What are your top 5 technologies of the next 15 years?

[Chemahkuu]

sojourner wrote:

---

No, you believe the mind can be uploaded into a virtual reality sim in a computer. Totally different. Totally.

And this will come about by, or resolve instantly during or after, every socio-economic problem in the world within our lifetimes.

Totally believeable.

[RAMA]

Chrysalis wrote:

---

And this will come about by, or resolve instantly during or after, every socio-economic problem in the world within our lifetimes.

Totally believeable.

Silly response, especially since not every socio-economic problem needs to be solved for this technology to occur. Also, look back on this thread carefully, I took great pains to cite ways to mitigate potential economic, legal, political issues, et al, and provide links to how this is being achieved.

RAMA

[RAMA]

sojourner wrote:

---

No, you believe the mind can be uploaded into a virtual reality sim in a computer. Totally different. Totally.

This is a technological and biological issue, not a theological one, and it is derived from exponential info technologies that are being developed right NOW. Its the mathematical progression of info processing power that leads to the conclusion that the brain can be quantified, and that an understanding can be achieved and utilized from our own ends.

Coincidentally, even since I posted regularly on this thread, lots of developments have been made in these areas, and Kurzweil will have a new book out examining how the brain (and mind) can be created artificially.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Create-Min.../dp/0670025291

Proof the memories are physical, not conceptual:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...vidual-neurons

These are the people who will make it happen, not the naysayers:

https://chronicle.com/article/The-St...nce-of/132819/

http://www.kurzweilai.net/mind-uploa...for-first-time

Whether or not the Singularity happens, I am 100% certain brain uploading is a likelihood.

[Crazy Eddie]

RAMA wrote:

---

This is a technological and biological issue, not a theological one, and it is derived from exponential info technologies that are being developed right NOW.

This has been pointed out to you before, Rama, but it's considerably more likely that those technologies are developing on a logistical curve, not an exponential one. That means they will not continue to grow indefinitely, that their rate of growth will begin to taper at a certain point and eventually plateau at a point of diminishing returns, where a massive investment in research and advancement would be required for even minor improvement.

[Chemahkuu]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

This has been pointed out to you before, Rama...

And he continues to ignore it and pine for his digirature will all the zeal and ignorance of any fanatic, don't bother wasting more time on the oaf.

[gturner]

A person's soul can exist inside a machine just fine, although it might have to co-exist with the machine's soul in some sort of pairing. Even the Data General Eclipse, a 32-bit minicomputer, had a soul, which Tracy Kidder wrote about back in the 1980's.

[Chemahkuu]

Now you know all pre-megabyte era computers are going to Hell.

[RAMA]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

This has been pointed out to you before, Rama, but it's considerably more likely that those technologies are developing on a logistical curve, not an exponential one. That means they will not continue to grow indefinitely, that their rate of growth will begin to taper at a certain point and eventually plateau at a point of diminishing returns, where a massive investment in research and advancement would be required for even minor improvement.

Yes, and I've already countered this argument 2 or 3 times.

RAMA

[Crazy Eddie]

^ And the last two times you "countered" it on this board by either ignoring it and continuing to speculate on how exponential growth would effect technology, or you changed the subject to something else entirely.

The possibility of a point of "diminishing returns" is really a dash of cold water on the very CONCEPT of "singularity theory." It posits the very strong likelihood that we will eventually reach a point where computer technology cannot be improved any further, where AIs cannot get any smarter, microchips can't get any smaller or faster, and brain-machine/body integration cannot get any smoother or any less awkward without massive expenditures for very little gain. At that point, what appear to be exponentially growing technologies crystallize into things that remain relatively unchanged for thousands of years and whatever we have working at that point is what we're stuck with for the long term.

Do you allow for that in your predictions, or do you simply wish it away and go on imagining?

[RAMA]

newtype_alpha wrote:

---

^ And the last two times you "countered" it on this board by either ignoring it and continuing to speculate on how exponential growth would effect technology, or you changed the subject to something else entirely.

The possibility of a point of "diminishing returns" is really a dash of cold water on the very CONCEPT of "singularity theory." It posits the very strong likelihood that we will eventually reach a point where computer technology cannot be improved any further, where AIs cannot get any smarter, microchips can't get any smaller or faster, and brain-machine/body integration cannot get any smoother or any less awkward without massive expenditures for very little gain. At that point, what appear to be exponentially growing technologies crystallize into things that remain relatively unchanged for thousands of years and whatever we have working at that point is what we're stuck with for the long term.

Do you allow for that in your predictions, or do you simply wish it away and go on imagining?

Actually I directly countered it, as far back as before this thread started, on other threads. I did it first on the origins of science fiction "firsts" thread that I started. I still stand by it and see nothing new to change my mind on it.

[RAMA]

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=192745

This has something to do with my response...

RAMA

[sojourner]

One example of one advance is not evidence to support an exponential curve of further advances.

[Crazy Eddie]

RAMA wrote:

---

Actually I directly countered it, as far back as before this thread started, on other threads. I did it first on the origins of science fiction "firsts" thread that I started. I still stand by it and see nothing new to change my mind on it.

You countered it the same way you did just now: by posting links to more technologies you assumed would continue to grow exponentially.

You DO realize, of course, that nanotube-based microchips could very well bring about the flattening curve whose existence you continue to deny; depending on the expense of actually producing those nanotubes and the difficulty of reducing their size and/or increasing their speed, we could already be approaching that point of diminishing returns where further advancement fails to yield an increase in performance.

[RAMA]

sojourner wrote:

---

One example of one advance is not evidence to support an exponential curve of further advances.

*sigh* There are mountains of evidence, in fact, it's not in dispute...however, by posting that link, I'm leading you guys to what I've said earlier in other links rather than explain it all again. It's only one piece to the puzzle, not the whole.

RAMA

[sojourner]

Your puzzle pieces don't fit. That's what we've been trying to tell you.