[ASA Vet]

This thread will be hijacked by post 6.

[Max Combined]

Silliness from intelligent people. No one predicted the previous revolutions and it looks like no one is going to predict the next one.

[Rudder]

Despite all their training and ability, these prognosticators cannot predict the moving force of evolution: environmental pressures. That's why eugenics never really gets off the ground. We can selectively breed or splice genes all we want. But whether these changes will be adaptive generations down the road is anybody's guess...and that's what this is: guessing.

[RadioAstronomer]

ping

[expatpat]

I think we may be part of 'someone's' (e.g., God's) experiment. Like a colony of bacteria in a Petri dish (Earth), with the experimenter wondering what will result after many generations of reproduction.

[Dead Dog]

'The end of the individual' Susan Greenfield, neuroscientist, Oxford University

This poor gal is a victim of a 1950-1980 Sci Fi fad. The end of the individual. Funny how it coincided with the pinnacle of collectivism.

She's too smart to respect what Reagan tried to teach the world, that there is strength in the individual, strength in freedom and free will.

It's also interesting that she see the Internet as a device in this. IMO, if the Internet does anything, it empowers the individual further. Want a "collective thought machine" watch CNN/CBS/ABC/MSNBC/BBC/PBS.

[hopespringseternal]

"The big question is why these revolutions don't make us profoundly sad. We're reduced to bags of chemicals with no free will, living on a normal planet, but people still find that exciting," says Ramachandran. "I think it's because with greater understanding, we see ourselves as part of some grander scheme. We're part of something larger than ourselves and once we identify with that, it is not degrading, it's ennobling."

His great revelation is essentially a lie, and the common man knows it. All the revelations they cite are not so reality shaking as they believe. Knowledge, in and of itself is only as powerful as its use. It wasn't until the space program ramped up that the heliocentric model began to have an everyday effect on people, and even now that is rather limited.

It amazes me that scientists can not shake themselves free of the linear extrapolation when modeling the future. History is full of discontinuities that can only be seen in hindsight, much less explained.

These goofs projecting a computer with the power of the human brain make me think they know no more about computing than the average journalist.

The architecture of our brains is radically different from computer architecture. It is like comparing the horsepower of a tractor to the horsepower of a formula one racer and deciding to use the formula one to plow your field.

[ZeitgeistSurfer]

Working around scientists for most of my life, here is some of what they are talking about today for what the not-too-distant future holds:

Convergence of info, bio and nanotechnologies yielding 'protolife' artifacts.

Computationally-tractable solutions to protein folding, leading to genomic simulation and a practical basis for constructive organic (i.e. genetic) engineering.

Experientially confirmed theoretical basis for unification of quantum theory and gravity yielding a full-spectrum cosmology.

3D connection-dominated computing substrates (nanowires + molecular assemblies) yielding (virtual) petaflops.

[Drammach]

Creativity? No.. Emotion ? No.. Survival Instinct ? Emulation maybe.. but unless we program it in, NO...

Such machines will be able to make calculations faster, solving problems in less time than it takes humans to think them up..
They will be able to take available information and shuffle it around, determine the results, and possibly, decide whether those results are "useful"..
They will be able to build on the information we give them, check most of it for accuracy or reliability, and build on it to obtain more information..

They will be able to handle very large amounts of information.. and access it quickly...
They "may" be able to consider the consequences of their actions, maybe not..
They won't "care" unless we teach them what to care about..

It will always be "data" to be manipulated in order to achieve the desired results, within whatever constraints we put upon them..
And if we're smart, we'll put constraints upon them.. or teach them to "learn" what the proper constraints are.. or should be..

We are more than a "computational model"..
While we can be "emulated", we cannot be duplicated..
I don't think any machine would ever have conceived of religion.. They will never understand it, and will probably never adhere to a religious belief of any kind..
I'm not sure machines would have ever developed Philosophy.. and I'm not sure they will ever find a "use" for it..
I doubt they will ever place value on human life.. or any life for that matter.. Except as "material".. Something of use...

Our artificial "descendants" may outstrip us physically, even mentally, as far as the "real" world is concerned..
They will probably be the ones to actually explore the universe, maybe even other dimensions, places we could never go and survive..
They may be able to figure out a way for us to tag along.. I sort of hope so..
I think they will find out they need us..

To tell them what it all means..

[America's Resolve]

We will see a melding of man and machine, she says, leading to the demise of the individual.

This has got to be the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard.

I believe that the melding of brain and machine will lead to the ultimateage of the individual, able to manipulate our environment in every way we can dream of and a billion ways that we can't.

Why in the world would we build a machine that can take over? Would we build a car that can take over? That can forage on its own for fuel and spare parts?

I believe that we'll build superior machines that will work in concert with our natural intelligence.

Just IMHO of course :)

Godspeed