Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kurzweil featured on new syndicated radio show "Science Fantastic" hosted by Michio Kaku
KurzweilAI.net | 4/14/2006 | Staff

Posted on 04/14/2006 6:50:53 AM PDT by Neville72

Ray Kurzweil will be the first guest on theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku's new ("Science Fantastic") radio show, which debuts on about 90 commercial radio stations nationwide Saturday April 15 at 5:00 - 8:00 p.m., Eastern, 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. Pacific. The show is syndicated on Talk Radio Network.

Kaku, the co-founder of string field theory, holds the Henry Semat Chair in Theoretical Physics at the City Univ. of New York and is the author of two international best-sellers, Hyperspace and Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century, and Parallel Worlds.

The interview covers the Singularity, merger with intelligent machines, radical life extention, and other topics related to Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near book.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: antikythera; antikytheramechanism; raykurzweil

1 posted on 04/14/2006 6:50:55 AM PDT by Neville72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Neville72
The interview covers the Singularity, merger with intelligent machines, radical life extention, and other topics related to Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near book.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but didn Sci-Fi writer Vernor Vinge come up with that idea, well if not the idea, the name "Singularity" and the current popularity of it? I've read about this for quite some time, and I am assuming its the same thing.

2 posted on 04/14/2006 7:13:13 AM PDT by Paradox (Removing all Doubt since 1998!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

"Someone correct me if I am wrong, but didn Sci-Fi writer Vernor Vinge come up with that idea, well if not the idea, the name "Singularity"


You would be correct about that.


3 posted on 04/14/2006 7:15:14 AM PDT by Neville72 (uist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
An answer to my own question, and a good explanation of the concept, is available in the wikipedia entry on it.
4 posted on 04/14/2006 7:15:56 AM PDT by Paradox (Removing all Doubt since 1998!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
This is an interesting chart on the subject.
5 posted on 04/14/2006 7:27:45 AM PDT by Neville72 (uist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

Pick up Kurzweil's book at your local library or bookstore. It's a great read with lots and lots of mind-boggling implications.


6 posted on 04/14/2006 7:34:42 AM PDT by Neville72 (uist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

Once credible people getting into the Art Bell market.


7 posted on 04/14/2006 7:36:28 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

You must not have read Kurzweil's new book. If you had no "Art Bell" reference would have eminated from your keyboard.


8 posted on 04/14/2006 8:03:13 AM PDT by Neville72 (uist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

Are you promoting his book here on FR?


9 posted on 04/14/2006 8:21:34 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but didn Sci-Fi writer Vernor Vinge come up with that idea, well if not the idea, the name "Singularity"

He helped originate the concept of technological singularity (describing the point beyond which human modelling cannot predict or explain things), but the term "singularity" is a standard scientific term for places or circumstances where normal scientific laws cannot explain the operations and behaviors at that place or condition. For example, superconductivity is an example of singularity, as is a black hole. So, AFAIK, in this case he simply applied an already existing term to a particular type of unknown.

10 posted on 04/14/2006 8:28:16 AM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Hwt! Lr bi mst hord, solce!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

"Are you promoting his book here on FR?"


Nope. Just making an editorial comment on a fascinating and stimulating read.


11 posted on 04/14/2006 8:38:30 AM PDT by Neville72 (uist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Neville72
I don't believe the chart is interesting. I think it's largely a trick of perspective.

What are the important events in my life? Well, as time goes on, the significance of any given event decreases. Hence, for any past time period, the density of "significant events" over that period will decrease as time marches away from that period. It's not that the events have changed, it's that our judgment is myopic.

Look at the second entry: "Eukaryotic cells, multicellular organisms". Is that an "event"? There are a huge number of absolutely critical developments lumped in there, and who knows when they occurred? When and how did mitochondria develop? How did the Krebs cycle arise? When and how did ribosomes develop? When and how did chloroplasts develop? (I could go on for a long while.) All of these were critical events in the history and expansion of life on Earth, but from the perspective of a billion years or more, it all gets lumped into a single development, "the cell".

The fact that those things fall on a straight line (just below 1 year per year) reflects human psychology, and not anything intrinsic about the nature of reality. We ask ourselves, "what was the most important event in the last two billion years", and then "what was the most important event in the last billion years", and then "what was the most important event in the last half-billion years", etc., up to "what was the most important event this week" (my wife made a really good meatloaf), and those events qualify for inclusion.

That said, I do believe that the pace of technological development is increasing exponentially. Unlike that graph, Moore's Law really is an objective measure.

12 posted on 04/14/2006 8:56:20 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Neville72
I said: What are the important events in my life?

I forgot to finish that thought. If I were to make a list of them, they'd be likely to fall along that same line. But that would remain true all through my life: the listed events would just change. Close to the time my kids were born, I'd have listed their births individually. Decades from now, they might get compressed into "my kids were born". At age 18, high school graduation loomed as a critically important thing; from my perspective at age 41, it's just another marker of normal development, like puberty.

13 posted on 04/14/2006 9:03:14 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist; RadioAstronomer
Ping you right back.
14 posted on 04/14/2006 9:09:10 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

The chart has no objective meaning.


15 posted on 04/14/2006 9:16:45 AM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

PZ Myers (the raving far-left moonbat in charge of the biologically-sound but politically idiotic Pharyngula blog) hated it, which is good enough for me.


16 posted on 04/14/2006 9:44:36 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist (Creationism is to conservatism what Howard Dean is to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; Neville72
Kurzweill's book, or any other making claims based in a prognostic historicism, should probably be read after reading Von Mises's Theory and History, in order to put such claims into both a realistic and realist perspective.
17 posted on 04/14/2006 9:53:01 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist (Creationism is to conservatism what Howard Dean is to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
The chart has no objective meaning.

Well maybe at first glance. But in fact the Log-Log chart simply reflects that progress in technology is accelerating. While you can argue that different choices in the selection of events would yield a different curve the reality is that it wouldn't. In fact Kurzweil shows a similar chart in his book where there were several independent selection of events and they all pretty much follow the same curve.

The message: Things they are a changing and they are changing faster and faster.

18 posted on 04/14/2006 9:59:49 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
The message: Things they are a changing and they are changing faster and faster.

True, but the big question is when do the reach the intercept point...

19 posted on 04/14/2006 10:05:59 AM PDT by null and void (<----nasty, brutish, and short...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Neville72
Nope. Just making an editorial comment on a fascinating and stimulating read.

Great, it's entertainment, and so is Art Bell. The wonders of exponential growth, and technology have been known for a long time. I think Kurzweil is turning it into a sideshow. He strikes me as an egotistical carnival barker. Isn't he selling his own brand of vitamins now?

I often think about where human knowledge and technology will be 100, 1000, or even one million years from now. It's an awesome thought. Just don't get too caught up in the hype of someone who is only doing it in his own self interest.

20 posted on 04/14/2006 11:08:12 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
But in fact the Log-Log chart simply reflects that progress in technology is accelerating.

While it may be true that progress in technology is accelerating, what do any of the data points at or before the one labeled "Homo sapiens sapiens" have to do with progress in technology?

The reason the chart has no objective meaning is that "Event" is unspecified.

21 posted on 04/14/2006 1:45:27 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
The reason the chart has no objective meaning is that "Event" is unspecified.

Well I suppose that's true in the case of this posting but it is not true of the chart in the book.

The author makes the point that the actual "events" that are selected are not that important. You can pick any set of events that you like that represents significant milestones in terms of the advance of technology. His point is that these events or milestones are coming faster and faster.

Example: How many years did it take for us to go from kites to balloons to gliders to gliders that would a carry a man to a plane that was self powered to a man on the moon. Chart those events and you will see that progress accelerates. That is the point of the chart.

22 posted on 04/14/2006 1:58:33 PM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
You can pick any set of events that you like that represents significant milestones in terms of the advance of technology.

See, this is is what I mean. If there is no rule selecting the events then the chart of those events has no objective meaning. It is an exercise in rhetoric or propaganda because the events can be selected to match the desired chart.

23 posted on 04/14/2006 8:16:12 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
See, this is is what I mean. If there is no rule selecting the events then the chart of those events has no objective meaning. It is an exercise in rhetoric or propaganda because the events can be selected to match the desired chart.

You should really have a look at the book. The point is that you can pick any set of events you like and you always get the same curve. That is not because there is no objective meaning - it is because technology accelerates, it grows exponentially rather than linearly. That is the point. He's describing the Moore's Law of Technology.

24 posted on 04/14/2006 8:52:42 PM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint
The point is that you can pick any set of events you like and you always get the same curve.

OK, I pick the events called out in the History section of this article on clocks. The data points are these

Years ago Years delta Event
5006 2913 clepsydra
2093 937 Antikythera mechanism
1156 326 mechanical timekeeper
830 74 Sens Cathedral installed a horologe
756 184 earliest reasonably accurate clocks
572 223 first self-striking clock
349 13 pendulum clock.
336 XX anchor escapement,

Here are the points for log-log plot

3.699490845 3.464340485
3.320769228 2.971739591
3.062957834 2.5132176
2.919078092 1.86923172
2.878521796 2.264817823
2.757396029 2.348304863
2.542825427 1.113943352

If you plot them you don't get a line. Instead it starts out curved then hooks up and then back down. I wish I could post it somehow.

Do you get the point now?

25 posted on 04/14/2006 9:57:21 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson