[extropy-chat] Kurzweil reviewed in Weekend Australian newspaper

Robert Bradbury robert.bradbury at gmail.com
Sat Dec 17 13:14:09 UTC 2005


On 12/16/05, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17557088%255E5001986,00.html
>
> Singularly fanciful
> Andres Vaccari


[snip]

Also central to Kurzweil's argument is the notion that our minds can be
> copied into computers built in the image of the brain. This runs up
> against
> gigantic problems and relies on several unproven assumptions. The
> information sciences have sparked the mystic belief that everything is
> made
> of ethereal data and that consciousness or identity can be separated from
> the complex electro-biochemical dynamics of the brain. This is a curious
> technological rewriting of the notion of the individual soul, transcendent
> from embodiment. It may be a reassuring story but there's no evidence to
> support it. Kurzweil believes the simulation of intelligence (or
> consciousness, he can't see the difference) is a matter of fast processing
> power.


"Soul" has nothing to do with it and he is misusing the term.  From at least
one dictionary, "soul" - "the immaterial essence, animating principle, or
actuating cause of an individual life".  Kurzweil is *not* postulating
anything immaterial.  He is simply pointing out that the hardware (material)
required to support the "essence" or "animation" can be changed.  Sounds
like Andres is attached to the "romantic" notion that "oneself" *has* to be
tied to a specific hardware instantiation.  And as someone who wrote a
simulator for a PDP-10 that ran on a PDP-11 (mind you somewhat slowly) I
would significantly question any assumption that links "essence" to
"hardware".

And he has some ideas on how to handle
> the accompanying strain on economic and natural resources: nanobots will
> produce all the energy we need, cheaply and in an environmentally
> sustainable manner. And the oil giants needn't worry, as the nanobots will
> clean the environment too.


 Hand waving with no substantive argument as to *why* this will not be the
case or what the actual limits *really* are.  Kurzweil at least takes a stab
at what the actual limits are but I think there are ultimately problems with
his approach (more on this if I someday actually finish TSIN).

For most of its history, technology has remained inseparable from religion,
> illusionism and magical thinking. Things haven't changed much and modern
> science and technology continue to inspire beliefs as baroque as anything
> concocted by our forebears. The road to the uncertain future is littered
> with the carcasses of brave new worlds that never were.


Fails to distinguish between hopes & dreams which violated hard laws of
science (or were made before those laws were discovered) and those which are
in general agreement with those laws.

So far, the only reliable law of futurism was pronounced by J.G. Ballard:
> "If enough people predict something, it won't happen."


An interesting quote but one with no facts in evidence (unless one wants to
limit it to predictions which violate physical laws).

The review is an interesting summary of Ray's perspective but provides
nothing substantive to indicate real flaws in the argument.

Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051217/cae28b32/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list