+ Follow

• 585 views

Critics of Kurzweil’s "vision" of the future have several objections: (1) Machines will never be conscious (variety of reasons) (2) We should return to a simpler life with sic

Critics of Kurzweil’s "vision" of the future have several objections: (1) Machines will never be conscious (variety of reasons) (2) We should return to a simpler life with sickness and death as part of our humanity, (3) the data has been misinterpreted/trends can’t be extrapolated and (4) previous AI claims failed OR our current technology can’t perform the job therefore it can’t be done. Oddly, the last is quite popular despite it’s being the one most easily refutable. In 1930 we could not build a nuclear device therefore why try? In 1960 we could not "fly to the moon" therefore we never would. In 1990 we could not catalogue the human genome therefore we would forever wonder. Our relentless drive to the unknown future is like Einstein’s thought problem of riding a light beam - things appear normal to the observer. We are used to the increasing pace of technological change and can only catch limited glimpses of that future as it grows steadily nearer. We are all familiar with the rosy future of Ray vs the often gloomy and pessimistic vision of many of his detractors. Is the middle ground the answer? Kurzweil answers his critics directly. They challenge not only his idea of a spiritual machine but also his methodology, research, interpretations and conclusions. Is a rate of change linear because exponential change is the norm? Can past predictions (failed or achieved) be a harbinger of future predictions? What does it mean to be human when one is not 100% flesh and blood? Penrose contends that the structure of the brain is the key to consciousness yet our minds emerge from matter with electronic circuits - no mystical outside force or higher power is required. An old movie had the line that when you can’t tell the difference between a machine and a human, the machine is effectively human. Does it matter if Big Blue is not "thinking" about chess yet performs so admirably? Who cares if machines turn Japanese into English without "concentrating" on it? Yet Kurzweil insists that downloading and uploading the structure of the human brain will eventually bring forth a spirit that like out own, that is a product of its material base but also separate from it.