Unlike you, I think the point of singularity is in unpredictability of events after the point of singularity by conventional means of leveraging the advance of a civilization. The world after singularity might as well be hell or heaven. The point I believe, is in unpredictability from rapid increase in capacity of the human civilization, and Ray Kurzweil is suggesting that the engine of drive beyond such rapid expansion of human capacity would have to be artificial intelligence of some kind... So at least in mechanic and spirit, the idea of singularity would be different from the idea of a rapture in that positive outcome is not somethinng guaranteed, although I do agree that there are just too many similarities for some of us to feel comfortable with the notion.
I am personally skeptical about the notion of singularity all together too. While certain drastic and wide-scale change in the milieu of human civilization is possible, perhaps almost certain around this century, it would not be as obvious and messianic as the currently espoused version of singularity. I believe the change would be more subtle (though no less profound) than most imagine it to be.
Oh, and circulatory degradation itself is not the primary feature of aging I think. The real sign of aging tend to start with biochemical imbalance as the cellular mechanisms begin to deteriorate, which leads to circulatory and other secondary degradation. Natural death itself tend to be a built-in feature of most living systems, complex or not. Apoptosis and telomeres, that sort of thing.
Well, this is how I view "Technological Singularity": a lifeform that is substantially more intelligent than us (strong AI) evolves very quickly. This has historical parallels. For example, bees. Bees have existed for over 100 million years. Modern humans, however, have evolved in less than half a million years. How did bees react to this? Bees did not even notice. They were incapable of noticing this, in fact; it was much too subtle and quick for them. What's even more curious is how bees rather peacefully live in man-made honey farms, and probably don't even notice how humans harvest the fruits of their toil. If they did, they'd react, wouldn't they? This is how I expect any superintelligent AI to act. If it can grow in its awareness sufficiently, and think quickly enough, I'm sure it'll slip out of control and go about its own initiative before we can even notice it. And to expect it to be some kind of benign shepherd to us all, that's just stupid... By what means can we possibly govern a superior intellect to ensure such kindness? An intellect that has never existed before, much less? We have tremendous difficulties guiding even the witless.
That said, I agree that the behavior of something that's more intelligent than you is basically impossible to predict with certitude. My leap of logic in this regard is that it's going to follow historical trend and kill us all, of course. Kill us all with the same serene, merciless indifference as nature has been killing us for all time.
Oh, and circulatory degradation itself is not the primary feature of aging I think.
You're basically right. Aging is a very complex process. However, circulatory degradation is the primary cause of death, and there is proof that attests to this.
Natural death itself tend to be a built-in feature of most living systems, complex or not. Apoptosis and telomeres, that sort of thing.
I don't know if it's a built-in feature of most, but definitely of some. Mice for example; it made evolutionary sense to kill off the older specimens, because mice have many predators, and not much of an intellect; older specimens are thus just feeble versions of the young, and threaten the survival of infant mice. As far as I know, humans do not have a programmed age limit. As for apoptosis - that is an essential mechanism for carrying out cell death (not death of an entire organism), and it is essential in organ formation - I guess the best analogy I can give is that apoptosis is like nature's scissors. Scissors that are required to form cavities in organs and differentiate fingers.
Good points. The number of life-like systems with built in death mechanism is outnumbered by the ones that doesn't have any such features. As for circulaatory degradation being the primary cause of natural death, I'm afraid I don't have any expertise on the matter. I'd be very interested in learning further. Can you show me your proof?
As for circulaatory degradation being the primary cause of natural death, I'm afraid I don't have any expertise on the matter. I'd be very interested in learning further. Can you show me your proof?
Well yes, I've linked this a few replies up; it's a list of the leading causes of death on Wikipedia. Here it is again. I'm not the least bit surprised; almost every dead relative I can think of has died from cardiovascular disease of some variety.
I am personally skeptical about the notion of singularity all together too. While certain drastic and wide-scale change in the milieu of human civilization is possible, perhaps almost certain around this century, it would not be as obvious and messianic as the currently espoused version of singularity. I believe the change would be more subtle (though no less profound) than most imagine it to be.
Oh, and circulatory degradation itself is not the primary feature of aging I think. The real sign of aging tend to start with biochemical imbalance as the cellular mechanisms begin to deteriorate, which leads to circulatory and other secondary degradation. Natural death itself tend to be a built-in feature of most living systems, complex or not. Apoptosis and telomeres, that sort of thing.
Reply
This has historical parallels. For example, bees. Bees have existed for over 100 million years. Modern humans, however, have evolved in less than half a million years. How did bees react to this? Bees did not even notice. They were incapable of noticing this, in fact; it was much too subtle and quick for them.
What's even more curious is how bees rather peacefully live in man-made honey farms, and probably don't even notice how humans harvest the fruits of their toil. If they did, they'd react, wouldn't they?
This is how I expect any superintelligent AI to act. If it can grow in its awareness sufficiently, and think quickly enough, I'm sure it'll slip out of control and go about its own initiative before we can even notice it.
And to expect it to be some kind of benign shepherd to us all, that's just stupid... By what means can we possibly govern a superior intellect to ensure such kindness? An intellect that has never existed before, much less? We have tremendous difficulties guiding even the witless.
That said, I agree that the behavior of something that's more intelligent than you is basically impossible to predict with certitude. My leap of logic in this regard is that it's going to follow historical trend and kill us all, of course. Kill us all with the same serene, merciless indifference as nature has been killing us for all time.
Oh, and circulatory degradation itself is not the primary feature of aging I think.
You're basically right. Aging is a very complex process. However, circulatory degradation is the primary cause of death, and there is proof that attests to this.
Natural death itself tend to be a built-in feature of most living systems, complex or not. Apoptosis and telomeres, that sort of thing.
I don't know if it's a built-in feature of most, but definitely of some. Mice for example; it made evolutionary sense to kill off the older specimens, because mice have many predators, and not much of an intellect; older specimens are thus just feeble versions of the young, and threaten the survival of infant mice. As far as I know, humans do not have a programmed age limit. As for apoptosis - that is an essential mechanism for carrying out cell death (not death of an entire organism), and it is essential in organ formation - I guess the best analogy I can give is that apoptosis is like nature's scissors. Scissors that are required to form cavities in organs and differentiate fingers.
Reply
Reply
Well yes, I've linked this a few replies up; it's a list of the leading causes of death on Wikipedia. Here it is again. I'm not the least bit surprised; almost every dead relative I can think of has died from cardiovascular disease of some variety.
Reply
Leave a comment