Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the hallmarks of the singularity is for us to be able to live for a very long time some say "forever". Well science took a big and important step towards that with this latest discovery.
This is from fast company:
It may not be the eternal spring that Ponce de León searched for, but thanks to Steve Horvath PhD, a professor of human genetics and biostatistics at the University of California, Los Angeles, the Fountain of Youth is not as elusive as it once was.
Now I understand. So that brings up 2 more questions:
1) How do you explain the fact that computers have gone from ones that took up entire buildings in the 1960's to ones that fit on our face today (Google glasses) yet have thousands of times more processing capability then all of NASA in the 1960's?
Ummmm improvement?
Quote:
2) Why do you think that process will not continue so by 2030 computers the size of blood cells will have thousands of times more processing capability then all of NASA in the 1960's?
~YAWN~ You know your questions are getting really boring. You ask the same questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,166,733 times
Reputation: 8105
You're really not holding up your end of the argument, plwhit, when you simply insist that the singularity is science fiction and nonsense. You're not making any intelligent analysis to show the validity of your position ...... it's all name-calling.
You're really not holding up your end of the argument, plwhit, when you simply insist that the singularity is science fiction and nonsense. You're not making any intelligent analysis to show the validity of your position ...... it's all name-calling.
That is because he can't come up with any responses.
The two questions I asked are pretty simple:
1) How do you explain the fact that computers have gone from ones that took up entire buildings in the 1960's to ones that fit on our face today (Google glasses) yet have thousands of times more processing capability then all of NASA in the 1960's?
There is only one answer. The only way we could have advanced this far so fast was because computers advance at a exponential rate. Had they not done that computers would not be nearly as advanced as they are today.
2) Why do you think that process will not continue so by 2030 computers the size of blood cells will have thousands of times more processing capability then all of NASA in the 1960's?
No one has ever been able to give a logical reason why we will stop advancing now. That is because we are not and by 2030 computers the size of blood cells will have thousands of times more processing capability then all of NASA in the 1960's.
Last edited by Josseppie; 11-20-2013 at 06:48 PM..
That is because he can't come up with any responses.
The two questions I asked are pretty simple:
1) How do you explain the fact that computers have gone from ones that took up entire buildings in the 1960's to ones that fit on our face today (Google glasses) yet have thousands of times more processing capability then all of NASA in the 1960's?
There is only one answer. The only way we could have advanced this far so fast was because computers advance at a exponential rate. Had they not done that computers would not be nearly as advanced as they are today.
I'll answer your questions. Only one answer you say? That isn't so. The advance of computers isn't because computers have advanced at an exponential rate. It's because of new ideas from people to improve computers that process faster and can be designed more compactly. It's not because computers alone made those decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
2) Why do you think that process will not continue so by 2030 computers the size of blood cells will have thousands of times more processing capability then all of NASA in the 1960's?
No one has ever been able to give a logical reason why we will stop advancing now. That is because we are not and by 2030 computers the size of blood cells will have more processing capability then all of NASA in the 1960's.
Here's where you put the cart before the horse and jump to conclusions. That computers will be the size of blood cells and be 1000's of times more processing capability than all of NASA in the 1960's, is by necessity pure specuation. "Kurzweil sez" is not the last word on what the future WILL in fact be. There is no way of knowing exactly what the future will bring as there is always a possibility that unforeseen events can always get in the way to change plans and cause a detour on the road of progress. Even Kurzweil understands that. However, you're stuck pretty deep in a rut and cite Moore's Law as the only way of towing you out of it. Well, Moore's Law and Kurzweil.
If we use your mistaken logic of how computers will advance in the future, then why stop at the size of blood cells? Why not computers that are trillions of times faster and shrunk down to the size of an electron? Even if computers culd be shrunk down to the size of a blood cell and contain processors, so what? Information in the computers alone will not do anything. There has to be other parts able to monitor conditions, and if it is to repair things internally, the computer will also need mechanical parts.
So it's not just a simple matter of microscopic computers. It would have to be a microscopic bot controlled by an onboard computer, and that starts getting into complex machines. Tiny bots have been made, although not as complex as you envision. I believe I posted a link about that in this thread. The problem with such tiny objects inside the bloodstream, is that they tend to stick to tissue and fluids, meaning mobility would be hampered. They're not going to be useful if they end up getting glued to things inside the body.
You're really not holding up your end of the argument, plwhit, when you simply insist that the singularity is science fiction and nonsense. You're not making any intelligent analysis to show the validity of your position ...... it's all name-calling.
I have posted numerous articles showing the singularity to be a farce...
I'll answer your questions. Only one answer you say? That isn't so. The advance of computers isn't because computers have advanced at an exponential rate. It's because of new ideas from people to improve computers that process faster and can be designed more compactly. It's not because computers alone made those decisions.
Here's where you put the cart before the horse and jump to conclusions. That computers will be the size of blood cells and be 1000's of times more processing capability than all of NASA in the 1960's, is by necessity pure specuation. "Kurzweil sez" is not the last word on what the future WILL in fact be. There is no way of knowing exactly what the future will bring as there is always a possibility that unforeseen events can always get in the way to change plans and cause a detour on the road of progress. Even Kurzweil understands that. However, you're stuck pretty deep in a rut and cite Moore's Law as the only way of towing you out of it. Well, Moore's Law and Kurzweil.
If we use your mistaken logic of how computers will advance in the future, then why stop at the size of blood cells? Why not computers that are trillions of times faster and shrunk down to the size of an electron? Even if computers culd be shrunk down to the size of a blood cell and contain processors, so what? Information in the computers alone will not do anything. There has to be other parts able to monitor conditions, and if it is to repair things internally, the computer will also need mechanical parts.
So it's not just a simple matter of microscopic computers. It would have to be a microscopic bot controlled by an onboard computer, and that starts getting into complex machines. Tiny bots have been made, although not as complex as you envision. I believe I posted a link about that in this thread. The problem with such tiny objects inside the bloodstream, is that they tend to stick to tissue and fluids, meaning mobility would be hampered. They're not going to be useful if they end up getting glued to things inside the body.
How many times is this going to be explained to the OP?
How many times is this going to be explained to the OP?
Yeah, you're right. It's been explained numerous times over and over again seems to just goes in one ear and out the other. Actually, the OP is someone else who I'm not really sure even posted again after the opening post. Seems the thread has pretty much been hijacked and turned into someone else's personal blog. The poster in question seems to be quite enthusiestic, to the point of over zealous fervor, with no interest in considering other views, and that the belief that the future is set in stone that can never change. The thread is Why hasn't the Singularity gone mainstream (yet?), not what's the latest info on new technologies.
Yeah, you're right. It's been explained numerous times over and over again seems to just goes in one ear and out the other. Actually, the OP is someone else who I'm not really sure even posted again after the opening post. Seems the thread has pretty much been hijacked and turned into someone else's personal blog. The poster in question seems to be quite enthusiestic, to the point of over zealous fervor, with no interest in considering other views, and that the belief that the future is set in stone that can never change. The thread is Why hasn't the Singularity gone mainstream (yet?), not what's the latest info on new technologies.
I guess he/she/it thinks that by bringing up new/upgraded technologies that they prove <<drum roll please>> "the singularity" is approaching...
I'll answer your questions. Only one answer you say? That isn't so. The advance of computers isn't because computers have advanced at an exponential rate. It's because of new ideas from people to improve computers that process faster and can be designed more compactly. It's not because computers alone made those decisions.
I agree that computers did not make the decisions. However if you look at the trend since the first computer was built in 1890 computers have advanced exponentially first doubling every 3 years in 1900 then 2 years in 1960 then 12 months in 2000 now its less then 12 months.
This is because people built a generation of computers then use that generation of computers to build the next twice as fast then they use the new generation of computers to build the next again twice as fast. That is the main reason information technology advances exponentially when other technologies do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Here's where you put the cart before the horse and jump to conclusions. That computers will be the size of blood cells and be 1000's of times more processing capability than all of NASA in the 1960's, is by necessity pure specuation. "Kurzweil sez" is not the last word on what the future WILL in fact be. There is no way of knowing exactly what the future will bring as there is always a possibility that unforeseen events can always get in the way to change plans and cause a detour on the road of progress. Even Kurzweil understands that. However, you're stuck pretty deep in a rut and cite Moore's Law as the only way of towing you out of it. Well, Moore's Law and Kurzweil.
There is no way to predict the future beyond how information technology will advance that I agree with 100%. However short of us destroying ourselves there is nothing that will slow down the advancement or speed it up. The bottom line is no matter how much money we would spend on R&D we can not build the computer of 2020 in 2013 that just not possible. At the same time even during this recession computers are still advancing just as fast (well faster if you consider it takes less time for a generation now then it did in 2000) which shows that there are no peaks and valleys in how information technology advances just a smooth exponential progression that it self goes up over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
If we use your mistaken logic of how computers will advance in the future, then why stop at the size of blood cells? Why not computers that are trillions of times faster and shrunk down to the size of an electron?
You have just described the technological singularity in 2045 and why all of the models break down. Actually because of this paragraph I can see why Ray Kurzweil sticks to his 2045 date when others say its al early as 2030. I will still go with the 2030 date simply because life will be so different I think the average person will say that is the singularity however I know have a little better understanding of what Ray Kurzweil means when he says 2045.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Even if computers could be shrunk down to the size of a blood cell and contain processors, so what? Information in the computers alone will not do anything. There has to be other parts able to monitor conditions, and if it is to repair things internally, the computer will also need mechanical parts.
So it's not just a simple matter of microscopic computers. It would have to be a microscopic bot controlled by an onboard computer, and that starts getting into complex machines. Tiny bots have been made, although not as complex as you envision. I believe I posted a link about that in this thread. The problem with such tiny objects inside the bloodstream, is that they tend to stick to tissue and fluids, meaning mobility would be hampered. They're not going to be useful if they end up getting glued to things inside the body.
We are getting close as you posted we already have tiny bots. I will be honest how exactly it will be done is beyond my understanding as I am not a scientist. I understand enough to know the big picture of how it will work based on the law of accelerating returns and how computers will be the size of blood cells by 2030 and have seen interviews Ray had with people who talk about how its possible, some I have posted in this thread. However to know the details well is beyond my understanding at this time. Ironically that should change in the future once we have them and I use them to augment my intelligence.
There is a new show on the science channel called Future Scape. Tonight it was on robots and I have yet to see it but it looks like it will get into this issue. I am hoping it does.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
