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.
He was only on the project as a computer scientist, not as a biologist or doctor.
And that is the aspect he is talking about with the future of medicine. How because of the genome project it is now a form of information technology thus advancing exponentially. That is why we are seeing more and more advancements in the medical field then every before.
Computers may have shrunk, but size is not a measure of performance.
False. Not only is my I Phone smaller then the super computer of the 1970's but its thousands of times faster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
No. You cannot get from facts about treatments currently available at Mayo Clinic to the conclusion that actuarial escape velocity will happen before 2020, without invoking hidden premises in your argument.
That is just one example as to why it will happen in the 2020's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
However, it doesn't follow from that (without additional unstated assumptions) that ANYTHING will double every 73 days in the year 2020.
To make an analogy, computers are increasingly involved in cars also. Does it therefore follow that in the year 2025 a car will be able to go 100,000 miles per hour on an interstate highway? Of course not!
The question is, what are the limiting factors in the medical treatment, and how will those specific factors change over time? It doesn't suffice to simply say that parameter X of technology A is increasing exponentially, and technology B is increasingly making use of technology A, therefore Y will become possible with technology B by year Z.
That argument is formally logically invalid and therefore is incomplete without discussion and justification of how they relate to each other and at what point that relation should be expected to no longer hold.
Apples to oranges. You are talking about speed where we are talking about longevity. No one says that humans will run much faster in 2025 let alone exponentially faster, we might run marginally faster not sure. What we are talking about is advancements in genetics, biology and computers and the impact it will have on health and medicine. That will cause humans to live longer and in fact we will reach a tipping point in the 2020's where the life expectancy will go up faster then we age thus theoretically we will never reach it.
And that is the aspect he is talking about with the future of medicine. How because of the genome project it is now a form of information technology thus advancing exponentially. That is why we are seeing more and more advancements in the medical field then every before.
The genome project uses many sets of tools: Chemical tools, biological tools, optical tools, computational tools, and more.
You are looking at only one aspect of the inter-disciplinary and multi-faceted project.
False. Not only is my I Phone smaller then the super computer of the 1970's but its thousands of times faster.
Fallacious reasoning. Just because device "X" is smaller and faster than device "Y" does not mean its smallness is identical to its fastness. Its size may have shrunk simultaneously with its speed improving, but this does not make its size a performance measure.
And in any case you cannot conclude from size alone that computation per unit energy can continue to improve after the CPU speed limit was reached in 2003.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
That is just one example as to why it will happen in the 2020's.
Circular reasoning. You're assuming it will happen in the 2020's as an argument that it will.
You have presented no logically sound argument for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
Apples to oranges. You are talking about speed where we are talking about longevity. No one says that humans will run much faster in 2025 let alone exponentially faster, we might run marginally faster not sure. What we are talking about is advancements in genetics, biology and computers and the impact it will have on health and medicine. That will cause humans to live longer and in fact we will reach a tipping point in the 2020's where the life expectancy will go up faster then we age thus theoretically we will never reach it.
You are partially seeing my point. You admit here that just because of technological parameters which increase exponentially, it doesn't necessarily follow that everything related to it will do so.
Now the question is, how do you determine what will, and what won't?
The genome project uses many sets of tools: Chemical tools, biological tools, optical tools, computational tools, and more.
You are looking at only one aspect of the inter-disciplinary and multi-faceted project.
This is the result of the genome project.
(CNN) - By the early 2020s, we will have the means to program our biology away from disease and aging.
Up until recently, health and medicine was basically a hit or miss affair. We would discover interventions such as drugs that had benefits, but also many side effects. Until recently, we did not have the means to actually design interventions on computers.
All of that has now changed, and will dramatically change clinical practice by the early 2020s.
(CNN) - By the early 2020s, we will have the means to program our biology away from disease and aging.
Up until recently, health and medicine was basically a hit or miss affair. We would discover interventions such as drugs that had benefits, but also many side effects. Until recently, we did not have the means to actually design interventions on computers.
All of that has now changed, and will dramatically change clinical practice by the early 2020s.
You cannot defend Kurzweil by referencing another thing written by Kurzweil. This is circular reasoning!
Just because he is making bald assertions doesn't make them so. PZ Myers, a biologist, has written on why Kurzweil's reasoning is flawed. See this link:
You cannot defend Kurzweil by referencing another thing written by Kurzweil. This is circular reasoning!
Just because he is making bald assertions doesn't make them so. PZ Myers, a biologist, has written on why Kurzweil's reasoning is flawed. See this link:
Fallacious reasoning. Just because device "X" is smaller and faster than device "Y" does not mean its smallness is identical to its fastness. Its size may have shrunk simultaneously with its speed improving, but this does not make its size a performance measure.
That is exactly the case and why what we saw in the past 30 years will happen in the next 10.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
And in any case you cannot conclude from size alone that computation per unit energy can continue to improve after the CPU speed limit was reached in 2003.
Computers today are much faster and smaller then they were in 2003. They did not have smart phones today we have Google Glass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
Circular reasoning. You're assuming it will happen in the 2020's as an argument that it will.
It will not be just one reason but a bridge to a bridge to a bridge with many milestones along the way. Why when we reach a milestone on the way to life 2.0 I post it. That is all that was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
You are partially seeing my point. You admit here that just because of technological parameters which increase exponentially, it doesn't necessarily follow that everything related to it will do so.
Now the question is, how do you determine what will, and what won't?
This is actually a very good question. People constantly tell me that the future can not be predicted. They are correct the future can not be predicted meaning I have no idea what life will be like in 2020, 2030 etc. What can be predicted is how information technology will advance and how fast and how it will impact the world. In this example we know that medicine like genetics, biology and computers that help in the medical field are advancing at a exponential rate and we know the kind of impact it will have on our health. That is why we are able to say life expectancy will keep going up and by the 2020's will reach a tipping point where its going up faster then we age thus will never reach it. The same advancements will not impact running in the same way so while we might see marginal increases in how fast we run it will not be exponential and as predicatble.
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.
