I think that Amdahl’s law “proved” mathematically that parallelism was bounded by the inherently linear nature of any problem. However, it became apparent which the human brain which solves very complex problems operates at extremely slow speed compared to a computer, and therefore must me massively parallel. Even if the theory is correct, it is meaningless in practical terms.Actually, a pair of physicists have discovered what is apparently the universal speed limit for computers. They claim this limit is as unbreakable as the speed of light. In other words, it is a law of physics. See here: blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2009/10/the-ultimate-speed-limit-for-c.html
From the article:
“‘No system can overcome that limit. It doesn’t depend on the physical nature of the system or how it’s implemented, what algorithm you use for computation … any choice of hardware and software,’ Levitin said. ‘This bound poses an absolute law of nature, just like the speed of light.’”
While I am sure there might be “short cuts” like there are for FTL travel, they’re probably prohibitively energy intensive and unlikely to occur for thousands of years. And it would only be a short cut, not actually breaking the limit. While computers can do amazing things, their potential is not one of omnipotency.
I have heard about cognitive changes occurring as a result of computers, especially in younger people. I doubt these changes are as significant as some try to claim. We’re still homo sapiens with roughly the same ability and skills before. Naturally, we will change somewhat as time passes. Something important to remember here, especially when discussing “guided evolution” is whether or not these kinds of changes can be passed onto one’s descendants. The minor cognitive changes that have resulted from the use of computers probably isn’t the result of a mutation that can pass onto progeny. Sort of a temporary change, don’t you think?
The issue of biological engineering is another issue. It is another area of promise, though again it probably has its limits. There is, after all, only so much that biological matter can do. Probably the most interesting changes coming in the 21st century will be partial merger of man and machine. There are obvious moral and ethical issues attached to that. Something like that is way above my pay grade.
I’m not as concerned. These changes are coming, to be sure, but they’re not going to appear overnight. We’ll meet the challenges as they come and remember the promise made to us by God, that we will not fail. We’ve survived intense, brutal persecutions and attempt to eradicate the Church. The advent of man-machine humans probably won’t overwhelm us.
My problem with the reductionist approach is that some people, including researchers, confuse reductionist methodology with some kind of ontological reductionism. Even if a future neuroscience can completely explain consciousness, it doesn’t justify the “nothing-buttery” argument.
Agreed, computational power of our machines is growing at a fantastic rate.I really have more questions than opinions on the topic. It is clear that the power of computers is increasing exponentially. As has been pointed out, this has actually changed our own cognition. With the advances in biological engineering, and the synergies which can be achieved with computational changes, there will be some remarkable changes which are difficult to predict or even comprehend now.
Why is it most arguments I see that have little to do with the church eventually break down into some kind of complaint about the church?An area which I do hold an opinion is that one of the hallmarks of government is that it fails to adapt rapidly enough to the pace of change today, and in the recent past. This is also true of the Church, and every other large religious organization. The intermediate term future will hold some very real challenges. I know that many people love Benedict XVI, and no doubt he is a great man. However, I think he may have been a very poor choice as a leader of a Church which has struggled so even in the recent past, if the hope is to remain a viable institution in the future.
So what is the question?But putting my opinion aside. I am hardly an expert, and even if I were, the future is unpredictable. There are some very complex moral implications of the changes that are taking place. If you accept that evolution and natural selection were God’s plan, then we are artificially accelerating that and interfering with it, as Meltzerboy has pointed out. The thought patterns of his students are changing rapidly as a result of their interaction with these technologies. Microprocessors are being used medically to enhance people. This field is about to explode. Experimental artificial limbs which are powered by cerebral neural impulses are a reality.
There is a fascination with the reductionist approach to understanding the brain, I think because of recent advances in imaging, and other technologies, This in turn may lead to a more abstract understanding of brain function, and the synthesis of the specific biological correlates to behavioral sciences on a broader scale. When this is achieved, then the engineering of a machine which has more human personality characteristics is not a far fetched idea.
I don’t think the “speed limit” referenced in my link is simply Amdahl’s law. Regardless, what it does show is that there are limits to what our computers can do. All this hype about exponentially increasing computer speeds ignores or attempts to downplay things like the laws of physics. In my frank opinion, all this stuff is just an attempt to replace God with technology. Supposedly, without any real evidence, we’re told by folks like Ray Kurzweil that our computers will eventually become superintelligent, merge with us, and remake the universe into something “better.” What we have is, basically, a technological version of the Second Coming, general resurrection and eternal life, and the New Creation.I think that Amdahl’s law “proved” mathematically that parallelism was bounded by the inherently linear nature of any problem. However, it became apparent which the human brain which solves very complex problems operates at extremely slow speed compared to a computer, and therefore must me massively parallel. Even if the theory is correct, it is meaningless in practical terms.
Well, of course Einstein rejected the idea of the underlying principles now being used to achieve quantum teleportation. Assumptions and “laws” in science are regularly changed in response to new data. Einsteins supporters would point out that there is a critical piece of information, which is the spin of the particle, which must be transmitted for teleportation to work, and that this information cannot be transmitted at speeds exceeding the speed of light, though every other characteristic of the particle travels at velocity exceeding C.I don’t think the “speed limit” referenced in my link is simply Amdahl’s law. Regardless, what it does show is that there are limits to what our computers can do. All this hype about exponentially increasing computer speeds ignores or attempts to downplay things like the laws of physics. In my frank opinion, all this stuff is just an attempt to replace God with technology. Supposedly, without any real evidence, we’re told by folks like Ray Kurzweil that our computers will eventually become superintelligent, merge with us, and remake the universe into something “better.” What we have is, basically, a technological version of the Second Coming, general resurrection and eternal life, and the New Creation.
Not really, though I’d be interested what, in your opinion, some specific examples might be.The Church, of course, has struggled with understanding science over time, and even today struggles with core concepts in biology.
I’m also skeptical of any claim, like the unlimited power or potential of computers, offered without any real evidence in this regard, and then spun off into countless speculations that a group of mostly anti-religious people then base their lives on. I am not, of course, saying you have done this. I actually know nothing about you. But most of the transhumanists and singularitarians I’ve met seem to be just as “faithful” as any devout Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. With no real scientific evidence, mostly just some arguments that are eerily similar to philosophical arguments dressed up in scientific language, they believe in the inevitability of the coming Singularity and the merger of man and machine. There is nothing really science based there, just a modern neo-gnosticism dressed in the language of science and computing. At this point, though, I don’t think discussions of feasibility will benefit us. You do believe this is all a strong, perhaps inevitable, outcome of our technological advances. While I don’t rule it out as a possibility, I don’t think any serious evidence has been offered in favor of it (here or anywhere else).Personally, I am skeptical of anyone who claims to prove physical limitations,
The key is to assert that there are no physical limits, indeed limits of any kind, and that wild speculations are inevitable. I don’t mean to sound rude but that is what most of this is.This thread is a rehash of the ‘mysterious power of the computer.’
It makes for a good conversation, but ultimately the ‘power’ here is not nearly so powerful.
The Church does not need to “change.”.
As has been said (CS Lewis?) “Those who keep up with the times finally end up where all times go.”
Let us not confuse the development of our technology with real human change. Human beings are the same they were centuries ago, mind, body, and life. And it would not take much more than a major solar flare to negate all of our technological hubris.
Human life will never “evolve” past the perfection of our LORD. In fact, it can never get there, no matter the technology it creates.
The Church is by far the oldest human institution. It is many times older than some we trust our life to. And it will be there the day the world ends, without knuckling under to outside or grassroots pressure for “change.”
ICXC NIKA.
Not really, though I’d be interested what, in your opinion, some specific examples might be.
I’m also skeptical of any claim, like the unlimited power or potential of computers, offered without any real evidence in this regard, and then spun off into countless speculations that a group of mostly anti-religious people then base their lives on. I am not, of course, saying you have done this. I actually know nothing about you. But most of the transhumanists and singularitarians I’ve met seem to be just as “faithful” as any devout Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. With no real scientific evidence, mostly just some arguments that are eerily similar to philosophical arguments dressed up in scientific language, they believe in the inevitability of the coming Singularity and the merger of man and machine. There is nothing really science based there, just a modern neo-gnosticism dressed in the language of science and computing. At this point, though, I don’t think discussions of feasibility will benefit us. You do believe this is all a strong, perhaps inevitable, outcome of our technological advances. While I don’t rule it out as a possibility, I don’t think any serious evidence has been offered in favor of it (here or anywhere else).
Let’s say this does happen, then what? I see several outcomes. They depend on a couple of factors, of course. If we develop a self-enhancing AGI without augmenting our own intelligence at around the same time, I think the AGI could do one of several things. It might just leave the Earth for parts unknown. Who says it wants to merge with us? Another option is that, without merging with us, it does use our molecules, along with everything else on the planet, as material for more computronium. The other option is that the AGI really is benevolent. In this case, it allows humans to augment themselves and merge with machines. In my frank opinion, you can’t transfer a consciousness (mind uploading) from one body to another. You can only create a copy. So while you might ensure that your memory and maybe parts of your personality might survive for a very long time, you have not truly ensured your own survival. In other words, humans can not literal merge with the machines and become totally one.
However, varying degrees of cyborgization might be possible. Obviously, the Church has said very little about the ethics involved in this and I imagine a middle ground might be possible. Still, we’d need to augment our intelligence (nanobots in the brain, neural chips?) in order to “compete” with the machines. At a certain point, if we completely obliterate our brain, we’ve slowly done what a typical mind uploading would have done: destroyed ourselves and created a machine copy. It might not be worth the effort, unless you consider a computer with your memories as a genuine continuation of yourself. Similar scenarios, and problems, arise if we’re augmenting our intelligence at the same time we’re creating AGI. I don’t have time to go into those right now. My question to you is this: what happens to human beings that refuse to participate in the enhancements and choose to remain thoroughly biological and human?
The key is to assert that there are no physical limits, indeed limits of any kind, and that wild speculations are inevitable. I don’t mean to sound rude but that is what most of this is.
Whoa there, I did not say it doesn’t exist. This is a typical accusation made against those skeptical of Singularitarian claims. It has no merit. I have not denied that our computers are getting more powerful. What we are discussing is the idea of a super-intelligence begetting even more advanced super-intelligences. That is a hypothesis. It can be neither proven nor disproven at this time. We don’t know the ultimate limits of things like intelligence, computer technology, etc. Folks like Vernor Vinge and Ray Kurzweil have provided impressive arguments in favor but these arguments are not conclusive and have been met with serious rebuttals. There are so many unanswered questions that words like “probably,” “inevitable,” “likely,” and so forth are completely uncalled for. However, as I have already said, I am not interested in discussing feasibility. I lack the credentials to do so. Let’s move on, please.I have never suggested that there are no physical limits. I have never suggested that computer have the potential to unlimited power.
History has shown though, that the understanding of man changes over time. Previous notions of “limits” are periodically replaced with ideas which show that the original understanding was limited.
All I said was that it seems quite possible that computers will continue to increase in power, and if the current trends continue, which show now signs of lessening, that machines will become more intelligent by any measure than people. Considering that they will probably continue to grow more powerful even from that point in a exponential fashion, they will become god-like. I did not say God - like.
It interesting how challenging people find this apparent trend to be, even to the point of denying that it even exists.
Then pray tell where the sequence you provided ends:I have never suggested that there are no physical limits. I have never suggested that computer have the potential to unlimited power.
Sound like a suggestion towards infinity.Can you imagine your dog mastering you, or a bacterium perhaps? At the current pace (see moore’s law), there will be computers substantially more capable than humans within about 20 years. If this apparent prediction is true, then it is fair to expect that computers 1.000 times more capable than a human will be a reality within 30 years, and one million times more capable within 40 years, a billion in 50, a trillion in 60…