AI

[Rock_Happy]

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… and so on.

In order to keep up with the machines, and also in line with the current trends in miniaturization, it is expected that humans will require implanted nano devices in order to even comprehend what is going on.

I’m rambling a bit, but it seems that there is a question of where the merging process continues, we will become larger than human. When do we become gods? It seems inevitable that we will be biologically infiltrated by nanobots, and connected to a networked virtual reality. While the virtual world will have the same attributes as the real world, it will transcend that world and our biological bodies will seem trivial and obsolete.

The end game is possible immortality.

Once we plug in, omniscience in the human sense is possible.

The pantheistic concept of God is becoming more eloquent and realistic than the unitary exposition which is fundamental to Catholicism. Will Catholicism disappear within a few decades? This seems to be a reasonable prediction.

 

[JackVk]

Ever read Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, or observe the outcomes of attempts to create perfect worlds like Marxism, Fascism, cults, etc? See how embryonic stem cell research has not turned up any results?

See the pattern? Every Tower of Babel we try to make blows up in our faces. Why is this one so different?

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

Will Catholicism disappear within a few decades? This seems to be a reasonable prediction.

Catholicism will never disappear. “The gates of hell shall not prevail.”

 

[stephe1987]

Nope. Catholicism might be persecuted or reduced to being underground because of the political correctness movement (i.e. forced-atheistic Soviet Union), but it won’t disappear.

Ancient religions are coming back and never completely went away. Wicca, new age ideas aren’t so new (they are pre-Christian ideas). Why would Catholicism go away?

 

[GEddie]

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.

They were saying this in 1985.

While the virtual world will have the same attributes as the real world, it will transcend that world and our biological bodies will seem trivial and obsolete.

Then “you” will be trivial and obsolete, since you are your body.

The end game is possible immortality.

.

Hardly. If your mind has been surpassed, and your body is “obsolete,” what then is left of the human being per se?

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

The pantheistic god is not more eloquent, it is the Transcendent God of Divine Revelation that is less understood because of the immanent logic of scientism. It appears that even today’s Christian is caught up in the current epoch’s judging religion, philosophy, man, sex, and even God by the same method we rightly use in biological sciences.

The metaphysical and ontological become devalued or even denied by being studied materialistically and man loses his inherent dignity as he is reduced to his material functions. Nothing, then, is seen in its perfection owing to the end it would have (and will have!) in the Light of Christ. “Behold, I make all things new”, the seed of which, here, is grace.

Grace perfects nature… but we have seemingly attenuated what we know of grace to what it’s material function is and our use of it because of the loss of the transcendent and the spiritual in favor of necessity and what is understandable. Heed the admonition to “Be not conformed to this world” and its current epoch with the devaluing of morals and it’s degrading impurity.

 

[vz71]

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… and so on.

We know that computers are getting faster at doing what they do.
But that is not the same thing as what people do.
And until we know what exactly goes on in the human brain, we cannot claim that a computer will ever be more capable then we are.

In order to keep up with the machines, and also in line with the current trends in miniaturization, it is expected that humans will require implanted nano devices in order to even comprehend what is going on.

The question remains…more capable of what? And does it make a difference?
These predictions are unfounded.

The end game is possible immortality.

Once we plug in, omniscience in the human sense is possible.
…
Will Catholicism disappear within a few decades? This seems to be a reasonable prediction.

Possible immortality within the small confines of our human capabilities.
I note ‘omnience in the human sense’…
Without knowing what the fullness of God’s plan for us, how can we know that this is it? That there is no more to strive for? That we will not perceive the shortfall and act towards God accordingly?
And last, Catholicism will not die. Many will see through the scenario just as I have.
Even as the prediction of the merger of biology and technology procedes, the mysteries of God will remain, and people will still worship as intended.

 

[Rock_Happy]

We know that computers are getting faster at doing what they do.
But that is not the same thing as what people do.
And until we know what exactly goes on in the human brain, we cannot claim that a computer will ever be more capable then we are.

The question remains…more capable of what? And does it make a difference?
These predictions are unfounded.

Possible immortality within the small confines of our human capabilities.
I note ‘omnience in the human sense’…
Without knowing what the fullness of God’s plan for us, how can we know that this is it? That there is no more to strive for? That we will not perceive the shortfall and act towards God accordingly?
And last, Catholicism will not die. Many will see through the scenario just as I have.
Even as the prediction of the merger of biology and technology procedes, the mysteries of God will remain, and people will still worship as intended.

Who knows if Kurzweil is correct. Moore’s law has been correct, while for a long time people were predicting every year that it would finally fail to be correct. If the current trends continue, then we will see more technical progress in 30-40 years than we saw in the past century, or the one thousand years prior to that. It is entirely possible that machines will surpass people in all areas of intelligence within a few decades.

If the exponential rates of technological progress continue in computational power and in miniaturization, then we will have god like machines outside of us and inside of us, in the sense that they are perhaps a billion times smarter than we are. This is not a far fetched idea, in light of the past 50 years of development in these fields.

When you combine this with advances in cellular engineering, it’s clear that evolution of the human species is coming under the potential control of man. Even if it were not, our Sun is only about 50% burned out, it is still good for us for some billions of years. This means that the human species has probably evolved only about one thousandth as much as it eventually will, even without the intervention of technology. Though some geneticists claim that natural evolution has stopped with the human species because there are not sufficient numbers of small gene pools, and medical technology so reduces the natural selection which might normally occur. Regardless of this, technology may be replacing nature in this context.

I am just curious about the religious perspective that folks have around here on this. It could certainly have some important implications for religion and the Church, which has struggled to adapt to the changing world, as it is. The type of change that I am talking about, which we may be on the threshold of, is far more fundamental and radical at the same time, and will be even harder to come to terms with.

The potential ethical and social justice issues are staggering.

 

[vz71]

Who knows if Kurzweil is correct. Moore’s law has been correct, while for a long time people were predicting every year that it would finally fail to be correct. If the current trends continue, then we will see more technical progress in 30-40 years than we saw in the past century, or the one thousand years prior to that. It is entirely possible that machines will surpass people in all areas of intelligence within a few decades.

All?
Without knowing exactly what goes on in your head, that is a tall order.
Other then crunching numbers really fast, what can a computer do?
Compare that to what a human being can do.
Humans are creative. Every library and museum on earth testifies to the creative power and genius of the human being.
How would you make a machine do this?
What is the first step?

I am sure that Moore would be proud, but ultimately it only creates a faster machine. It does not create a creative machine.

If the exponential rates of technological progress continue in computational power and in miniaturization, then we will have god like machines outside of us and inside of us, in the sense that they are perhaps a billion times smarter than we are. This is not a far fetched idea, in light of the past 50 years of development in these fields.

You do not seem to understand.
There is more then simply number crunching capability.
It does not matter how fast a computer is. There are aspects of intelligence that computational power simply will not cover.

 

[Rock_Happy]

All?
Without knowing exactly what goes on in your head, that is a tall order.
Other then crunching numbers really fast, what can a computer do?
Compare that to what a human being can do.
Humans are creative. Every library and museum on earth testifies to the creative power and genius of the human being.
How would you make a machine do this?
What is the first step?

I am sure that Moore would be proud, but ultimately it only creates a faster machine. It does not create a creative machine.

You do not seem to understand.
There is more then simply number crunching capability.
It does not matter how fast a computer is. There are aspects of intelligence that computational power simply will not cover.

You illustrate my point well. You are still thinking of computers as they were 10 or more years ago. They do far more than crunch numbers. Keep in mind that your own brain is a binary system which is massively parallel. Your neurons operate at very low speed, compared to a semi conductor gate. As parallel processing is better understood, and indeed the architecture and function of the human mind becomes more known (with the aid of computers), it is not unreasonable to predict a coming age of creativity from computers which surpasses anything that man has achieved. Reproducing the abilities of the human brain will only be a starting point.

It was more than a decade ago that the Shuttle was having some software issues which could not be diagnosed easily by humans. The reason was that the code in question was generated automatically, because its complexity, and so was not fully understood by the human engineers.

 

[vz71]

You illustrate my point well.

You have missed the point.

You are still thinking of computers as they were 10 or more years ago. They do far more than crunch numbers. Keep in mind that your own brain is a binary system which is massively parallel.

That seems a stretch. Do you have some kind of scientific study to back this?
You claim to know how the brain operates.
Further, you claim it operates as a computer does.
Sorry, I do not buy into that. We are more then machines.
I am asking you to back this conjecture with some kind of reference material.

… Reproducing the abilities of the human brain will only be a starting point.

A feat not easily done with so little understanding of what actually is going on in the brain.

It was more than a decade ago that the Shuttle was having some software issues which could not be diagnosed easily by humans. The reason was that the code in question was generated automatically, because its complexity, and so was not fully understood by the human engineers.

You misunderstand the difficulty.
It is not a difficulty in understanding the code complexity, it is a difficulty in not having the proper documentation.
All they did was turn over the coding process to a program.
The program did its job, and they had code that was not fully documented.
If I am handed a book, I will have to read it (sometimes a few times) to understand it…because I am not the author, not because it is too complex.

The abilty to do a complex task does not mean a machine is any closer to thinking as a human.

What series of 1’s and 0’s would you put together to create love?
Humans love every day. No one has any idea how to make a machine love.
What series of 1’s and 0’s would you put together to create hate?
Humans hate every day. And no one has any idea how to make a machine hate.

We can make a machine as complex as we want, we are in no danger of making a machine that can be human.

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

I am asking you to back this conjecture with some kind of reference material.

And Steven Hawkings, although claims that the brain is a computer, is not a reliable source. He is not a biologist. For fair warning, in case you wanted to satisfy vz’s request for reference material.

 

[vz71]

And Steven Hawkings, although claims that the brain is a computer, is not a reliable source. He is not a biologist. For fair warning, in case you wanted to satisfy vz’s request for reference material.

In actuality, my stance has more to do with the fact that much more of man has to do with philosophy then empirical science.

We may be able to teach machines to mimic life, but we will not in the forseeable future teach a machine to love.

 

[meltzerboy]

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… and so on.

In order to keep up with the machines, and also in line with the current trends in miniaturization, it is expected that humans will require implanted nano devices in order to even comprehend what is going on.

I’m rambling a bit, but it seems that there is a question of where the merging process continues, we will become larger than human. When do we become gods? It seems inevitable that we will be biologically infiltrated by nanobots, and connected to a networked virtual reality. While the virtual world will have the same attributes as the real world, it will transcend that world and our biological bodies will seem trivial and obsolete.

The end game is possible immortality.

Once we plug in, omniscience in the human sense is possible.

The pantheistic concept of God is becoming more eloquent and realistic than the unitary exposition which is fundamental to Catholicism. Will Catholicism disappear within a few decades? This seems to be a reasonable prediction.

Yes, we are surely on the frontier of a brave new world. And the technological changes you speak of are already happening albeit in a somewhat less sophisticated way. Even now, we are in the process of losing touch with our humanity; just look at how we “communicate” online, living in a virtual reality, with virtual friends and virtual conversations. Hardly any more music shops, book stores going out of business, hard copies of documents becoming obsolete, shopping and banking online, business conducted at home thanks to computer technology, a rapid growth of online education, multifaceted devices held in the palm of one’s hand, all of this is at once exhilarating and frightening. And no doubt much more is yet to come. Let’s hope that through it all we are able to retain our personal identity and moral dignity as humans.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I assume the OP is coming from a Singularitarian and/or Transhumanist background. While some great advances are certainly in store, much of the speculation offered by Singularitarians is just that, pure speculation. While I do expect significant advances in areas like nanotechnology, AI/robotics, and genetic engineering, I hardly see how the more extravagant claims are backed up by more than a good imagination.

However, let us assume that we can create an AI that exceeds all human intelligence. What is the next step? Our OP proposes that we will eventually merge with the machines and live in a virtual reality. This is a very typical claim of Singularitarians. Have you actually considered the issue of the continuity of personal identity? What makes this machine and/or virtual copy of you, well, you? What constitutes identity?

Personally, I’ve never heard a Singularitarian convincingly address this issue. It is filled with problems. As far as I can tell, the most you can do is create a copy of yourself. Nothing more. Call me crazy but I don’t consider that immortality.

 

[meltzerboy]

You illustrate my point well. You are still thinking of computers as they were 10 or more years ago. They do far more than crunch numbers. Keep in mind that your own brain is a binary system which is massively parallel. Your neurons operate at very low speed, compared to a semi conductor gate. As parallel processing is better understood, and indeed the architecture and function of the human mind becomes more known (with the aid of computers), it is not unreasonable to predict a coming age of creativity from computers which surpasses anything that man has achieved. Reproducing the abilities of the human brain will only be a starting point.

It was more than a decade ago that the Shuttle was having some software issues which could not be diagnosed easily by humans. The reason was that the code in question was generated automatically, because its complexity, and so was not fully understood by the human engineers.

Not only are computers developing at a rapid pace, but the human brain that is exposed to this new technology is slowly evolving with every new generation of young people. The students I work with at the university do not think and process information in the same way as students did several years ago.

In psychology, the cognitive revolution of the mind in the late 1960’s was divided between those psychologists who likened the mind to a computerized information processor and those who differentiated the mind from a computer by insisting that the mind is not merely logical in its thinking, but also rational, emotional, motivational, and socioculturally contextual. Then, in the 1980’s, came the emergence of cognitive neuroscience, which combined the psychology of the mind with the biology of the brain. We are now headed toward a more reductionist approach, further exploring the functioning of the biological brain and relegating the features and processes of the psychological mind to a minor, secondary role.

 

[mcteague]

Stories where intelligent computers take over the world are very popular. They make fun movies. Some people think now that computers play chess better than humans the end is near. But these concerns are silly. Computers are machines. I can not run faster than my car. This does not make me feel humans are obsolete, or that mankind is doomed.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Not only are computers developing at a rapid pace, but the human brain that is exposed to this new technology is slowly evolving with every new generation of young people. The students I work with at the university do not think and process information in the same way as students did several years ago.

In psychology, the cognitive revolution of the mind in the late 1960’s was divided between those psychologists who likened the mind to a computerized information processor and those who differentiated the mind from a computer by insisting that the mind is not merely logical in its thinking, but also rational, emotional, motivational, and socioculturally contextual. Then, in the 1980’s, came the emergence of cognitive neuroscience, which combined the psychology of the mind with the biology of the brain. We are now headed toward a more reductionist approach, further exploring the functioning of the biological brain and relegating the features and processes of the psychological mind to a minor, secondary role.

In this thread, we have two issues. The first is that of artificial general intelligence (AGI). I see some promise to that idea. I think we might one day be able to create an intelligent conscious machine. I suspect, though, that this machine will be less like our computers today and more like a “bio-computer” of sorts. That is just my guess. The other issue raised in this thread is the OP’s statement about what this ultimately means for humankind. The OP seems to adopt a position that is common among transhumanists and singularitarians. I find such a position to be based on pure speculation without any empirical evidence to back it up. I’ve heard some scientists refer the OP’s idea that we will merge our minds with our machines (mind uploading) as “the rapture of the nerds.” Of course, I’m sure other experts in these fields might disagree. For anyone interested in the underlying idea behind the OP’s belief, check out this link: spectrum.ieee.org/static/singularity

 

[Rock_Happy]

In this thread, we have two issues. The first is that of artificial general intelligence (AGI). I see some promise to that idea. I think we might one day be able to create an intelligent conscious machine. I suspect, though, that this machine will be less like our computers today and more like a “bio-computer” of sorts. That is just my guess. The other issue raised in this thread is the OP’s statement about what this ultimately means for humankind. The OP seems to adopt a position that is common among transhumanists and singularitarians. I find such a position to be based on pure speculation without any empirical evidence to back it up. I’ve heard some scientists refer the OP’s idea that we will merge our minds with our machines (mind uploading) as “the rapture of the nerds.” Of course, I’m sure other experts in these fields might disagree. For anyone interested in the underlying idea behind the OP’s belief, check out this link: spectrum.ieee.org/static/singularity

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.

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.

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.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

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.

…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.