5 ms·

The article is right in the observation that Kurzweil's singularity paper conflates a set of notions. Some are easily testable, some are more difficult to diges

The article is right in the observation that Kurzweil's singularity paper conflates a set of notions. Some are easily testable, some are more difficult to digest. The notion that evolution is exponential is, to me at least, very well supported. This article criticizes the fact that Kurzweil crosses the barrier between biological evolution and technological evolution without mentioning it, and that the utility function used to plot the exponential across evolution barriers is ill-defined. Both observations are true, but I don't think they shake the observation of exponential behaviour in these evolution functions. The conclusion that this will all end in our minds being uploaded to the ether is more difficult to swallow, I concede. It is a philosophical can of worms, and it is a question that will be left unanswered, even after we can replicate human consciousness in a computer. However, if you assume there is nothing magical about our brains, that our consciousness is merely the result of (biological) computation, then @AndrewDucker's approach [1] is an easy way to wrap your head around the concept. Instead of thinking about a clicking moment when you get transferred into silicon, think of a continual transferral process, where you get silicon additions, while your organic brain continuously dies. Imagine this process takes ten years. When do "you" stop being "you"? I'd wager: never. BTW, the same problems you have with brain uploading, I have with star-trek teleporters. If the same machine that can teleport me can copy me, then it is killing me and creating an identical twin. I'd rather not die in transportation, thank you. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7176674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7176674

RivieraKid 13y ago
> even after we can replicate human consciousness in a computer What exactly do you mean by consciousness? (I personally don't believe that a turing machine can be consciouss.)
- XorNot 13y ago
  The real question is why you think the universe, or the planet at least, isn't essentially a Turing machine.
  - RivieraKid 13y ago
    You mean why I think it isn't deterministic? Even if it was (I don't think so), it's possible that consciousness is a passive observer of the universe.
  - TeMPOraL 13y ago
    Well, why couldn't it be? Turing machines exist in the mind, not in the real world. Reality is made of quarks and quantum fields, or whatever there is at the lowest level. Everything else we talk about are our own models we use to interpret reality. Planet Earth might be a Turing machine if we look from the right angle, albeit I doubt it is computing anything of use for us.
- sergiosgc 13y ago
  That is the philosophical can of worms. We can discuss it to death without ever reaching a conclusion. Personally, I define my consciousness barrier at the level of Turing machine running any program that evolves. I also believe consciousness is not binary, it is a continuum. Is a dog a consciousness? Of course. Is a plant a form of consciousness? Yes, at a lower level. A bacteria or a virus? Yes. Sediment rocks? No. My hypothesis isn't testable. It is also probably wrong. I know that. I am, however, accompanied by any other hypothesis out there :)
  - RivieraKid 13y ago
    > We can discuss it to death without ever reaching a conclusion. I can confirm, experienced this couple of times :) The way I define consciousness is very simple, it's my current feelings, thoughts and perceptions. It's also the only "thing" that I can be 100% sure about.
    - sergiosgc 13y ago
      That is the "I think therefore I am" approach. Once, this approach led me to a fun conclusion: I think, therefore I am. However, I also observe what seem to be many consciousnesses. If I am the only provable consciousness, then I also am all the other consciousnesses. How can that be? By the Fermi paradox, I must be the first consciousness. If that is so, the most probable sequence of events is that I (my consciousness) appeared into the the void by pure randomness. Then I got bored, and created all this to pass the time. I am you, and I am every conscious being out there (so, that's why there is this "do unto others" golden rule!) This is kind of the unified theory of all religions, from mid-eastern origin all the way to Buddhism. Religion: solved. Now, on to the unified theory of physics.
      - RivieraKid 13y ago
        > I also observe what seem to be many consciousnesses No, you observe a lot of other people that behave similarly to you. If you define consciosuenss as "behaves like me to a certain extent", than yes, there are mutliple consciousnesses. But consciousness is defined as something subjective, so by that definition, there's only one consciousness. Perhaps you're in a dream and imagining everything. Or in a Matrix and other people are just computer programs.

RivieraKid 13y ago

> even after we can replicate human consciousness in a computer What exactly do you mean by consciousness? (I personally don't believe that a turing machine can be consciouss.)

XorNot 13y ago
The real question is why you think the universe, or the planet at least, isn't essentially a Turing machine.
- RivieraKid 13y ago
  You mean why I think it isn't deterministic? Even if it was (I don't think so), it's possible that consciousness is a passive observer of the universe.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  Well, why couldn't it be? Turing machines exist in the mind, not in the real world. Reality is made of quarks and quantum fields, or whatever there is at the lowest level. Everything else we talk about are our own models we use to interpret reality. Planet Earth might be a Turing machine if we look from the right angle, albeit I doubt it is computing anything of use for us.
sergiosgc 13y ago
That is the philosophical can of worms. We can discuss it to death without ever reaching a conclusion. Personally, I define my consciousness barrier at the level of Turing machine running any program that evolves. I also believe consciousness is not binary, it is a continuum. Is a dog a consciousness? Of course. Is a plant a form of consciousness? Yes, at a lower level. A bacteria or a virus? Yes. Sediment rocks? No. My hypothesis isn't testable. It is also probably wrong. I know that. I am, however, accompanied by any other hypothesis out there :)
- RivieraKid 13y ago
  > We can discuss it to death without ever reaching a conclusion. I can confirm, experienced this couple of times :) The way I define consciousness is very simple, it's my current feelings, thoughts and perceptions. It's also the only "thing" that I can be 100% sure about.
  - sergiosgc 13y ago
    That is the "I think therefore I am" approach. Once, this approach led me to a fun conclusion: I think, therefore I am. However, I also observe what seem to be many consciousnesses. If I am the only provable consciousness, then I also am all the other consciousnesses. How can that be? By the Fermi paradox, I must be the first consciousness. If that is so, the most probable sequence of events is that I (my consciousness) appeared into the the void by pure randomness. Then I got bored, and created all this to pass the time. I am you, and I am every conscious being out there (so, that's why there is this "do unto others" golden rule!) This is kind of the unified theory of all religions, from mid-eastern origin all the way to Buddhism. Religion: solved. Now, on to the unified theory of physics.
    - RivieraKid 13y ago
      > I also observe what seem to be many consciousnesses No, you observe a lot of other people that behave similarly to you. If you define consciosuenss as "behaves like me to a certain extent", than yes, there are mutliple consciousnesses. But consciousness is defined as something subjective, so by that definition, there's only one consciousness. Perhaps you're in a dream and imagining everything. Or in a Matrix and other people are just computer programs.