The Universe Solved

 


Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Beyond Human: The Cyborg Mind Options
Neo
Posted: Thursday, May 29, 2008 5:30:19 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/21/2008
Posts: 528
Points: 1,584
Location: Ireland
stendec
Posted: Friday, May 30, 2008 12:20:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
Great video, Neo !
I also watched another in that series, about restoring sight to the blind using an implanted chip on the retina. Fascinating stuff.
Neo
Posted: Sunday, June 01, 2008 2:22:54 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/21/2008
Posts: 528
Points: 1,584
Location: Ireland
stendec wrote:
Great video, Neo !
I also watched another in that series, about restoring sight to the blind using an implanted chip on the retina. Fascinating stuff.


Glad you liked it (and the other video you refer to may be on this site too, I posted a vid here that sounds like it). When I watch videos like this one it serves to strengthen the belief for me that Kurzweil's graphs are not pie-in-the-sky, but are instead accurately protraying the evolution of technology as we know it. Fascinating indeed.

There is no spoon.
stendec
Posted: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:17:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
Neo wrote:
videos like this one it serves to strengthen the belief for me that Kurzweil's graphs are not pie-in-the-sky


Yes, I fully agree!

Reading about, and seeing the seemingly small advances that are made every single day, I almost take for granted how these advances are actually accelerating. When one steps back and looks at progress, it does seem to adhere to the geometric (or even "compounded geometric") charts that the optimists like Kurzweil have shown.

In fact, I've compiled a "timeline" of possible future events, from the various articles in technology and science magazines, and websites I've come across.

May as well post it here ! (I've not published this elsewhere)

Possible Singularity Timeline

2007 - Medical advances are currently adding 3 months life-expectancy per annum on average *fact*
First quantum computation done on the prime factors of the number 15.
2008 - First living cells with artificial chromosomes.
2009 - Moores Law (doubling) applied to qBits (pending successful mass-production thereof)
2010 - Nano-transistors in consumer use for memory chips. Multicore parallel computing in handheld devices. Speech recognition ubiquitous.
2011 - take one year of biological age for theoretical age. Holographic storage/retrieval becoming consumer reality. Photoelectric paints commercially available, to generate electricity from sunlight falling on walls.
PTC124 to finish clinical trials; pill to dramatically alter protein problems like muscular dystrophy & cystic fibrosis.
Leeds NanoManufacturing Institute (NMi) to complete earthquake-proof building project with German building manufacturer Knauf.
2012 - Nano-solarpower to reach 20% efficiency. Artificial ground meat.
2013 -
2014 - Solar cells to reach parity with conventional electricity cost/efficiency.
2015 - Take total 2 years of bio age. Regular sub-orbital space-tourism.
2016 - Nanoparticle cancer markers and therapy
2017 - Carbon nanotube semiconductors widespread. Artificial meat commercially available.
2018 - Large-scale working quantum processors and memory. Nanophotonics chips to market (IBM/DARPA).
Exascale supercomputing (classical) 1 million trillion calculations per second (or 1000 Petaflops) [ 1 Petaflop = 1 thousand trillion FPoint/sec ]
2019 - take total 3 years off bio age. Practical nanorobotics for medical diagnosis and treatment, at clinical-trial stage.
2020 - Creation of conscious AI entities
2021 -
2022 - AIs comparable to human intelligence predicted to cost £600. Personal AIs
2023 - take total 4 years off bio age.
2024 -
2025 - Largescale AI applications reach fruition. Research and collaboration potentially exponential now.
Space-based "hotels" and recreation facilities to become a reality.
2026 -
2027 - take 5 years off bio age. Technology progresses faster than human perception copes, "future-shock" multiplied !
2028 - Possible full-featured "Virtuality", indistinguishable from the real thing.
2029 - Kurzweil predicts a computer will pass the Turing Test.
2030 - Ray Hammond predicts that (very rich) 90-year olds will be able to become biologically 35 (?based upon?) !!
2031 - take 6 years off bio age.
2032 -
2033 -
2034 -
2035 - Take 7 years off your age for linear medical progress, 17 for exponential.
2036 -
2037 -
2038 -
2039 - Take 8 years off bio-age.
2040 -
2041 -
2042 -
2043 - Take 9 years
2045 - Singularity predicted to occur middle of this year! A person whose chronological age is 70 would now be biologically aged approx 60 if linear medical progress, 35 if exponential; (or reduce to "zero" if singularity reached!)
2046 - AI & AGI should double in capacity each year !! "accelerating exponential technology".
2047 -
2048 -
2049 -
2050 -
2051 - Medical trials of any outcomes from singularity should now be concluded. Barring civil / military problems, should be widely available. "The fuzzy horizon of tech"


Further forward predictions

2192 - current Moores Law increases in processor density reach the Planck resolution (i.e. the smallest physically possible in the current theoretically observable physics.)
Please note that this is based just on today's rate of growth, not counting the Singularity-effect of "super-compounding" of growth.
If humanity (or intelligence) survives this long, it will probably be able to conquer the death of the universe itself and / or prove the simulation argument at last.
=
This is by no means exhaustive, but I've tried to be level-headed and realistic, and probably even conservative. All these
I'm afraid I haven't made notes to credit the authors of the works I've written about, but the list would be very diverse.
Basically, thanks to everyone involved in research and also science and technology journalism.

Feel free to add to it, folks; but please bear in mind that this is not a list of predictions as such, but the timeline for results of current research projects, and is hopefully a more accurate attempt at futurology that mere guesswork.
Neo
Posted: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 1:40:32 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/21/2008
Posts: 528
Points: 1,584
Location: Ireland
Wow, stendec, that's really impressive!Applause It had crossed my mind to do something similiar but I didn't feel 'qualified' enough to do so, and was afraid of putting in some outlandish prediction that might discredit the endeavour. Fair dues for posting yours here - definitely food for thought. This could be really cool - 'forumites' here discussing possible future timelines. Will need time to mull over yours.

Good stuff!

There is no spoon.
stendec
Posted: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:59:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
Neo wrote:
Wow, stendec, that's really impressive!


Thanks, Neo. The only credit I can really take for this timeline, is the hours I spend reading articles on the different subjects involved.

Neo wrote:
It had crossed my mind to do something similiar but I didn't feel 'qualified' enough to do so, and was afraid of putting in some outlandish prediction that might discredit the endeavour.


I don't consider myself anything like qualified to make such predictions either, and I thought for a while about whether I should post this timeline. But, all the things featured are taken from current research, and sometimes I've added a year or two to the predicted outcome of the research, just to err on the side of caution.

It's very interesting that the predictions stop round about 2050 - I'm reminded about what Jim said in another posting, about humans not being able to see advances beyond about 50 years.

However, if the singularity - or even anything remotely like it - occurs within this 50-year period, then the future beyond 2050 will truly be an "undiscovered country", where only the only limits will be the imagination of the conscious intellects at the time. And that imagination will surely surpass even our wildest dreams.

Maybe we should have a "Post-2050" timeline, which could be fun, where people could predict all the outlandish stuff. I'd love to hear some of yours, Neo.
jim
Posted: Monday, June 09, 2008 9:58:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 897
Points: 2,697
Great video. And subsequent thread!

I'm not sure I want to "wear" the internet, tho. Anybody else? Think

I also am curious, but a little bothered by the idea of connecting our brains with the internet. Or even with a single other brain. What the heck would that feel like? Somehow, it seems like our brains have necessary filtering to prevent overload. It is why memories fade and why we can mentally focus. Take away that filter, and I'm afraid to think what would happen!

I love the idea of starting a thread on post-2050 speculation. Go for it!

How about this for your timeline, stendec: when do you think we will first become superhuman in some way, by unlocking one of those other mind filters that we probably have. For example, bona fide "at will" telepathy, or the ability to control adrenaline release to achieve temporary superhuman strength. Or how about, the first time someone is able to actually think outside the Matrix. Angel
stendec
Posted: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:34:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
Just read this, about the new Roadrunner supercomputer which has broken all records.
http://www.physorg.com/news132497981.html

The most interesting thing about it, for me, is that they are planning to model the entire human visual system. With the amount of the human brain devoted to vision, usually estimated to be somewhere between a quarter and a third of the neocortex, modelling it "in silica" is a feat that I thought would be some years away!

It does seem that the singularity is creeping towards us with giant strides!

Assuming the Moore's law continues for such brain modelling, is it unreasonable to assume that perhaps within as little as five years we might be modelling the entire brain? Or am I being very naive about the numbers of interconnections growing exponentially rather than in a linear way, once we start dealing with whole-brain simulation?

Another thing that caught my eye is the relatively low cost of the Roadrunner - "just" $120 million.

As an aside, I was thinking about the concept of "uploaded minds", and wondered if it would actually be possible to retain your "sense of self" (your "I-ness") even if all your synapses were scanned and modelled in a machine. Would your "You-ness" still be located in the wet-ware of your brain, or in the external model therof?
jim
Posted: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:54:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 897
Points: 2,697
Wow - truly amazing! Here's why - just a year ago, the fastest supercomputer was IBM's BlueGene/L, clocking in at 280 Teraflops. That makes this one 4 times faster in 1 year. Moore's Law would be twice as fast in 2 years. So it does indeed seem that we are hurtling past Moore's Law. Since this is about the same order of magnitude as the human brain in terms of processing performance, I would say we will hit that point in just a couple more years.

Did you notice the Terminator 2 reference posted at the bottom of the article ("Within an hour of SkyNet becoming self-aware, it launched a nuclear strike..").

My thought on the "I-ness" question is that the "I-ness" has a little to do with my wetware as it would to a comparably complex silicon brain. I believe moving your "I-ness" may be one of those things that we aren't quite ready for, but is in keeping with the programmed reality model.
stendec
Posted: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:31:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
Hehe I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read the Terminator II quote about Skynet in that article.

It seems that multicore processing is exceeding the sum of its parts, in terms of smashing Moore's Law.

But records are still being made in single core processors:
http://www.physorg.com/news132845817.html

It shouldn't be too long before we see AMD-type multicores and suchlike being used in "supercomputers" too. It is truly breath-taking.

stendec
Posted: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:57:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
jim wrote:
My thought on the "I-ness" question is that the "I-ness" has a little to do with my wetware as it would to a comparably complex silicon brain. I believe moving your "I-ness" may be one of those things that we aren't quite ready for, but is in keeping with the programmed reality model.


If I understand you correctly, Jim, I guess you DO believe that I-ness can be transferred from the human wetware to a silicon machine.

In theory, if an exact copy were made of the wetware brain and then destroyed, "you" would still be "you" in the silicon model... and you wouldn't "miss" you wetware brain as such.

This is where I have my (admittedly unqualified) doubts about Kurzweil's assumption that people can fully survive biological death by "uploading". Whilst I fully agree with the notion of add-on capabilities to the brain, like chips to aid cognition [ I firmly believe that one of the first of these will be a "calculator ship" for those like myself who refuse to do mental arithmetic for all but the simplest of sums!!]

My reasoning behind the doubts I have, is a thought-experiment involving the Star-Trek transporter. Imagine it makes an exact replica of you, from the atom-scale upwards. You survive, rather than get vaporised, whilst your clone also continues. Now, this begs the question; are you in two places at once, is your "i-ness" in both your original body, and the "clone's" too?

My conjecture as to the answer (again, very unqualified) is that there is a shared "locality" of "i-ness" for a time, a kind of psychic connection if you will, [as if twins were born with a full quota of language and experiences, and then went on to develop individually thereafter, but they still retained this "psychic bond" that is very widely reported to exist with twins.]

This connection could be a quantum interaction of some sort, both brains acting as a kind of two-way radio-set to each other. I then supposed that this "locality" would become divergent over time, as the two brains went their separate ways in firing off different connections under the influence of slightly different experiences. This effect would probably be exacerbated if the clone and the original were to go their, separate ways, and into totally differing type of activity.

Of course, my "locality" argument could also be used to argue for the possibility of uploading your i-ness; if the original brain is destroyed at the same time as the copy is made, will the "i-ness" [read "soul"?] be transferred too?
jim
Posted: Sunday, June 22, 2008 10:58:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/19/2008
Posts: 897
Points: 2,697
I think the concept of sharing "i-ness" across multiple "machines" (here, using "machine" for both silicon and our bodies, oft referred to as a machine) is an interesting one. Is it possible? I often wonder about the difference in the way non-predatory animals process their visual input. As compared to us "predators," who have eyes on the same side of our head to facilitate focus, animals that are typically prey (e.g. deer, rabbits) have an eye on each side of their head. So their brain processes two completely different fields of vision and there is no concept of focusing. Sharing i-ness might be the same. The "i" has to integrate two sets of sensory stimuli, two sets of independent memories, etc. Frankly, I think it would be enough to drive one mad.

So, it is my best guess that the location of the "i-ness" is chosen by the "i" A Trekian replicator would only result in a single entity with a soul, the other being a cheap facsimile. Think
stendec
Posted: Monday, June 23, 2008 3:21:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
jim wrote:
The "i" has to integrate two sets of sensory stimuli, two sets of independent memories, etc. Frankly, I think it would be enough to drive one mad.


I agree, that this would be enough to drive US mad, as we are now; but I also wonder whether such a shared consciousness could become another type of "i-ness" of its own. A bit like the way conjoined twins cope with their physical integration. Or a bi like the collective consciousness of the Borg (to use another Trekian analogy).
stendec
Posted: Monday, June 23, 2008 3:25:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
jim wrote:
animals that are typically prey (e.g. deer, rabbits) have an eye on each side of their head. So their brain processes two completely different fields of vision and there is no concept of focusing. Sharing i-ness might be the same.


Very interesting, I'd never have thought of it that way. a kind of "bicameral consciousness" if you will.

The shared consciousness could perhaps be like two hemispheres of the brain communicating with each other, except that there are really four hemispheres; quad-core computing on a human level. Weird!
stendec
Posted: Monday, June 23, 2008 3:33:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
jim wrote:
So, it is my best guess that the location of the "i-ness" is chosen by the "i" A Trekian replicator would only result in a single entity with a soul, the other being a cheap facsimile. Think


This is where things get very "metaphysical" isn't it. This are is much more a matter of beliefs, I think.
It could well be that some day (and perhaps sooner than people think?) we might actually prove the existence of a "soul" by doing things like uploading / mind-cloning etc.

I'm really not sure which side of the fence I come down on here, in some ways my beliefs are split:

On the one hand I don't believe that your "i-ness" can uploaded to a separate machine [ which would in some ways be an argument FOR a soul of some sort]

But on the other hand, I do believe that a truly replicated brain - a "clone or facsimile" built from the atom up, WOULD have some sense of i-ness of its own. [ am I therefore arguing that a soul is created as soon as a "conscious" entity becomes self-aware]

Does sense of self, or I-ness = soul? Another debate beckons....
Neo
Posted: Monday, August 04, 2008 2:10:32 PM
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 3/21/2008
Posts: 528
Points: 1,584
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Maybe we should have a "Post-2050" timeline, which could be fun, where people could predict all the outlandish stuff. I'd love to hear some of yours, Neo.


Hi stendec, sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this one. The post-Singularity predictions don't seem to interest me as much as the pre-Singularity ones. I was planning to do a timeline like yours but I'd need some time to mull it over (er..think I said that already). Here are three entries for starters:

2018 - Solar power comes of age due mainly to developments in nanotechnology and is adopted worldwide, putting other fuels in the shade.

2022 - human life expectancy begins to increase at over a year per year (Kurzweil)

2025 - molecular manufacturing becomes ubiquitous (too radical?)

p.s. - I attributed a quote ('Singularity as a rupture in the facric of human history') to Vinge at the beginning of this thread. It was actually Kurzweil's quote. Mea culpa.

There is no spoon.
stendec
Posted: Sunday, August 10, 2008 5:07:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member

Joined: 4/11/2008
Posts: 76
Points: 131
Location: UK
" Solar power .....putting other fuels in the shade." I like that, Neo, it's catchy.

Yes, I to think it's much more interesting, and realistic, to concentrate on pre-Singularity predictions as in the timelines we're compiling.

Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Universe Solved Theme Created by Jim Elvidge (Universe Solved)
Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.2 (NET v2.0) - 9/27/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
This page was generated in 0.192 seconds.