the tech singularity

File: 1483799790914-g.jpg (55KB, 510x767px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 510x767px

thats a lot of words and statements with little arguments and context
iow wtf did I just read

>>59714812
Ray is known for making predictions in tech and displaying such predictions on graphs that point towards a singularity if that clears it up for you.

>>59714756
>It's intelligent design for the IQ 140 people
stopped reading there

File: Screenshot_20161005_231803.png (24KB, 118x120px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 118x120px

No.

>>59714756
I fucking hope.

I need to see this. I need to experience complete control

File: 1491050236691.jpg (10KB, 250x240px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x240px

>>59714756
Is the OP a bot?

>>59714884

You never will. What is the universe without sight, sound, smell and touch? They are all human experiences, take them away and the universe as you know it doesn't exist, but that's how it does exist.

He's correct.

The issue is that the notion of e.g. an AI explosion is based on extremely fallacious arguments. Essentially, the logic is the same as that famous example that "proves" that all Canadians have the same birthday.

It belies our modern age's fascination with engineering and complete and utter lack of understanding of science. The same reason skepticism now means to blindly throw oneself at the feet of standard academic practice, rather than actual intellectual skepticism. The fedora mindset.

These people are sometimes quite intelligent, as with Kurzweil, who is definitely extremely capable and intelligent. That only makes them better at deluding themselves, however.

>>59714756
The only people who believe in genuinely intelligent AI are those who are not programmers.

>pieces of the code have aligned
>the code was not supposed to do this
>the program has developed self awareness
>we have pulled the plug on this pc, but the AI is keeping it on through sheer willpower
This is just gibberish.

>>59714905
how can you know those are only human experiences when you don't know anything different?

I would like to see scientific proof of what happens to your consciousness after death. We know the organs fail and the brain dies but the "being" that inhabits the wetware inside us cannot possibly just disappear from the universe.
I have a theory that life forms we see physically are natural machines, and their existence, evolution, and development is driven by a powerful, self-replicating, self-coding software that operates within the mind of all beings, slowly and steadily collecting information until the consciousness is complex enough to require a more complex organism -- that is, a better computer to run on.

We have all been on this earth since the very dawn of life. Those who are humans now probably started under control of single-celled organisms in primordial tide pools, gradually evolving physically and mentally into creatures intelligent enough to wax philosophically about the implications of exponential technological growth.
When we start actually building computers powerful enough to replicate the human mind, I think we may find a consciousness take residence within it before any actual programming is done, simply because it would be a suitable vessel for a ex-human whose consciousness has evolved beyond humanity.

I personally believe in the idea that we exist so the universe may observe itself.

>>59715065
AI is possible with philosophy + syllogism + multi-paradigm PLs

AI is pseudo-immortal. Self sustenance and ease of replication comes in mind.

File: aab7516a58785c1f3400adb88ea15546234868a6e3988b08f70f6b713c41c75d.jpg (13KB, 720x316px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 720x316px

>>59715128
>We know the organs fail and the brain dies but the "being" that inhabits the wetware inside us cannot possibly just disappear from the universe.

I'm curious how you came to acquire this knowledge.

>>59714756
>Is he right?
Of course.
There's always been a tendency in science in general to opt for mysticism over having no explanation. Scientists can't abide a theory void. Anything that looks good will do, and we're pre-wired to believe in ghosts and gods.

>>59714916
This.