Why hasn't the Singularity gone mainstream (yet?) (advance, material, hardware)
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.
I think one of the interesting questions is how will the FDA change in the next 20 to 30 years. I mean obviously what worked in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's will not work in the 2020's, 2030's and 2040's. I can honestly say I don't know the answer other then with how fast technology will be advancing they will have to adapt.
As far as humans chosing not to merge with the technology. When asked Generically will you want to merge with computers many people say no. However when faced with specific questions related directly to their health they overwhelming chose to go with the technology if it means they will be healthy. That is not to say some people will choose not to merge with computers, and that is ok, but I suspect the majority will. That is why I have read reports that suggest by as early as 2025 more then 80% of Americans will have merged with computers in some way.
I don't see that rushing approval of a procedure will change. Why will procedures not still work, even if the actual physical testing will be different. The part where you find its passes and go to the second part, where you make a target group and follow them for five or ten years is about time and how can that change? The human organism is a deeply complex being and you can NOT speed up time to see if it does unsuspected harm. Models can predict, but only predict. It is not about how fast technology goes by.
As for merging with machines, a medical device is one thing and a device which would fundamentally alter the species is entirely different. I don't think most would be willing. I would rather have the artifical corneas I have than not be able to see, but if you said we could give you eyes which saw all spectrums of light I'd run away fast. One mantains life in normal mode, even overall improved my vision over lasik. The other would be a derivation from that and why would I need to or want to?
Having a small medical instrument in you which talks to a computer is not the same thing as a basic change, which is what the singularity is about. One is positive, the other I view as horrible and no doubt many others do. I want to see the world through human senses. Some would and many wouldn't and the ones that did would transcend to something no longer human. Computers have a place but implanted in the brain is NOT it.
I think those who did merge would be for special purposes and would be forever be shut out of the rest of humanity since most would not see them as part of it.
Once the 2020's get here and especially the 2030's and 2040's change will be so fast that if the FDA waits 5-10 years to approve a drug or procedure it would be outdated. Now I do agree we want to make sure it's safe but I think the FDA is going to have figure out how to make the process faster if they want to stay relavent.
In terms of merging with computers most people in the industry see it coming. I mean when Time, Scientific American, the Science Channel and more have articles or shows on it then you know it's close. That is one of the main reasons medical science will go into overdrive. Within 20 years computers will be small enough to fit in our bloodstream and will be thousands of times better then our immune system and that will keep us healthy finding and curing us from things like cancer before we even know we have it. Then computers will be small enough to connect to our neurons in the brain enhancing our cognitive ability among other things. Plus these will happen in many small steps so by the time it's here it won't seem so unusual and most people will do it. I know I will.
Last edited by Josseppie; 07-14-2013 at 12:55 PM..
I think one of the interesting questions is how will the FDA change in the next 20 to 30 years. I mean obviously what worked in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's will not work in the 2020's, 2030's and 2040's. I can honestly say I don't know the answer other then with how fast technology will be advancing they will have to adapt.
As far as humans chosing not to merge with the technology. When asked Generically will you want to merge with computers many people say no. However when faced with specific questions related directly to their health they overwhelming chose to go with the technology if it means they will be healthy. That is not to say some people will choose not to merge with computers, and that is ok, but I suspect the majority will. That is why I have read reports that suggest by as early as 2025 more then 80% of Americans will have merged with computers in some way.
I think some people don't like what the phrase merging with machines implies; when I hear it I think of cyborgs and to some it would make you less human.
They probably think of this which isn't very appealing:
I don't see that rushing approval of a procedure will change. Why will procedures not still work, even if the actual physical testing will be different. The part where you find its passes and go to the second part, where you make a target group and follow them for five or ten years is about time and how can that change? The human organism is a deeply complex being and you can NOT speed up time to see if it does unsuspected harm. Models can predict, but only predict. It is not about how fast technology goes by.
As for merging with machines, a medical device is one thing and a device which would fundamentally alter the species is entirely different. I don't think most would be willing. I would rather have the artifical corneas I have than not be able to see, but if you said we could give you eyes which saw all spectrums of light I'd run away fast. One mantains life in normal mode, even overall improved my vision over lasik. The other would be a derivation from that and why would I need to or want to?
Having a small medical instrument in you which talks to a computer is not the same thing as a basic change, which is what the singularity is about. One is positive, the other I view as horrible and no doubt many others do. I want to see the world through human senses. Some would and many wouldn't and the ones that did would transcend to something no longer human. Computers have a place but implanted in the brain is NOT it.
I think those who did merge would be for special purposes and would be forever be shut out of the rest of humanity since most would not see them as part of it.
Thank you! This is exactly what I have been trying to explain to him; there's no mathematical equation that can tell us what type of side effects we'd encounter with new medical treatments.
I think some people don't like what the phrase merging with machines implies; when I hear it I think of cyborgs and to some it would make you less human.
They probably think of this which isn't very appealing:
I know but in reality I don't think it will be anything like the Hollywood version. They had no emotion or creativity which I think is the exact opposite of what we will be like.
In terms of merging with computers most people in the industry see it coming. I mean when Time, Scientific American, the Science Channel and more have articles or shows on it then you know it's close. That is one of the main reasons medical science will go into overdrive.
One of the main reasons medical science will go into overdrive is because of articles or shows that have appeared in Time, Scientific American and the Science Channel? Please tell me you wrote that before actually thinking it through. Those examples are providing speculative scenarios, not the main reason driving medical science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
Within 20 years computers will be small enough to fit in our bloodstream and will be thousands of times better then our immune system and that will keep us healthy finding and curing us from things like cancer before we even know we have it.
Tiny computers small enought to fit in the bloodstream will be thousands of times better than our immune system? Again, that's pure speculation. What exactly would these tiny computers do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
Then computers will be small enough to connect to our neurons in the brain enhancing our cognitive ability among other things. Plus these will happen in many small steps so by the time it's here it won't seem so unusual and most people will do it. I know I will.
Are you saying in about 20 years these microcopic computers will be implanted and attached to the neurons to enhance our cognitive abilities and other things? What kind of "other things"? Do you have any idea how small neurons are, not to mention how many there are in your brain? Once again, what would these computers do to cause such enhancements? How many of these computers would it take to produce the desired results? What happens if there's a tiny error in the programming? You'd really want something like that latched on to the neurons in your brain?
I know but in reality I don't think it will be anything like the Hollywood version. They had no emotion or creativity which I think is the exact opposite of what we will be like.
How do you know? A better comparison is Caprica/Galactica and the cylons. The first Cylon was created by a man who missed his dead daughter and made a creature which had her memories. It became a useful tool for the military, and in the end it became the mother of the Cylon race.
Nobody every ask, is this thing alive, just called it a machine but in time it looked alive. It is a cautionary tale.
There are also *numerous* tales in science fiction about the dark, dark side of cybernetics. That is what this 'sigularity' would create. Some get to run things, but some just are the rats left behind in Blade Runner and the Philip K Dick book which portrays them the same. Some visions see a new slavery. An interface for some which gives all, and for most which just draws them into a controlling world. Bradbury wrote Farenheit 451 where the world is pleasent and stupid because of technology. Those who don't wish to be part of it are seleced out by running and being destroyed.
The point is that these are not hollowood movies but well thought out cautionary tales about the RISKS of believeing too much in technology and forgetting that the human being must never be superceded.
The Borg are a good example of what could be in the end since in the end you can't have a group of individuals who drive the truck, but a driver and passangers. They are the passangers and the queen is the driver.
There is a long long list of things made to help humanity live better which became nightmares and merging and becoming part machine is fated to be another one on the list.
So, if you want to go off and merge with your computer, go ahead, but don't expect me to think your still a human being or not a danger to the VAST majority which would cringe at the thought. Don't bring up medical devices and say they are the same because they are not.
The same can be said of the whole genetics field. If we could take mr x and rewire him biologically we'd have no idea what it would bring down the road. This is also a very common subject in science fiction and not seen as such an easy plus either.
Science and technology is NOT a god, but a mechanical machine which does not know how to see past this moment in real terms.
How do you know? A better comparison is Caprica/Galactica and the cylons. The first Cylon was created by a man who missed his dead daughter and made a creature which had her memories. It became a useful tool for the military, and in the end it became the mother of the Cylon race.
Nobody every ask, is this thing alive, just called it a machine but in time it looked alive. It is a cautionary tale.
There are also *numerous* tales in science fiction about the dark, dark side of cybernetics. That is what this 'sigularity' would create. Some get to run things, but some just are the rats left behind in Blade Runner and the Philip K Dick book which portrays them the same. Some visions see a new slavery. An interface for some which gives all, and for most which just draws them into a controlling world. Bradbury wrote Farenheit 451 where the world is pleasent and stupid because of technology. Those who don't wish to be part of it are seleced out by running and being destroyed.
The point is that these are not hollowood movies but well thought out cautionary tales about the RISKS of believeing too much in technology and forgetting that the human being must never be superceded.
The Borg are a good example of what could be in the end since in the end you can't have a group of individuals who drive the truck, but a driver and passangers. They are the passangers and the queen is the driver.
There is a long long list of things made to help humanity live better which became nightmares and merging and becoming part machine is fated to be another one on the list.
So, if you want to go off and merge with your computer, go ahead, but don't expect me to think your still a human being or not a danger to the VAST majority which would cringe at the thought. Don't bring up medical devices and say they are the same because they are not.
The same can be said of the whole genetics field. If we could take mr x and rewire him biologically we'd have no idea what it would bring down the road. This is also a very common subject in science fiction and not seen as such an easy plus either.
Science and technology is NOT a god, but a mechanical machine which does not know how to see past this moment in real terms.
This is how I see it as well, I doubt people would accept this type of change in 2019 as Ray Kurzweil claims. One thing I like about him though is that he admits the singularity could turn out catastrophic for us through our annihilation or slavery.
What I don't understand is why someone would want to create a computer that's millions of times smarter than all humanity; our own history shows how more advanced civilizations treated less advanced and it wasn't pretty.
One of the main reasons medical science will go into overdrive is because of articles or shows that have appeared in Time, Scientific American and the Science Channel? Please tell me you wrote that before actually thinking it through. Those examples are providing speculative scenarios, not the main reason driving medical science.
When I re read what I had wrote it was not as clear as it could have been. Sometimes I can do that. Let me try to re state it.
In terms of merging with computers most people in the industry see it coming. I mean when Time, Scientific American, the Science Channel and more have articles or shows on it then you know we are close to merging with computers.
Humans merging with computers is one of the main reasons medical science will go into overdrive. That and the fact medical science is not a form of information thus advancing exponentially.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Tiny computers small enought to fit in the bloodstream will be thousands of times better than our immune system? Again, that's pure speculation. What exactly would these tiny computers do?
Let me allow Ray Kurzweil to explain it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Are you saying in about 20 years these microcopic computers will be implanted and attached to the neurons to enhance our cognitive abilities and other things? What kind of "other things"? Do you have any idea how small neurons are, not to mention how many there are in your brain? Once again, what would these computers do to cause such enhancements? How many of these computers would it take to produce the desired results? What happens if there's a tiny error in the programming? You'd really want something like that latched on to the neurons in your brain?
Ray Kurzweil goes into more detail on this in his book "How to Create a Mind".
This is a interview where he discuss the book.
To answer your question. Yes I will... In fact I can't wait. Well I can but I am looking forward to that day.
How do you know? A better comparison is Caprica/Galactica and the cylons. The first Cylon was created by a man who missed his dead daughter and made a creature which had her memories. It became a useful tool for the military, and in the end it became the mother of the Cylon race.
Nobody every ask, is this thing alive, just called it a machine but in time it looked alive. It is a cautionary tale.
There are also *numerous* tales in science fiction about the dark, dark side of cybernetics. That is what this 'sigularity' would create. Some get to run things, but some just are the rats left behind in Blade Runner and the Philip K Dick book which portrays them the same. Some visions see a new slavery. An interface for some which gives all, and for most which just draws them into a controlling world. Bradbury wrote Farenheit 451 where the world is pleasent and stupid because of technology. Those who don't wish to be part of it are seleced out by running and being destroyed.
The point is that these are not hollowood movies but well thought out cautionary tales about the RISKS of believeing too much in technology and forgetting that the human being must never be superceded.
The Borg are a good example of what could be in the end since in the end you can't have a group of individuals who drive the truck, but a driver and passangers. They are the passangers and the queen is the driver.
There is a long long list of things made to help humanity live better which became nightmares and merging and becoming part machine is fated to be another one on the list.
So, if you want to go off and merge with your computer, go ahead, but don't expect me to think your still a human being or not a danger to the VAST majority which would cringe at the thought. Don't bring up medical devices and say they are the same because they are not.
The same can be said of the whole genetics field. If we could take mr x and rewire him biologically we'd have no idea what it would bring down the road. This is also a very common subject in science fiction and not seen as such an easy plus either.
Science and technology is NOT a god, but a mechanical machine which does not know how to see past this moment in real terms.
I will admit that is just my opinion as by definition we do not know what life will be like after the singularity. Why we call it the singularity.
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.
