Secular High Priests peddle their version of Genesis. This time man ... creates man ... and in the process ... reduces himself to a machine. However the Scientific Saducees are smart enough to market this satanic hijacking of divine intent as a mere evolutionary "advance". Advance towards what?
Science reporter, BBC News, Boston
Machines will achieve human-level artificial intelligence by 2029, a leading US inventor has predicted.
Humanity is on the brink of advances that will see tiny robots implanted in people's brains to make them more intelligent, said Ray Kurzweil.
The engineer believes machines and humans will eventually merge through devices implanted in the body to boost intelligence and health.
Machines were already doing hundreds of things humans used to do, at human levels of intelligence or better, in many different areas, he said.
Man versus machine
"I've made the case that we will have both the hardware and the software to achieve human level artificial intelligence with the broad suppleness of human intelligence including our emotional intelligence by 2029," he said.
Humans and machines would eventually merge, by means of devices embedded in people's bodies and brains to improve their intelligence, predicted Mr Kurzweil.
"We're already a human machine civilisation; we use our technology to expand our physical and mental horizons and this will be a further extension of that."
4 comments:
Po Master (the opposite of Keye Luke's blind shaolin character) why you go round and round on the same short little leash barking at the same imaginary shadow?
Freshen your game brah.
Change it up, look at "the problematique" as you imagine it from a new angle.
Trust me DV, it's not gonna hurt you.
In Quest of Optimism Beyond the Edge
Reflections on the question
The Edge question to scientists itself raises the question as to the manner in which science can be described as "fundamentally optimistic" when "optimism" has never been considered a meaningful concept in conventional "science". How then can it be asserted to be "fundamentally optimistic"? Is it more appropriate to consider that scientists in some way believe themselves and the application of their methodology to be optimistic?
As a belief, how is such a belief to be distinguished from that associated with other "belief systems" ? This suggests that it might have been appropriate to consider how the question would have been answered within other belief systems -- as "states of mind" that consider themselves to be "fundamentally optimistic". Religions are an obvious example. If "put to the question", how would those of religious persuasion have addressed that question?
The question asserts that "Science figures out how things work and thus can make them work better". Presumably this assertion would also hold for other belief systems which would each consider that acceptance of their recommendations would "make things work better" -- if only through following the basic precepts of their preferred cognitive or spiritual discipline. Implicit in the 160 responses however is the technical application of scientific knowledge and the unquestioned positive evaluations of the consequences of such application (in a "fix-it" mode) -- which some at least would consider merit debate.
In a period suffering from hype and spin at the hands of every institution, discipline and belief system, it is unfortunate that the question included the assertion that "Much of the news... can be made good, thanks to ever deepening knowledge and ever more efficient and powerful tools and techniques".
The discussion below is effectively a commentary on the final assertion in the above question, namely that "Science, on its frontiers, poses more and ever better questions, ever better put."
You're welcome. I can't just stand idly by and let you keep slippin.....,
hey DV you saw Endgame right?
The Alex Jones movie...recent movie
Ok... Existential problematic thinking will occur and belief system opinions will exist.. by any combination of man and machine.
It does not change the dynamic of being a human or a machine even if you combine the two.
There will still be no accounting for belief.
Although computer knowledge may become less Oligarchic in terms of human control and lead the way in some sense to a better world.. there is still that existential problem of relating to this whole thing that can stump any machine or person.
Good poetry or bad. Beyond eating and screwing it comes down to good poetry or bad.
Oh... and End Game is bullshit for retards.
Libertarian crap for the Illuminati soldiers.
Only an ignorant person would think Alex Jones stuff has any value.
He does not know shit.
Post a Comment