@QubitVector so looking at scientific progress over history and realising that 50 years is barely a heartbeat in comparison, you think it's utterly retarded? 20 years and 50 years in the grand scheme of scientific progress might as well be the same length of time. the fact is it's likely to happen within the current generation's lifetime.
@Rabsputin Saying that it's going to happen in 20 years vs 50 years is a difference of 30 years. Saying its going to happen in a generation's lifetime is something else. Maybe you should reread what I posted instead of putting words in my mouth. Let me be very clear for you: It will not happen for at least 50 years. We have to solve the protein folding problem first, etc., it's a monumental task. Don't just attack my numbers when you have no knowledge of biology.
@QubitVector you're pulling the number 50 out of the air. the whole point of what ray is saying is that technology and thusly scientific progress is accelerating at an exponential rate, so 20 years isn't an unreasonable figure at all. it only took the US 7 years to fly to the moon, that too was a monumental task.
@Rabsputin I'm not pulling that number out of thin air. Kurzweil himself said in the Age of Spiritual Machines book that he thinks it will be complete by 2099. Michio Kaku, another prominent physicist supports the 50-100 years range. Also, you can not flying to the moon to reverse engineering the human brain, ever. That task involved technology that was already available and understood. To reverse engineer the brain we have to invent the technology to do it. It's like saying:
@Rabsputin "how haven't we broken the light speed barrier yet, when we've broken the sound barrier?" Well yes, the sound barrier was broken, but not by sound. The electromagnetic forces that hold atoms together can't "go faster" than that speed. To break the light barrier, new technology has to be developed, and much more understanding has to be gained before we even approach that problem. That is analogous to reverse engineering the brain.
100 years ago, people couldn't even begin to predict the world today. So how can we really predict the future? Ray has some interesting opinions and views and is a credible source but I can say with a high level of certainty that the world court and United states legislature will have a huge ethical dilema in dealing with the issue of "merging with technologies" I for one will forever oppose placing human technology into my brain. I'm a product of nature, not human science so fuck that.
@skyinmind487 But don't forget; human science is also a product of nature. Human culture is a part of evolution just like an ant colony, and that includes our scientific models of the universe and our technology. Technology is not something distinct from nature, it is a biological process. Humans make mistakes though.
This has been flagged as spam show
COOL ^_^
gadionson1 2 months ago
afff.. i thought that was Medicate
zoveia 9 months ago
Utterly retarded. Reverse Engineering of the human in brain is much too monumental. 50 years minimum.
QubitVector 10 months ago
@QubitVector so looking at scientific progress over history and realising that 50 years is barely a heartbeat in comparison, you think it's utterly retarded? 20 years and 50 years in the grand scheme of scientific progress might as well be the same length of time. the fact is it's likely to happen within the current generation's lifetime.
Rabsputin 6 months ago
@Rabsputin Saying that it's going to happen in 20 years vs 50 years is a difference of 30 years. Saying its going to happen in a generation's lifetime is something else. Maybe you should reread what I posted instead of putting words in my mouth. Let me be very clear for you: It will not happen for at least 50 years. We have to solve the protein folding problem first, etc., it's a monumental task. Don't just attack my numbers when you have no knowledge of biology.
QubitVector 6 months ago
@QubitVector you're pulling the number 50 out of the air. the whole point of what ray is saying is that technology and thusly scientific progress is accelerating at an exponential rate, so 20 years isn't an unreasonable figure at all. it only took the US 7 years to fly to the moon, that too was a monumental task.
Rabsputin 6 months ago
@Rabsputin I'm not pulling that number out of thin air. Kurzweil himself said in the Age of Spiritual Machines book that he thinks it will be complete by 2099. Michio Kaku, another prominent physicist supports the 50-100 years range. Also, you can not flying to the moon to reverse engineering the human brain, ever. That task involved technology that was already available and understood. To reverse engineer the brain we have to invent the technology to do it. It's like saying:
QubitVector 6 months ago
@Rabsputin "how haven't we broken the light speed barrier yet, when we've broken the sound barrier?" Well yes, the sound barrier was broken, but not by sound. The electromagnetic forces that hold atoms together can't "go faster" than that speed. To break the light barrier, new technology has to be developed, and much more understanding has to be gained before we even approach that problem. That is analogous to reverse engineering the brain.
QubitVector 6 months ago
@Rabsputin Meant to say "You can not compare flying to the moon...." in that first comment.
QubitVector 6 months ago
Im God, i could make you undying.
O_o
Dont you trust me, you will see when you try it.
Pay n try - pay n try - pay n try
GreenDevilAngel 10 months ago
. . . Why does it sound like he's describing how to make tasteless steak?
bobbygnosis 11 months ago
i can tell u why, and how to apply it in life, and i am also in need of a job
airsoftsniper33 1 year ago
i can tell u why, and i am also in need of a job
airsoftsniper33 1 year ago
100 years ago, people couldn't even begin to predict the world today. So how can we really predict the future? Ray has some interesting opinions and views and is a credible source but I can say with a high level of certainty that the world court and United states legislature will have a huge ethical dilema in dealing with the issue of "merging with technologies" I for one will forever oppose placing human technology into my brain. I'm a product of nature, not human science so fuck that.
skyinmind487 1 year ago
@skyinmind487 But don't forget; human science is also a product of nature. Human culture is a part of evolution just like an ant colony, and that includes our scientific models of the universe and our technology. Technology is not something distinct from nature, it is a biological process. Humans make mistakes though.
Valdegg 11 months ago
A modern day Einstein... I'm grateful beyond belief to have people like Ray around today (and for thousands of years to come)!
siciliano29 2 years ago 14
Yes, many years later the world will look back at this guy as a genius and maybe one of the greatest people born.
4everkeim 2 years ago
They won't have to look back he's planning on living forever.
HeroYouLook 1 year ago
T_T
wcfcarolina13 2 years ago
i love this jew!
PhillipH903 2 years ago 3
Another great interview of ray. Thanks for the upload
atheelogos 2 years ago 6