of 'a' 'b' 'c' and 'd'. But it cannot come up with code 'e'. Code ''e' will always be somehow based on 'a' 'b' 'c' or 'd'.
I can make a simple analogy too: My laptop has an on button. If I keep my laptop off and I never come into the room, nor anything effects that room, then not in 1 billion years will the on button be pressed. TVs, Laptops, and computers (even AI) works this way.
Humans have the will and desire for to leave offspring. That is the most basic of human instincts. To procreate. No 'on' button is required, no belief in any supernatural deities is required either - you are born with that desire.
@DanceInYourRoom That's a fundamental difference. You can write a program to simulate human evolution and watch the algorithms take place. But it's human themselves that have to come up with the algorithms - I can't be certain, but it seems Ray Kurzweil's desire to see singularity is greater than his scientific rigour in making it a reality. There's a danger I think in thinking that way. Scientists are practical for a reason. Leave idealism to the dreamers, we have reality - it's better.
@DanceInYourRoom I'm not a huge fan of Kurzweil but creating a copy of a human mind that is conscious is possible.
"But it's human themselves that have to come up with the algorithms" - did you read up on evolutionary programming? Such systems write their own algorithms :)
This is a very deceptive speech. As Richard Dawkins has said, there's a difference between designed objects and designoid objects. Computers are stupid. They can only do what we tell them.
It's very important for intelligent future computer scientists to make the distinction between defeating the Turing Test and giving the ILLUSION of defeating the Turing Test (which is what Kurzweil is talking about). In the end, he is a junk scientist with more hot air than substance.
@supercooled I may be wrong. A self-fulfilling prophecy may actually be fulfilled. But a self-fulfilling prophecy, even if it comes true, was based on a false presumption. If singularity comes about, it won't be due to the work of Ray Kurzweil, but because the industry listened to Ray Kurzweil and did the work instead. I just don't think the world works the way Ray Kurzweil would like it to.
@DanceInYourRoom In a way, I am reminded of the scene from Ali G, where Sasha Baron Cohen walks into an executive's office and shows him a skateboard without any wheels. Sasha Baron Cohen says "Ever seen Back to the Future? I have this great idea for a flying skateboard without wheels. All you need to do is come up with the solution." The executives tossed his ass into the street.
@DanceInYourRoom The Blue Brain Project is currently trying to copy the structure of the human brain. The brain will then be simulated inside a computer.
Once the generic structure of a human brain is understood, then the simulated version of the brain can then be evolved using evolutionary algorithms. The evolution could run millions of times faster than biological evolution.
@mikeyo1234 But what about a brain that suffers from mental illness. Are not artistic and mathematical savants the benchmark of human society? Is random chance not also valid? What you, and the Blue Brain project, is proposing is a computer that *simulates* a brain. It is not a living thing and cannot do anything outside its programming. It CANNOT write its own programming outside of what the developer asks of it. Therefore, it is not capable of self-actualization as Kurzweil suggests.
@DanceInYourRoom I don't see what's relevant about savants, and no they aren't really a benchmark. Savants have a very narrow field of ability, outside of that they tend to be non-functional.
"Is random chance not also valid?" - Evolution is the key.
What's the difference between simulating a brain biologically or electronically? No functional difference. The framework of implementation is irrelevant. The word simulation is misleading.
@mikeyo1234 Like I said, a program cannot write it's own code. I am no Alan Turing, but if he were here I think he'd be pretty pissed off at Ray Kurzweil.
Think about it mikeyo1234, do you feel a slight bit of immortality when Ray Kurzweil speaks? Do you feel you will "own" a part of the singularity when it comes out? Be careful that you are basing your judgments here on emotions and not on scientific and practical principle. Every technology comes from the latter, not the former.
@DanceInYourRoom "a program cannot write it's own code" - A system can create new programs, i.e. it can reprogram itself. Look up evolutionary programming. The brain already does this so it can be done.
I am basing all my ideas on science, not emotions. It is you that brings in emotions saying that Alan Turing would be annoyed, or when you say "Do you feel you will 'own'...".
@DanceInYourRoom I can't see how you don't realise that an exact functional replica of something does the same thing as the original.
If I replaced one neuron in your brain, and preserved all connections with other neurons in your brain with an electronic version would it change the functioning of your brain? No. What about replacing two neurons (functionally identical copies)? What about three? Then what about them all?
@DanceInYourRoom "It (An electronically brain) is not a living thing" - Define living.
An exact functional copy of a human brain whatever the framework it is implemented in is 'living'. It doesn't program itself, it evolves just like we did.
If we attach some kind of body with sensors (similar to our senses) and it can move around, then it's brain could be set up to evolve in relation to interacting with the real world.
There are designed objects and designoid objects. (watch?v=v2Nj1Lc_gMo) We can't wish or even change that. The desire to procreate I think is the most fundamental difference between living and non-living objects. That is really a simple, elegant, and beautiful concept.
In the end, our desire to be "immortal in machines" is not a desire that machines share with us.
All current models of society, especially capitalism, cannot effectively facilitate or embrace the type of technology that is coming. As technology advances it will only continue to automate and displace jobs in every sector of employment. The only type of society, that I know of, that can facilitate our technological future is the Resource Based Economy proposed by The Venus Project. Search Google Videos or Youtube for "The Zeitgeist Movement Activist Orientation" for more information.
@rspaulding Ah, a "Resource Based Economy" -- who would be against that? Oh, you mean a central government would control everybody and everything? Doesn't sound as nice now does it. Seriously, tell me ONE economist I've heard about (ie. a textbook author, columnist, whatever) who has written anything that could be even mildly constructed as a compliment to the "idea."
@rspaulding The Communist Utopia of the Venus Project is nothing new. Centalizing power never works out well for the average person despite false promises. Power currupts and absolute power currupts absolutly. Giving up your purchasing power, land, guns, and busines is no way to defeat the global powers that be.
@MoreInfo24 The only thing that is centralized is calculation of the distribution. Production happens locally. There is no state, so nothing for power to gravitate around. No money either to provide differential advantage.
@rspaulding You are forgetting the role of competition in creating this technology. This has been tried before, utopian socialism doesn't work because progress doesn't happen without competition.
@daobagua That is a pretty braod reaching statement. So you say that the town or city you live in only exists and works together as an integrated unit because of competition? All civilization happens because of collaboration in SPITE of competition not because of it. Creativity becomes stifled when all information becomes proprietary. Look it up.
@rspaulding Luddite fallacy. Go take a class in basic economics and learn how the price system and the free market are essential for the efficient allocation of resources within society. Way to espouse old rehashed socialistic theories that have long since been refuted/utterly exploded by the great economists of the 19th and 20th century.
@bobjimjones Oh really, the efficient allocation of resources transmitted by something called the price mechanisms in which the price itself obscures any real information as to what went into the product or service to begin with? That efficient allocation? Because the true cost of products can NEVER be externalized, or manipulated in any way, shape, or form...
@vasper85 you're making a mistake. read up on the the Socialist Calculation Debate, i think you'll find some interesting answers there. and you are aware your entire movement is predicated on the luddite fallacy, right? basically, individuals and entrepeneurs do all the innovating within a capitalist system, technology advances, products and services become cheaper and better and standards of living rise. the price mechanism sorts out all that troublesome allocation business for us ;)
@bobjimjones I am familiar with Mises argument. He even admits "calculation in natura in an economy without exchange can embrace consumption-goods only." And as David Schweickart observes in his book Against Capitalism "[i]t has long been recognised that von Mises's argument is logically defective. Even without a market in production goods, their monetary values can be determined." What was a luddite fallacy in the 19th century is a reality today i.e. the accelerating rate of change.
@rspaulding Are you so certain? That argument was put forward for a long time now and its prognosis never materialized. The nature of work changed but work itself prevailed.
I believe the complete opposite. The "resource based economy" is a version of marxism. It isn't particularly interesting and has the fatal flaw of long term government planning for everything.
@MrXSpeaks To compare them like that really shows your lack of understanding about a resource-based economy and TVP. Communism has money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification,is managed by appointed leaders. .Communism has no blueprin to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism, will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments. These are all differences between the two.
@MrXSpeaks furthermore, it is ignorant of you to think that we are not already in extreme collectivism. If you don't think that actions that happen on the other side of the planet affect you and your life, then you are ignorant to reality that we are all connected. Also every successful organization starts with solid central planning, why should our economy and our society be any different? Our economic model is the only thing that is still stuck in the dark ages today.
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 weeks ago
Imagine the crazy shit people are going to subject themselves to when they're immortal.
tamerseeker 1 month ago
wait until the price curve finds carbon nano tubes. they'll be cheap quicker than they say these days.
Spazzboy911 2 months ago
Comment removed
adam9a9 3 months ago
@adam9a9 Way to make a case! Very compelling! I'm sold! ::shakes head::
rspaulding 3 months ago
Mr.Kurzweil......if you are an "evolutionist" - why are you a 33* freemason?
im a Golem with a cookbook called 'morels & dogfood'
noodlesmealey 3 months ago
Decentralization is the way to go!
equsnarnd 3 months ago in playlist Comedy
Socialism and communism still have money so they are not what I'm speaking of. The future I am talking about will allow us to be MORE of an individual and we will have MORE freedom as there will be NO laws. There won't need to be when we realise that hurting each other doesn't get us anywhere. BTW, the way we live is not natural. It is the cause of all crime and mental disease.
sneaksuit 4 months ago
@sneaksuit Most socialist and communist countries are very poor, so they don't have money. The only socialist countries with money are the ones with a high amount of natural resoures to sell that counters the negative effects of socialism on their country.
firespinguy 4 months ago
@firespinguy There is no communist government on Earth. And socialism still uses a monetary system which hinders growth. Money=classes=war, poverty, starvation, pollution, natural resource extraction independant of sustainability
celticcrisis 4 months ago
@firespinguy There is no communist government on Earth and if there was we wouldn't want it. And socialism still uses a monetary system which hinders growth. Money=classes=war, poverty, starvation, pollution, natural resource extraction independant of sustainability
celticcrisis 4 months ago
@celticcrisis So far only capitalism works, it is the one system that brought the most people out of poverty and advanced society the most. Also if you didn't know the only reason humans advanced to this point was because of a monetary system. Before then humans was still living in primitive barter societies. If you want to see a society without a monetary system today look at the amazon tribes. No human is going to do stuff for free and barter societies are inefficient.
firespinguy 4 months ago
@firespinguy Really? Norway has a budget surplus of 40 billion where do you get your data?
JefferySchmitz 3 months ago
@JefferySchmitz Scandinavia countries like Norway are not true examples of socialism working because they are cheating with a lot of natural resources and unique locations for such small countries. Norway have oil and other natural resources to counter the negative effects of socialism and Norway's population is only 5 million. So other countries can not replicate what Norways or nearby scandinavia countries does.
Also scandinavia is not known for innovation, which is a product of capitalism
firespinguy 3 months ago
@firespinguy I should say that norway holds plenty of patents in regards to innovation.. as do the other scandinavian countries
alexanderkirkegaard 2 months ago
alexanderkirkegaard It could be, but it is still not known around the world for innovation. I am not bashing Norway, this is just reality. When talking about location encouraging innovation or the latest inventions scandinavian countries are not the first thing people think about.
firespinguy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alexanderkirkegaard that could be, but it is still not known around the world for innovation. I am not bashing Norway, this is just reality. When talking about location encouraging innovation or the latest inventions scandinavian countries are not the first thing people think about.
firespinguy 2 months ago
Wow! Fullfledged cyborgs.
Civilization's seemingly inevitable result. The civilized are already embedded into the Machine, why not make em full fledged machines?...I dunno. Other people would call them Zombies, me, i call em "civilized".
miskokinoo 5 months ago
Comment removed
miskokinoo 5 months ago
his vision its totally right,100% will really happen. but he is completely off on time. maybe in 2200, but not from 30 years away
zoveia 5 months ago
This is all really amazing! However, Ray doesn't seem to be taking into account the hindrance of capitalism on technological advancement. If we can free ourselves of this inefficient, anachronistic system of resource abuse and poor distribution, we really could achieve all of these things -- even faster than he predicts. For example, Apple didn't release the next best technology in the iPad2, they released something that was just better enough to make a profit. Progress comes second to profit.
aarongrooves 5 months ago
@aarongrooves Wrong. Capitalism is how we got here in the first place. The rate of growth HAS been increasing under capitalism. Collectivism or socialism is the result of small minds. Ray has belief in human innovation and a positive outlook on solving problems. Socialism, Communism, Collectivism, are all based on victim mentality and fear.
Entropy56 5 months ago
@Entropy56 Communism never existed on earth because people aren't on the right level of consciousness. If they were, the growth would be exponential. But, people wouldn't like to have harder jobs and get paid the same as a baker, street cleaner etc...
That's what makes capitalism work ---> inequality.
toorn2 5 months ago
@Entropy56 Capatalism that is the cause of fear. People are scared what would happen if we couldn't step on another pesons face to get ahead. That is what the capitalist end goal is....to die with the most stuff in disregard to how it is done. Capitalism = inequality = poverty, starvation, war, pollution, and crimial behaviour, mental problems, and conformity. We have not helped others who suffer because people told us it is not in our interests to help them. We know now they were wrong.
sneaksuit 4 months ago
@sneaksuit The fact that you trade your coin for a product at a store disproves your silly argument.
Entropy56 4 months ago
@Entropy56 It does not prove we should be doing it. We are evolving beyond imaginary peices of paper we have been conditioned to worship. Humanity has always socially evolved and will continue. Put it this way, everything that any human has ever said has been proven wrong or has been updated. That trend will continue. Everything that you have ever heard (what someone told you) and which you've constructed your reality tunnel from, is not true.
sneaksuit 4 months ago
@sneaksuit Your so-called progressive Socialism and Communism fantasy is regressive, oppressive, anti-freedom, anti-individual, immoral, unnatural, and possible only in a nation of estrogen saturated feminized men.
Entropy56 4 months ago
Just read an article today which states that singularity will be achieved by 2045
udipta21 5 months ago
lol only 9 years left and because of the recent recession, I dont see many humans with half robot brains.
shorerydr10 6 months ago
Did he say 2010 computers will disappear, oh dear.
ebze70 6 months ago 8
@ebze70 towards the end of the second decade
spacecowboy95 6 months ago
@spacecowboy95 oh ok, how accurate do you think his predictions will be?
ebze70 6 months ago
@spacecowboy95 he could be 10 or 2o years off
spacecowboy95 6 months ago
@ebze70 Apparently, by 2010 computers will be so small they will be embedded into our clothing!
seemysig 3 months ago
@seemysig what? look at it
enriquesalazar009 2 months ago
@ebze70 I believe he meant 2020.
Tawaxyon 1 month ago
Holy crap. The terminator was a documentary.
drpeppa2357 7 months ago
I'm 19, and shit's guaranteed to go down within my lifetime, i cannot wait for the future, it's coming quicker than anybody can anticipate.
drpeppa2357 7 months ago 2
@drpeppa2357 22, turning 23. I wonder what the age cut-off is for those who won't benefit from Ray's advances??? That's a real question...at what age are you just, gonna die of natural causes with NO help like this....
qturner 7 months ago
Most of this stuff will probably happen sooner or later which, as per his closing remark, will "both empower our promise and our peril..." Ominous indeed considering most new technologies are first applied to weapons and military use.
billberends 7 months ago
Why is rocket technology an exception? We cannot put a man on the moon anymore today. Nuclear fusion is also a technology that is harder to develop than previously expected. Ray Kurzweil seems to be too optimistic about technological advancement. He extrapolates the success story of ICT to other branches of science, but reality is sometimes a bitch.
tomplaytom 7 months ago 3
no, he said by 2020 computers wil vanish not 2010.
rl021786 7 months ago
You can argue that he was right about computers disappearing, though it's just starting. The smart phones really are computers that we carry with ourselves. We do banking, browsing, paying bills, watching this very presentation on our phones now, which was NOT the case when this was filmed in 2007 or 2006.
mesofius 7 months ago
@mesofius Actually, the devlopment of the mobile phone is a clear example of exponential development. For several years nothing much happened except the mobiles getting smaller and slightly better. The last few years the development has accelerated immensly and I find it really hard to imagine what a mobile phone (or similar device) will be capable of in 6-7 years.
ivankaramasov 7 months ago
@ivankaramasov Yes, it is.
mesofius 6 months ago
He's so smart, but his dry mouth clicking is driving me crazy.
AriasRequiem 7 months ago
TEDISGOD.... LOLOLOL
AmyDoII 7 months ago
Dan Brown
guppyfishable 8 months ago 3
he looks different here, is this video old or? anyways don't matter cool video xD
deanmullen10 8 months ago
Matrix
dmoney4521 8 months ago 3
teach a computer to fart and scratch its balls? then i'm sold.. Until then i will be part of the human race.
katiecato78 8 months ago 2
Its 2011...he said by 2010 computers would disappear and be embedded in our clothes...he's not always right
Since1907baby 8 months ago 4
He make some mistakes... but every thing that he said, will realy happend, but probably in 2100
zoveia 8 months ago
Will this technology get rid of juries? If so, it will get rid of justice. Will this technology not get rid of juries? If so, then we need to fight to reinstate proper jury trials. Will this technology help us get rid of voir dire? I think so, or else smarter-than-human machines will be slaves of humanity, or in conflict with them (neither situation is likely to last long). Does RK overestimate the benevolence of collectivism? YES, but not by much. He's super-smart, love going out to him.
libertarianjury 8 months ago
Telephone first virtual-reality?? 5:13
vintageinfinite 8 months ago
He said transistors would go into the 3rd dimension and they just did this year, Dr. Kurzwweil really knows what he's talking about.
khmaster12 8 months ago 4
I just hope this guy lives to see his dream :)
IndependentBlackSoul 8 months ago
I have never heard anyone squeeze as much information into 23 minutes as Ray does here!
CalumnMcAulay 8 months ago
there will be no more porn...we will just virtually have sex with anyone we want in our mind
Since1907baby 9 months ago
@Since1907baby That would be awesome for people like me who can't get any in real life...
StayAtHomeSon2011 8 months ago
Comment removed
Crewl8808 9 months ago
Ray really needs to burp at the start of this video.. The "I can't burp now"-pain is totally visible.
Crewl8808 9 months ago 39
@Crewl8808 ray takes 150 pills a day homie thats why he wants to burp
ParadigmShift22 8 months ago 3
@Crewl8808 It's all the pills he takes.
websurfin2010 4 months ago
@Crewl8808 It's funny, because I have noticed this same thing about him in quite a few of his interviews as well. He always seems to have to burp.
BlackJacketJones 3 months ago
@Crewl8808 He finally did it at 01:19
MisterCovek 2 months ago
@Crewl8808 He does that a lot, I think it's due to all the pills he eats every day.
TheAwakenedHeretic 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice videos this you tube world just gets bigger every day! When you have time come visit my channel!
FatReleaseSystem 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice videos this you tube world just gets bigger every day! When you have time come visit my channel!
850Nexus 9 months ago
the singularity is near...!
thejonpolm 9 months ago
I'd like to think that our current economic paradigm is feasible to continue to use for the rest of eternity, however we are forgetting the elephant in the room. Automation continuously displaces human labor, thus our current system is doomed to failure. Like all economic paradigms of the past, ours will require an "overhaul" at some point in the future. The question is how much suffering we need to endure before we change.
L33tProductions 9 months ago
By 2010 computers will dissapear? Yea well, waste of time this was.
Corrupt140 9 months ago
@Corrupt140 He meant the concept of a computer. Phones are now basically computers.
CrapOfTheWorld 9 months ago
@CrapOfTheWorld Still, he was talking about computers being embedded in clothing by 2010 and what not. Kind of compromises his entire theory about the exponential rate at which technology evolves.
Corrupt140 9 months ago
@Corrupt140 They are, but it's not on wide scale consumer release. He's been wrong before, anyway, but in terms of the overall rate of technology's growth, he's been pretty dead on.
CrapOfTheWorld 9 months ago
I am going into a degree for alternative energies, not because its moving in that direction, but because its an investment into my future that I'll have a job and be MARKETABLE by 2030!!!
TKgeniusHELLTX 9 months ago
so if Ray manages to live forever, does it also mean he will be burping forever? eternal hickups, no thanks, i would rather die!
savagecabage 9 months ago
@rspaulding But don't you understand that's why 'The Venus Project' is a joke? Technology will advance, irregardless of our unemployment and failures of government - but that's the good part. The world will become a utopia because of technology, not despite it.
Of course you won't have a job making a under-the-poverty-line salary, but you'll only need a tube of paste to sustain yourself, and you'll have robotic surgeons to fix your health problems at no cost, with solar energy at no cost to you
areyoualizard 10 months ago
@areyoualizard So you're saying that we are on course to become a "utopia" in our current system? What markers have you been sniffing?We are nowhere near sustainable and are on a literal crash course towards resource depletion, and irreparable environmental damage worldwide. The Venus Project is the only viable solution to correcting this course in the time that it needs to happen. We can just sit around and hope that our system will "correct itself" has shown completely the opposite.
dheublein 9 months ago
What is driving all the research and development for new and better technology?
The god of money (wealth and power) and the Creed of Greed.
I love technology. However it does not evolve by ITSELF. It is, just like science, a human activity. WE give it the direction. And WHY we pursue technology determines where it will take us?
The current ethos of Wealth and Power as sources of happiness leads to use technology to enrich a few and enslave the rest, materially.
Spiritually....
ManACanadian 10 months ago
Sponsored by BMW...Get to fuck you crackpot, and take your Eugenics " lite " ideas with you...G...
TheGmcFilms 10 months ago
well we do have computers in our clothes for sure but im watchin this on a pc lol and its past 2010
Roenazarrek 10 months ago
there are some fucking smart people out there
btirador 10 months ago 36
@btirador not just smart. *fucking* smart, which is like a whole other level.
S2Cents 8 months ago
@btirador unfortunately for us all they are too busy being smart to out-breed the stupid ones.
voltronforce5000 8 months ago
Nemesis is going to punish us for our technological hubris.
Krahl123 10 months ago
phenomenon is singular, Ray. phenomena is plural
MagiMysteryTour 10 months ago
the most great power is how people made to solve the problem to learn to play piano. if that idea transform to develope new technology it would awesome. se by you self how to solve all problems ever pop up
casioPX500L 10 months ago
20:50 - Computers will disappear, didn't happen.
Embed in clothing, didn't happen (but there are a couple of shirts with light on them, not really computers).
Embed in environment, did happen
Images written to the retna, didn't happen
Augmented reality, did happen
Virtual personality, did happen.
So he did "okay". I don't think the embedded in clothes thing will ever happen, doesn't make sense.
17R3W 11 months ago
what?
wasdwasdedsf 10 months ago
@wasdwasdedsf
Responding to his predictions.
17R3W 10 months ago
I love what he says about most of the project being done in the lost half of the time frame.
Makes me think of programming. You spend so long designing use cases, setting up programming, charting the database, doing other charts, setting up the database, and it looks like you've done absolutely nothing.
But what's the frame work is done, it sort of EXPLODES. And soon you've got something that you can actually run.
17R3W 11 months ago
I can't wait for 2010 when I get my Computer Shirts and Glasses that shoot instant knowledge right in to my tiny, tiny brain. This guy talks real purdy like.I wonder what he thinks might happen 3 years ago? What will happen in the year 2008 Mr Scientist. You talk real purty so let's hear what you think will happen in the Past since your Future predictions are kinds off the mark.
4QBUD 11 months ago
The only gods are ourselves... we are gods. We have the potential to do so much.
Its only a matter of time before humans become what everyone believes god is.
TheEwaan 11 months ago
God laughs at Ray Kurzweil :)
Discerningthetruth 11 months ago
@Discerningthetruth idk lol...God most likely has been shaking his head for a long time b/c he knows what awaits us in 100 years...after all...we humans are just 1 of trillions of creatures in his universe and he knows what happens to the intelligent ones....we fuck ourselves in the ass.
skyinmind487 10 months ago
I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.
Douglas MacArthur
duvexy 11 months ago
The time will come when technology becomes the power source driven economy. At this most important stage, people who realizes this will be able to adapt and succeed in this transformation decade.
revolutionaryjake 11 months ago
Some of the things Kurzweil says seem right on, but others remind me of a 1950s Disney look at the world of tomorrow.
Teflon65 11 months ago
@Teflon65
While mid 20th century predictions were way off the mark, I think the technology is way more awesome than anyone predicted back then. Flying cars and jet-packs are nice but they're nothing compared to having instant access to the sum of the World's knowledge (and misconceptions) and ubiquitous, cheap communication. I look at futurists as a source of inspiration rather than information.
SnepKaunt 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
19:51 "by 2010 computers will disappear. They will be so small they'll be embedded in our clothes and our environment" etc... A grain of salt to be taken with the technological feast being offered
jordan2870 11 months ago
19:51 "by 2010 computers will disappear. they'll be so small they'll be embedded in our clothing and environment" etc... A grain of salt to be taken with the feast of technology Kuerzweil offers.
jordan2870 11 months ago
@jordan2870 well technicly the cellphone and tablets is getting there...
Ebrech 11 months ago
@Ebrech just a reason to be skeptical about the claims he's making : )
jordan2870 11 months ago
@jordan2870
To be fair, most of the space is taken up by the user interface and displays. The new iPod Shuffle is 29×31.6×8.7 mm (1.1×1.24×0.34 in) and it weighs 12.5 g (0.4 oz), it decodes mp3, has a speech synthesizer, 4 gigabytes od memory and can play over 10 hours of music on a single charge. You can pretty much "embed" it in any clothing more substantial than a g-string.
SnepKaunt 11 months ago
@jordan2870
The problem is that the applications of tiny computers are limited by humans, that is we need relatively large displays and elaborate user interfaces to make use of such computers. Reduce the computer to its base components (CPU, memory and power supply) and you can have 1970s supercomputer power in something the size of a coat button. Still Kurzweil is too optimistic but I like listening to him anyway.
SnepKaunt 11 months ago
Technological singularity is coming. Plan accordingly.
powerviking 11 months ago
I disagree, I watched this twice over, this shit is gold dust..
cuplex 1 year ago
Al bet this guy's tripped LSD at least once or twice.
I magine the universe is a pool of water molecules and we are the life forming in it.
Aspanaut 1 year ago
Ray Kurzweil is very talented but little bit boring
exception28sep 1 year ago
so boring uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
exception28sep 1 year ago
The idea of full-immersion VR, where the nanobots shut down the signals coming from your real senses and replace it with signals if you were in a virtual environment... Shrooms been around, since the beginning of time ya know lol
nawkwan 1 year ago
Thanks
We all need more futurology; a new college dicipline?
bangkok johnny
bangkok
royaume de thailande
carsanookdotcom 1 year ago
Human Brain completely reverse engineered by 2029? Wow nobody told me!
1HumanKind 1 year ago
I am sorry anybody who name checks 'Bono' (1.25) cannot be taken seriously. Oh Bono please save us! Use your magic hat you crazy genius.
pme96 1 year ago
@pme96 You cant be taken seriously either, if your going to continue to be held back by silly judgements. if the entireity of this mans lecture was ruined because he mentioned bono, that says more about you than it does about anything. move past those details to the truth; things are accelerating, and your a part of it all
eziekiel9989 1 year ago
@eziekiel9989 In terms of the future, Bono is an irrelevence so is Ray and sadly you and I too. The future will be dominated by gangsters, fanatics and, worst of all, more and more irritating and intrusive gadgets.
pme96 1 year ago
@pme96 hahah, a very real part of me certainly agrees. cheers
eziekiel9989 10 months ago
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Say thou: He is Allah the One. (1) Allah, the Independent. (2) He begets not, nor was He begotten. (3) And never there has been anyone co-equal with him. (4)
hhddeeyy 1 year ago
Kurzweil is a rapture-obsessed wacky kook. Obsessed with the techno-rapture that he thinks is coming by 2045. It isn't. I know for a fact that it isn't. Ray can shove all the charts and graphs in our faces as he wants, graphs plotting exponential progress are just as effective as testimonials on alternative medicine, they won't prove jack shit. He has been wrong regarding the year 2009, and he will be even more wrong in the future. He is going to die, like the rest of us.
OxygenBurglar 1 year ago
@OxygenBurglar "I know for a fact that it isn't" How do you know that for a fact? Can YOU predict the future... Hypocrite.
Quit trolling, you have nothing to debate with.
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
in 2005 he wrote in his book: "By the end of this decade, computers will disappear as distinct physical objects, with displays built in our eyeglasses, and electronics woven in our clothing, providing full-immersion visual virtual reality."
it's 2010, my shirt is still 100% cotton. I think senility is near, for our friend Ray. He did good things in his days, but all those pills are doing nothing against the aging of his brain, sadly.
butterf1yz 1 year ago
@butterf1yz he maybe off 5 years on this prediction
vrshowdown 1 year ago
Poor Ray he desperately wants to see machine intelligence in his lifetime. It won't happen. Why? Well computers fifty years ago were large, slow and very very stupid. Today's most advanced computers are small, incredibly fast and very very stupid. Reverse engineering the human brain in under twenty years I don't think so. More chance of constructing a working starship, and that won't happen either.
pme96 1 year ago
@pme96 I think we can dismiss your assertion that computers today are "very very stupid" as complete bs.
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
@spacecowboy95 Yes you are right! Computers are really clever nowadays I often chat to mine about the metaphysical dilemmas faced by useless fleshy humans. You spacecowboy are appropriately named, you very very stupid person. Now fuck off and suck Ray's super spaceage cock.
pme96 1 year ago
@pme96 Computers are clever, they actually out perform human minds in many ways. Human brains however are capable of suble emotional intelligence which we have not yet replicated in machines, we will one day.
IBM managed to reverse engineer a cats brain last year and built a computer simulation of it, they dont have the processing power to simulate the 200 billion neurons of a human brain, but they forecast that we will be able to in 10 years.
P.S, I cant believe you are 39, its sad.
spacecowboy95 1 year ago
I love reading comments about this video!
BoneThugsandAKon 1 year ago
In the words of Albert Einstein: It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity.
LizardChronicles 1 year ago
If you don't mind me spamming the comments section a bit more: I have one more example. I am reminded of Star Trek where the android named "Data" is asked why does he deserve to be a creature treated with free will. He says: "because I desire to be more than I am."
The problem is that based on today's technology, Data was "hard-coded" to say that. When people can find the underlying scientific reason and principle WHY all living creatures desire to procreate, then you'll find your Data.
DanceInYourRoom 1 year ago
@DanceInYourRoom You were "hard-coded" by your genes to have certain inborn behaviours, e.g. you tuned in to your mothers voice as a baby.
I have written evolutionary systems where a set of programs evolved. They created their own algorithms. They weren't "hard-coded".
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234 Evolutionary programming has a ceiling though. The system may write it's own programs only in the way that the developer intends. It can never have that unique biological 'spark' to do otherwise.
If a programmer decides to say ok here's code 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd'. And now I want you the computer to "evolve" from that. Then all it can do is create variations of 'a' 'b' 'c' and 'd'. But it cannot come up with code 'e'. Code ''e' will always be somehow based on 'a' 'b' 'c' or 'd'.
DanceInYourRoom 1 year ago
@DanceInYourRoom Evolutionary programming can have programming language constructs also. So these would be code. Let's continue this in PM.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
I can make a simple analogy too: My laptop has an on button. If I keep my laptop off and I never come into the room, nor anything effects that room, then not in 1 billion years will the on button be pressed. TVs, Laptops, and computers (even AI) works this way.
Humans have the will and desire for to leave offspring. That is the most basic of human instincts. To procreate. No 'on' button is required, no belief in any supernatural deities is required either - you are born with that desire.
DanceInYourRoom 1 year ago
@DanceInYourRoom That's a fundamental difference. You can write a program to simulate human evolution and watch the algorithms take place. But it's human themselves that have to come up with the algorithms - I can't be certain, but it seems Ray Kurzweil's desire to see singularity is greater than his scientific rigour in making it a reality. There's a danger I think in thinking that way. Scientists are practical for a reason. Leave idealism to the dreamers, we have reality - it's better.
DanceInYourRoom 1 year ago
@DanceInYourRoom I'm not a huge fan of Kurzweil but creating a copy of a human mind that is conscious is possible.
"But it's human themselves that have to come up with the algorithms" - did you read up on evolutionary programming? Such systems write their own algorithms :)
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
He sounds so bored.
SalientK 1 year ago
Kurzweil's gospel axe has been swung for far too long.
OxygenBurglar 1 year ago
does it seem like hes out of breath?
supercooled 1 year ago
This is a very deceptive speech. As Richard Dawkins has said, there's a difference between designed objects and designoid objects. Computers are stupid. They can only do what we tell them.
It's very important for intelligent future computer scientists to make the distinction between defeating the Turing Test and giving the ILLUSION of defeating the Turing Test (which is what Kurzweil is talking about). In the end, he is a junk scientist with more hot air than substance.
DanceInYourRoom 1 year ago
@DanceInYourRoom Ouch.
supercooled 1 year ago
@supercooled I may be wrong. A self-fulfilling prophecy may actually be fulfilled. But a self-fulfilling prophecy, even if it comes true, was based on a false presumption. If singularity comes about, it won't be due to the work of Ray Kurzweil, but because the industry listened to Ray Kurzweil and did the work instead. I just don't think the world works the way Ray Kurzweil would like it to.
DanceInYourRoom 1 year ago
@DanceInYourRoom In a way, I am reminded of the scene from Ali G, where Sasha Baron Cohen walks into an executive's office and shows him a skateboard without any wheels. Sasha Baron Cohen says "Ever seen Back to the Future? I have this great idea for a flying skateboard without wheels. All you need to do is come up with the solution." The executives tossed his ass into the street.
DanceInYourRoom 1 year ago
@DanceInYourRoom The Blue Brain Project is currently trying to copy the structure of the human brain. The brain will then be simulated inside a computer.
Once the generic structure of a human brain is understood, then the simulated version of the brain can then be evolved using evolutionary algorithms. The evolution could run millions of times faster than biological evolution.
It can be done this way.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234 But what about a brain that suffers from mental illness. Are not artistic and mathematical savants the benchmark of human society? Is random chance not also valid? What you, and the Blue Brain project, is proposing is a computer that *simulates* a brain. It is not a living thing and cannot do anything outside its programming. It CANNOT write its own programming outside of what the developer asks of it. Therefore, it is not capable of self-actualization as Kurzweil suggests.
DanceInYourRoom 1 year ago
@DanceInYourRoom I don't see what's relevant about savants, and no they aren't really a benchmark. Savants have a very narrow field of ability, outside of that they tend to be non-functional.
"Is random chance not also valid?" - Evolution is the key.
What's the difference between simulating a brain biologically or electronically? No functional difference. The framework of implementation is irrelevant. The word simulation is misleading.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234 Like I said, a program cannot write it's own code. I am no Alan Turing, but if he were here I think he'd be pretty pissed off at Ray Kurzweil.
Think about it mikeyo1234, do you feel a slight bit of immortality when Ray Kurzweil speaks? Do you feel you will "own" a part of the singularity when it comes out? Be careful that you are basing your judgments here on emotions and not on scientific and practical principle. Every technology comes from the latter, not the former.
DanceInYourRoom 1 year ago
@DanceInYourRoom "a program cannot write it's own code" - A system can create new programs, i.e. it can reprogram itself. Look up evolutionary programming. The brain already does this so it can be done.
I am basing all my ideas on science, not emotions. It is you that brings in emotions saying that Alan Turing would be annoyed, or when you say "Do you feel you will 'own'...".
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@DanceInYourRoom I can't see how you don't realise that an exact functional replica of something does the same thing as the original.
If I replaced one neuron in your brain, and preserved all connections with other neurons in your brain with an electronic version would it change the functioning of your brain? No. What about replacing two neurons (functionally identical copies)? What about three? Then what about them all?
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@DanceInYourRoom "It (An electronically brain) is not a living thing" - Define living.
An exact functional copy of a human brain whatever the framework it is implemented in is 'living'. It doesn't program itself, it evolves just like we did.
If we attach some kind of body with sensors (similar to our senses) and it can move around, then it's brain could be set up to evolve in relation to interacting with the real world.
mikeyo1234 1 year ago
@mikeyo1234 Define living.
There are designed objects and designoid objects. (watch?v=v2Nj1Lc_gMo) We can't wish or even change that. The desire to procreate I think is the most fundamental difference between living and non-living objects. That is really a simple, elegant, and beautiful concept.
In the end, our desire to be "immortal in machines" is not a desire that machines share with us.
DanceInYourRoom 1 year ago
computers havent gotten that small yet crap
MrFan32 1 year ago
All current models of society, especially capitalism, cannot effectively facilitate or embrace the type of technology that is coming. As technology advances it will only continue to automate and displace jobs in every sector of employment. The only type of society, that I know of, that can facilitate our technological future is the Resource Based Economy proposed by The Venus Project. Search Google Videos or Youtube for "The Zeitgeist Movement Activist Orientation" for more information.
rspaulding 1 year ago 38
@rspaulding *cheers and apluads*
ClearMetalVoltar 1 year ago
@rspaulding Ah, a "Resource Based Economy" -- who would be against that? Oh, you mean a central government would control everybody and everything? Doesn't sound as nice now does it. Seriously, tell me ONE economist I've heard about (ie. a textbook author, columnist, whatever) who has written anything that could be even mildly constructed as a compliment to the "idea."
UnconformistSheep 1 year ago
@rspaulding The Communist Utopia of the Venus Project is nothing new. Centalizing power never works out well for the average person despite false promises. Power currupts and absolute power currupts absolutly. Giving up your purchasing power, land, guns, and busines is no way to defeat the global powers that be.
MoreInfo24 1 year ago
@MoreInfo24 The only thing that is centralized is calculation of the distribution. Production happens locally. There is no state, so nothing for power to gravitate around. No money either to provide differential advantage.
vasper85 11 months ago
@rspaulding The Venus Project is like communism. It would be great if it worked, but it doesn't, and it won't.
SignificantOwl 1 year ago
@SignificantOwl cheap, baseless comments on youtube won't work either, my friend.
rspaulding 1 year ago
Comment removed
vasper85 11 months ago
@rspaulding You are forgetting the role of competition in creating this technology. This has been tried before, utopian socialism doesn't work because progress doesn't happen without competition.
daobagua 1 year ago
@daobagua That is a pretty braod reaching statement. So you say that the town or city you live in only exists and works together as an integrated unit because of competition? All civilization happens because of collaboration in SPITE of competition not because of it. Creativity becomes stifled when all information becomes proprietary. Look it up.
vasper85 11 months ago
@rspaulding Luddite fallacy. Go take a class in basic economics and learn how the price system and the free market are essential for the efficient allocation of resources within society. Way to espouse old rehashed socialistic theories that have long since been refuted/utterly exploded by the great economists of the 19th and 20th century.
bobjimjones 1 year ago
@bobjimjones Oh really, the efficient allocation of resources transmitted by something called the price mechanisms in which the price itself obscures any real information as to what went into the product or service to begin with? That efficient allocation? Because the true cost of products can NEVER be externalized, or manipulated in any way, shape, or form...
vasper85 11 months ago
@vasper85 you're making a mistake. read up on the the Socialist Calculation Debate, i think you'll find some interesting answers there. and you are aware your entire movement is predicated on the luddite fallacy, right? basically, individuals and entrepeneurs do all the innovating within a capitalist system, technology advances, products and services become cheaper and better and standards of living rise. the price mechanism sorts out all that troublesome allocation business for us ;)
bobjimjones 11 months ago
@bobjimjones I am familiar with Mises argument. He even admits "calculation in natura in an economy without exchange can embrace consumption-goods only." And as David Schweickart observes in his book Against Capitalism "[i]t has long been recognised that von Mises's argument is logically defective. Even without a market in production goods, their monetary values can be determined." What was a luddite fallacy in the 19th century is a reality today i.e. the accelerating rate of change.
vasper85 11 months ago
@rspaulding Are you so certain? That argument was put forward for a long time now and its prognosis never materialized. The nature of work changed but work itself prevailed.
omnivorous65 11 months ago
@rspaulding Venus Project was the only good thing to come out of that video, IMO.
PizzaguylolXD 11 months ago
@rspaulding
I believe the complete opposite. The "resource based economy" is a version of marxism. It isn't particularly interesting and has the fatal flaw of long term government planning for everything.
MrXSpeaks 10 months ago
@MrXSpeaks Please do elaborate on how a Resource-Based Economy is a version of Marxism.
dheublein 9 months ago
@dheublein
extreme collectivism, central planning, wealth no longer necessary, yadda yadda. Same old story man.
MrXSpeaks 9 months ago
@MrXSpeaks To compare them like that really shows your lack of understanding about a resource-based economy and TVP. Communism has money, banks, armies, police, prisons, charismatic personalities, social stratification,is managed by appointed leaders. .Communism has no blueprin to carry out their ideals and along with capitalism, fascism, and socialism, will ultimately go down in history as failed social experiments. These are all differences between the two.
dheublein 9 months ago
@MrXSpeaks furthermore, it is ignorant of you to think that we are not already in extreme collectivism. If you don't think that actions that happen on the other side of the planet affect you and your life, then you are ignorant to reality that we are all connected. Also every successful organization starts with solid central planning, why should our economy and our society be any different? Our economic model is the only thing that is still stuck in the dark ages today.
dheublein 9 months ago