I find so much of the arguments the article lists as 'far-fetched' are actually not far from where we are today. If you really think about it how far are we fr

I find so much of the arguments the article lists as 'far-fetched' are actually not far from where we are today. If you really think about it how far are we from there being ' no distinction... between human and machine or between physical and virtual'. I specifically think of the 'physical and virtual' stuff. I'm currently having a virtual 'conversation' regarding this topic. None of you who may respond are with me, we're doing this all virtually, and I doubt the time is far off where somebody can have a machine respond coherently with their general thoughts on a subject. When the author talks about Kurzweil not differentiating between biological evolution and mechanical evolution, I think that our biological evolution has in many ways been a result of our technological evolution, would one exist without the other? Isn't out technological evolution in the areas of food production resulting in our genetic evolution as larger (both taller and fatter) people? I know I'm picking some pretty minor things here and that means the singularity is still a long way off, but compare the last 40 years to the next 40 years. Not everything Kurzweil describes to be part of the Singularity has to happen exactly as he describes it. It's a theory, and (from getting only about 1/3 through the book) an interesting one. I guess haters gonna hate.