Giving
By Bill Clinton
Clinton describes, how now that he has time, his world experiences in giving as a private person. He describes many NGO’s fund raising and giving processes. He describes giving of money, time, ideas, as well as different models of giving. He claims there are three trends leading to an increase in giving, the Internet, charitable giving, democracy, the third of which speaks to the ultimate price we have paid for a free and democratic Iraq. He didn’t say that in print, but I read it in the white space between the lines. While he described a stereo-typical agenda of a republican what you really come to appreciate is the non partisan tone in his overall message, a message to take note of. I also took note of his portrayal of a healthy and flourishing economy American economy under G. W. Bush (in print); a far cry from his party dogma, especially his wife. (“this administration…”)
While inspiring, the book takes on the persona of a Clinton rant, much like the one America endured in his farewell address. And to be kind it is much like Walt Whitman. I could hear his voice in my head and actually not only enjoyed it, but also came to grips with why so many folks like him. It is a rant because of the endless list of NGOs accompanied by their short dossier. The book engages the reader to begin shopping where he can plug in. I found one worth exploring called YAL. Young Arab Leaders is commissioned to making opportunity available to young Arabs. Their goal is to out-recruit bin-Laden. Another NGO of interest to me is called Seeds for Peace, which is centered on reconciliation. There is another NGO called HOPE here in Cincinnati focused on reaching out to our neighbors in South America. I was a little curious why the two organizations I am keen in Big Brother and Boy Scouts were over looked.
Where Clinton grabbed my respect was in his personal involvement in an Arkansas foundation. THEA founded by Clinton’s friends is a NGO for the promotion of Art where Clinton is a prime contributor and when you add up the numbers, they are significant. I most appreciate the discrete portrayal of his financial role. In his role in the tsunami and Katrina relief efforts I need to quote Clinton to be sure I get it right about the non partisan nature of giving: “The Efforts George Bush and I made to help people begin again benefited us more than those who received the funds. It also gave us the opportunity to rebuild a friendship that began almost twenty-five years ago, when he was vice president and I was a young governor. We’ve had a lot of fun traveling the United States and the world. Although we still have our political differences, we can laugh about them, even when arguing…”
When it came to the environment, a topic that requires non-partisan participation, Clinton began with a few alligator tears about how he could not get much past Congress in 1993. He ran into Newt Gingrich at the time. But then he quickly and gracefully moved on to admit that timing was just not there. He then described how now an organized marketplace and numerous NGOs has proven far more effective with far more potential than his plan. He specifically describes an organized marketplace whereby consumers purchase only goods that conform to the betterment of our world as a method of giving. He praised Al Gore for his Inconvenient Truth book/movie, aimed at fifth graders in my opinion; he did not recognize his old foe Newt Gingrich. Oddly enough the next book on my reading list is Contract With the Environment by New Gingrich speaking on the marketplace’s organization to cleaning up the environment. When Gingrich was asked if he was running for president he said, “no because like Gore I cannot accomplish what needs to be accomplished for the good of America with partisan politics in the way.” It is my hope Clinton reads Gingrich’s book and recognizes that you have to put the sword back in the stone for good to be 100% genuine. His campaign activity in support of his wife says he cannot do that, which is a shame.
In any case I highly recommend this book to all walks of life it is an inspiring prescription to a world of giving, which translates to a world of peace.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Singularity Is Near
Singularity Is Near
by Ray Kurzweil
Kurzweil's thesis in this book is dependent on exponential growth of knowledge and we are now at the knee of the growth curve. He provides 600 pages of exciting evidence where only occasionally does the reader fall back into a linear paradigm. In writing and speaking the rule goes, introduce the subject or say what you are going to say, say it in detail, and then tell them what you just told them. Kurzweil does this in the form of introducing the speed at which the Singularity is drawing near. Get ready to speak in terms of exponents. He transitions into the how it will be done by detailing the accomplishments of Genetics, Nano, and Robotics technologies. Key word is technologies. Kurzweil addresses the impact of the three through detailed highlights subject matter and of on going debates that takes on the appearance of telling you what I just told you. I say detailed in speaking to the average bear not tuned in to the subject, and highlights to a PhD in the subject. He is thorough, but his views are clearly biased towards technology and therefore the book compels the reader to catch up on what is apparently inevitable and grapple with the social adaptation and acceptance of its consequence.
While reading the book the reader cannot help but noticing the coincidental and convincing breakthroughs in the news almost every day. In that regard you become convinced that Singularity is near. However, given the prospect that the exponential aspect being off by a little could be a lot in the perspective of today’s current lifetime, near is a relative term. That said, depending on your experience with technology at any given moment you may speculating on either tomorrow or never. I think that there is a cycle to go through on a few levels. To the general public Artificial Intelligence (AI) needs to go through a commoditization cycle to have it fully realized. And Kurzweil speaks to that. In doing so there will be an awful phase where the technology you are using performs perfectly logical “illegal operations”, leaving you with the impression of never. However Kurzweil draws attention to special interest AI that has a much higher degree of quality. The aim must be to bring quality to all levels of IT and its big brother AI.
Kurzweil brings a few issues that appear to me to be somewhat contradictive within his thesis and the science community at large. In what I call still pioneering phase this is to be expected. In addressing these and many more I envision an ample legal career in this area. The following are a few discussed in the book and shaded with my opinion.
· Success is determined by pattern recognition, however in chaos by mere definition there is no pattern. Once there is pattern recog it is no longer chaos. However Kurzweil recognizes the true aspect of chaos inhuman behavior.
· Kurzweil suggest the strength of quantum calculations will draw the singularity nearer. However, he declares quantum calculations are way off in the future.
· Anthropic Principal, discussed in the book suggests that the universe has an exact set of rules that allow for biology to exist. The short proof is we wouldn't be here to ask the question if otherwise. The longer version suggests a proof of Gods existence, says Kurzweil. But for the first time in his book he does not elaborate. In Wikipedia the theory of God (intelligent designer) is un-testable and therefore not within the purview of contemporary science. Interesting that one can proclaim something un-testable and therefore not give it any consideration at all. To suggest that we can do away with the understanding without full consideration of the'' delicate balance- '' is absurd.
· Once a planet yields a technology-creating species and that species creates computation, it is only a matter of a few centuries before its intelligence saturates the matter and energy in its vicinity, and it begins to expand outward at least the speed of light. Such a civilization will then overcome gravity and other cosmological forces-or, to be fully accurate; it will maneuver and control these forces-and engineer the universe it wants. This is the goal of the Singularity. Which in Kurzweil’s mind is a couple centuries off in to the future and in my mind is not so near.
· Kurzweil brushes off the risk but at the same time elaborates on the limitations, even in an advanced man, against such a daunting task of understanding the universe without first overcoming the limitation of the speed of light for conveyance of information. My issue with this is with out a full understanding of the universe; our civilization has proven itself incapable of such a responsibility for fear of destroying it first.
My thoughts: man seems to have adopted the tool of religion to bring civilization amongst us all. Jesus, Buddha, and Lennon to name a few, brought about the concept of Oneness to make a connection of every thing to everything. Their doctrine gives meaning to if you slight another you slight yourself. Yet history shows that man has not embraced this ''universal law '' to an extent his actions would follow. Is it this simple phenomenon that defines man? Is this insanity our fate? Or have (religious institutions) simply been teaching it wrong? If our first lesson were not ''Original Sin '' that cannot be corrected, but ''Original Error '' that can be corrected-would all our subsequent thoughts maintain a universal unity. If we had One original thought (moral compass) how powerfully civilized would we be? John Lennon knew! Imagine All The People!!! Or is singularity our salvation? If so, back to the original question: are we anymore a society of humans? If we weren’t, would we, our conscious along with a conscience exist? Would we be extinct? Or would our new morphed body temples finally have the key to reprogram, reboot; analogous forgive and forget, or let it go!!!? Imagine the bedrock institutions that would fall!. Imagine an economy void of profit!! There would still be gains in capital. But only to balance (re-invest, or give back) the ''natural laws of the universe'', in some circles known as God.
As we improve the human condition in terms of its body, is it worth it if not taken with the whole of the human spirit? Very stimulating reading in terms of looking forward to the many possibilities the future of mankind may go.
Foot notes:
p. 24 Can the pace of technological progress continue to speed up indefinitely? Isn’t there a point at which humans are unable to think fast enough to keep up? For enhanced humans, clearly so. But what would 1,000 scientists, each 1,000 times faster than contemporary humans (because the information processing in their primarily non-biological brains is faster) accomplish? One chronological year would be like a millennium for them. What would they come up with?
P.87- In insights from Wolfram and Fredkin on Cellular Automata Fredkin explains '' There is no way to know the answer to some question any faster than what is going on right now. '' They suggest the universe's energy paradigm could be shifted to an information paradigm (interpreted energy). Fedkin then believes the universe is a giant computer that is being used by some one to solve a problem. Could this equate to the God paradigm? God being that person. If we are creations of the universe, are we not all sons of God? Or otherwise put one with the universe.
The argument continues that rule 110 results in limited patterns (reality), certain in outcome, but unpredictable in a sense of order. (random) that is until Thought (the imposition of mans will) This may draw only a conflict in the interpretations of reality.
P.120 a key to successful quantum computing is a careful statement of the problem, including a precise way to test the answer
p. 133 In the discussion on nano computing and the energy aspects of reverse computing, theoretically requiring zero energy, the reader becomes aware of the intelligence in inanimate objects. By spinning molecules the intelligence changes the object. Add time and space you have time travel, or Star Treks transport beams. The only limitation so far is we haven’t figured out how to do it.
p.149 the brain is an analog/parallel device capable of many computations at one time, SLOWLY. Today’s computer are digital/series devices, capable of one thought at a time, FAST
p..171 with regard to Hebb's study on synapses of the brain, Kurzweil says his intuitions have largely proved correct.
p..186 In discussion about how the eye transmits a sketch of an image and then the brain colors in the rest is called hypothesis/test. It would be interesting to map which snyapes are hypothesis and which are eye signal receivers. Also interesting, in science we talk about faith and belief in this discussion, and about your brain actually projecting upon your interpreted vision.
P.191 it is discussed that neural activity to initiate a decision occurs 1/3 of second before the decision is made. Thus making consciousness out of the loop. Thus making the willful decision an illusion.
p.201 Given the human brains plasticity, our thoughts literally create our brains through growth of spines, synapse, dendrites, neurons.
p.221 A hybrid scenario involving both bio- and nanotechnology contemplates turning biological cells into computers. These '' enhanced intelligence '' cells can then destroy cancer cells and pathogens or even re-grow body parts....Labs have developed ways to use wireless communication to send messages, including intricate sequences of instructions, to the ''computers '' inside modified cells.
p. 224 Cloning technologies even offer a possible solution for world hunger: creating meat and other sources in a factory without animals by cloning animal muscle tissue. No animal suffering would be involved
p232 The Drexler assembler makes a fundamental departure from biological cells. Rather than distributed knowledge to each cell it would be stored centrally
p.260 As I pointed out earlier, machines can already share knowledge. As un-enhanced humans we do not have the means
Further reading
1. An Engines of Creation
by Eric Drexler 1986
p260 sharing the vast patterns of interneuron connections and neo-transmitter levels that comprise our learning, skills, knowledge, other than thru slow language slow, language based communication
p. 289 Well connected representations lets you turn ideas around in your mind, to envision things from many perspectives until you find one that works for you. And that is what you call thinking.
p. 309 The compelling benefits of overcoming diseases and disabilities will keep these technologies on a rapid course, but medical applications represent only the early adoption phase.
P.359 the Anthropic Principal suggests that the universe has an exact set of rules that allow for biology to exist. The short proof is we wouldn't be here to ask the question if otherwise. The longer version suggests a proof of Gods existence, says Kurzweil. But for the first time in his book he does not elaborate. In Wikipedia the theory of God (intelligent designer) is un-testable and therefore not within the purview of contemporary science. Interesting that one can proclaim something un-testable and therefore not give it any consideration at all. To suggest that we can do away with the understanding without full consideration of the'' delicate balance- '' is absurd.
A well promoted idea of global warming represents where at least the application of scientific discovery has failed to observe the delicate balance required to support humans.,
p.364 Once a planet yields a technology-creating species and that species creates computation, it is only a matter of a few centuries before its intelligence saturates the matter and energy in its vicinity, and it begins to expand outward at at least the speed of light. Such a civilization will then overcome gravity and other cosmological forces-or, to be fully accurate, it will maneuver and control these forces-and engineer the universe it wants. This is the goal of the Singularity.
My issue with this is with out a full understanding of the universe; our civilization has proven itself incapable of such a responsibility for fear of destroying it first.
Kurzweil brushes off the risk but at the same time elaborates on the limitations, even in an advanced man, against such a daunting task of understanding the universe without first overcoming the limitation of the speed of light for conveyance of information.
Missing discussion, time continuums, love,
My thought, man seams to have adopted the tool of religion to bring civilization amongst us all. Jesus, Buddha brought about the concept of Oneness to make a connection of every thing to everything. Their doctrine gives meaning to if you slight another, you slight yourself. Yet history shows that man has not embraced this ''universal law '' to an extent his actions would follow. Is it this simple phenomena that defines man? Does this insanity our fate? Or have (religious institutions) simply been teaching it wrong? If our first lesson were not ''Original Sin '' that cannot be corrected, but ''Original Error '' that can be corrected-would all our subsequent thoughts maintain a universal unity. If (could we have) we had One original thought (moral compass) how powerfully civilized would we be? John Lennon knew! Imagine All The People!!! Or is singularity our salvation? If so back to the original question are we anymore a society of humans? Would we be extinct? Or would our new morphed body temples finally have the key to reprogram? Imagine the bedrock institutions that would fall!. Imagine an economy void of profit!! There would still be gains in capital. But only to balance (re-invest, or give back) the ''natural laws of the universe'', in some circles known as God
...p375 In dialogue between Bill Gates and Ray Kurzweil they discuss this fundamental difference. The ability to become one and maintain individuality) Gates concludes the discussion with: Because computers can merge together instantly. Ten computers--or one million computers--can become one faster, bigger computer. As humans we cant do that. We have destiny individuality that cannot be bridged.
P378 379Humans have consciousness. There is not a .test that can objectively determine its presence. Societies conscious is the practice of law. AI will have to prove its human rights in court.
P386 Kurzweil’s philosophy remains
p380 speaks to the difference a real experience and an illusion. An illusion is the ability to construct a perfectly consistent, scientific worldview that omits the existence of consciousness.
I think through interpretation, Kurzweil suggest that without conscious there is nothing. Does he really mean ''a reality with no human experience''
p 405 On the subject of the possibility of our reality being a mere simulation, Kurzweil writes: If the world we are living in is a simulation on someone’s computer, it is a very good one-so detailed in fact, that we may as well accept it as our reality. In any event, it is the only reality to which we have access. ONE!!!
P 411 I would pay to do a word search on the word ''ethical'' on page 411 Kurzweil writes: I do think that relinquishment at the right level (of granularity).needs to be part of our ethical response to the dangers of the 21st century technologies.
NOTE two basic paridigms are prevalent. First is computer technology, including algorithms and patterns. Second are exponential results.
p. 454 the Church-Turing debate interpretation reveals this paradigm, the problems machines cant solve cannot be solved by humans either. Kurzweil maintains this makes computers capable of being human.
The difference is not only that humans can make a decision without all the facts. They will take risks. They invoke their will with a sense of timing that goes beyond logic.
p. 464 i need to remember to use Kurzweils analysis of The Chinese Room test as he describe incremental parts of a brain uninformed of the overall objective of the brain (they are unconscious) as he correlates to each of many people not knowing the objective. There a multitude of business management books attesting to '' unconscious employees '' or consider the electorate, making decision not knowing the end game
Machines( no dogs) can be conscious but not conscience if conscience has a moral right and wrong. This needs to be sorted out.
P.477 Dembski states that an entity cannot be aware of God's presence without God's acting upon her, yet God cannot act upon a machine, and so therefore a machine cannot be aware of God's presence.
Kurzweils argument is based on the technical interpretation of man-v-machine. So there is no final resolution. Had he challenged Dembski's interpretation of God as being omnipresent and therefore always acting on all entities (god is merely reality) the key is does this entity fully realize and appreciate the consequence of this?
Kurzweil argues in this book that even with all the data presented, one must resort to conceptual thinking (be human) in order to visualize Singularity.
It seems in all machine -v- human argument, the bio-side defines humans as machines. So the argument seems to lay in the gray matter between consciousness and conscience ness.
by Ray Kurzweil
Kurzweil's thesis in this book is dependent on exponential growth of knowledge and we are now at the knee of the growth curve. He provides 600 pages of exciting evidence where only occasionally does the reader fall back into a linear paradigm. In writing and speaking the rule goes, introduce the subject or say what you are going to say, say it in detail, and then tell them what you just told them. Kurzweil does this in the form of introducing the speed at which the Singularity is drawing near. Get ready to speak in terms of exponents. He transitions into the how it will be done by detailing the accomplishments of Genetics, Nano, and Robotics technologies. Key word is technologies. Kurzweil addresses the impact of the three through detailed highlights subject matter and of on going debates that takes on the appearance of telling you what I just told you. I say detailed in speaking to the average bear not tuned in to the subject, and highlights to a PhD in the subject. He is thorough, but his views are clearly biased towards technology and therefore the book compels the reader to catch up on what is apparently inevitable and grapple with the social adaptation and acceptance of its consequence.
While reading the book the reader cannot help but noticing the coincidental and convincing breakthroughs in the news almost every day. In that regard you become convinced that Singularity is near. However, given the prospect that the exponential aspect being off by a little could be a lot in the perspective of today’s current lifetime, near is a relative term. That said, depending on your experience with technology at any given moment you may speculating on either tomorrow or never. I think that there is a cycle to go through on a few levels. To the general public Artificial Intelligence (AI) needs to go through a commoditization cycle to have it fully realized. And Kurzweil speaks to that. In doing so there will be an awful phase where the technology you are using performs perfectly logical “illegal operations”, leaving you with the impression of never. However Kurzweil draws attention to special interest AI that has a much higher degree of quality. The aim must be to bring quality to all levels of IT and its big brother AI.
Kurzweil brings a few issues that appear to me to be somewhat contradictive within his thesis and the science community at large. In what I call still pioneering phase this is to be expected. In addressing these and many more I envision an ample legal career in this area. The following are a few discussed in the book and shaded with my opinion.
· Success is determined by pattern recognition, however in chaos by mere definition there is no pattern. Once there is pattern recog it is no longer chaos. However Kurzweil recognizes the true aspect of chaos inhuman behavior.
· Kurzweil suggest the strength of quantum calculations will draw the singularity nearer. However, he declares quantum calculations are way off in the future.
· Anthropic Principal, discussed in the book suggests that the universe has an exact set of rules that allow for biology to exist. The short proof is we wouldn't be here to ask the question if otherwise. The longer version suggests a proof of Gods existence, says Kurzweil. But for the first time in his book he does not elaborate. In Wikipedia the theory of God (intelligent designer) is un-testable and therefore not within the purview of contemporary science. Interesting that one can proclaim something un-testable and therefore not give it any consideration at all. To suggest that we can do away with the understanding without full consideration of the'' delicate balance- '' is absurd.
· Once a planet yields a technology-creating species and that species creates computation, it is only a matter of a few centuries before its intelligence saturates the matter and energy in its vicinity, and it begins to expand outward at least the speed of light. Such a civilization will then overcome gravity and other cosmological forces-or, to be fully accurate; it will maneuver and control these forces-and engineer the universe it wants. This is the goal of the Singularity. Which in Kurzweil’s mind is a couple centuries off in to the future and in my mind is not so near.
· Kurzweil brushes off the risk but at the same time elaborates on the limitations, even in an advanced man, against such a daunting task of understanding the universe without first overcoming the limitation of the speed of light for conveyance of information. My issue with this is with out a full understanding of the universe; our civilization has proven itself incapable of such a responsibility for fear of destroying it first.
My thoughts: man seems to have adopted the tool of religion to bring civilization amongst us all. Jesus, Buddha, and Lennon to name a few, brought about the concept of Oneness to make a connection of every thing to everything. Their doctrine gives meaning to if you slight another you slight yourself. Yet history shows that man has not embraced this ''universal law '' to an extent his actions would follow. Is it this simple phenomenon that defines man? Is this insanity our fate? Or have (religious institutions) simply been teaching it wrong? If our first lesson were not ''Original Sin '' that cannot be corrected, but ''Original Error '' that can be corrected-would all our subsequent thoughts maintain a universal unity. If we had One original thought (moral compass) how powerfully civilized would we be? John Lennon knew! Imagine All The People!!! Or is singularity our salvation? If so, back to the original question: are we anymore a society of humans? If we weren’t, would we, our conscious along with a conscience exist? Would we be extinct? Or would our new morphed body temples finally have the key to reprogram, reboot; analogous forgive and forget, or let it go!!!? Imagine the bedrock institutions that would fall!. Imagine an economy void of profit!! There would still be gains in capital. But only to balance (re-invest, or give back) the ''natural laws of the universe'', in some circles known as God.
As we improve the human condition in terms of its body, is it worth it if not taken with the whole of the human spirit? Very stimulating reading in terms of looking forward to the many possibilities the future of mankind may go.
Foot notes:
p. 24 Can the pace of technological progress continue to speed up indefinitely? Isn’t there a point at which humans are unable to think fast enough to keep up? For enhanced humans, clearly so. But what would 1,000 scientists, each 1,000 times faster than contemporary humans (because the information processing in their primarily non-biological brains is faster) accomplish? One chronological year would be like a millennium for them. What would they come up with?
P.87- In insights from Wolfram and Fredkin on Cellular Automata Fredkin explains '' There is no way to know the answer to some question any faster than what is going on right now. '' They suggest the universe's energy paradigm could be shifted to an information paradigm (interpreted energy). Fedkin then believes the universe is a giant computer that is being used by some one to solve a problem. Could this equate to the God paradigm? God being that person. If we are creations of the universe, are we not all sons of God? Or otherwise put one with the universe.
The argument continues that rule 110 results in limited patterns (reality), certain in outcome, but unpredictable in a sense of order. (random) that is until Thought (the imposition of mans will) This may draw only a conflict in the interpretations of reality.
P.120 a key to successful quantum computing is a careful statement of the problem, including a precise way to test the answer
p. 133 In the discussion on nano computing and the energy aspects of reverse computing, theoretically requiring zero energy, the reader becomes aware of the intelligence in inanimate objects. By spinning molecules the intelligence changes the object. Add time and space you have time travel, or Star Treks transport beams. The only limitation so far is we haven’t figured out how to do it.
p.149 the brain is an analog/parallel device capable of many computations at one time, SLOWLY. Today’s computer are digital/series devices, capable of one thought at a time, FAST
p..171 with regard to Hebb's study on synapses of the brain, Kurzweil says his intuitions have largely proved correct.
p..186 In discussion about how the eye transmits a sketch of an image and then the brain colors in the rest is called hypothesis/test. It would be interesting to map which snyapes are hypothesis and which are eye signal receivers. Also interesting, in science we talk about faith and belief in this discussion, and about your brain actually projecting upon your interpreted vision.
P.191 it is discussed that neural activity to initiate a decision occurs 1/3 of second before the decision is made. Thus making consciousness out of the loop. Thus making the willful decision an illusion.
p.201 Given the human brains plasticity, our thoughts literally create our brains through growth of spines, synapse, dendrites, neurons.
p.221 A hybrid scenario involving both bio- and nanotechnology contemplates turning biological cells into computers. These '' enhanced intelligence '' cells can then destroy cancer cells and pathogens or even re-grow body parts....Labs have developed ways to use wireless communication to send messages, including intricate sequences of instructions, to the ''computers '' inside modified cells.
p. 224 Cloning technologies even offer a possible solution for world hunger: creating meat and other sources in a factory without animals by cloning animal muscle tissue. No animal suffering would be involved
p232 The Drexler assembler makes a fundamental departure from biological cells. Rather than distributed knowledge to each cell it would be stored centrally
p.260 As I pointed out earlier, machines can already share knowledge. As un-enhanced humans we do not have the means
Further reading
1. An Engines of Creation
by Eric Drexler 1986
p260 sharing the vast patterns of interneuron connections and neo-transmitter levels that comprise our learning, skills, knowledge, other than thru slow language slow, language based communication
p. 289 Well connected representations lets you turn ideas around in your mind, to envision things from many perspectives until you find one that works for you. And that is what you call thinking.
p. 309 The compelling benefits of overcoming diseases and disabilities will keep these technologies on a rapid course, but medical applications represent only the early adoption phase.
P.359 the Anthropic Principal suggests that the universe has an exact set of rules that allow for biology to exist. The short proof is we wouldn't be here to ask the question if otherwise. The longer version suggests a proof of Gods existence, says Kurzweil. But for the first time in his book he does not elaborate. In Wikipedia the theory of God (intelligent designer) is un-testable and therefore not within the purview of contemporary science. Interesting that one can proclaim something un-testable and therefore not give it any consideration at all. To suggest that we can do away with the understanding without full consideration of the'' delicate balance- '' is absurd.
A well promoted idea of global warming represents where at least the application of scientific discovery has failed to observe the delicate balance required to support humans.,
p.364 Once a planet yields a technology-creating species and that species creates computation, it is only a matter of a few centuries before its intelligence saturates the matter and energy in its vicinity, and it begins to expand outward at at least the speed of light. Such a civilization will then overcome gravity and other cosmological forces-or, to be fully accurate, it will maneuver and control these forces-and engineer the universe it wants. This is the goal of the Singularity.
My issue with this is with out a full understanding of the universe; our civilization has proven itself incapable of such a responsibility for fear of destroying it first.
Kurzweil brushes off the risk but at the same time elaborates on the limitations, even in an advanced man, against such a daunting task of understanding the universe without first overcoming the limitation of the speed of light for conveyance of information.
Missing discussion, time continuums, love,
My thought, man seams to have adopted the tool of religion to bring civilization amongst us all. Jesus, Buddha brought about the concept of Oneness to make a connection of every thing to everything. Their doctrine gives meaning to if you slight another, you slight yourself. Yet history shows that man has not embraced this ''universal law '' to an extent his actions would follow. Is it this simple phenomena that defines man? Does this insanity our fate? Or have (religious institutions) simply been teaching it wrong? If our first lesson were not ''Original Sin '' that cannot be corrected, but ''Original Error '' that can be corrected-would all our subsequent thoughts maintain a universal unity. If (could we have) we had One original thought (moral compass) how powerfully civilized would we be? John Lennon knew! Imagine All The People!!! Or is singularity our salvation? If so back to the original question are we anymore a society of humans? Would we be extinct? Or would our new morphed body temples finally have the key to reprogram? Imagine the bedrock institutions that would fall!. Imagine an economy void of profit!! There would still be gains in capital. But only to balance (re-invest, or give back) the ''natural laws of the universe'', in some circles known as God
...p375 In dialogue between Bill Gates and Ray Kurzweil they discuss this fundamental difference. The ability to become one and maintain individuality) Gates concludes the discussion with: Because computers can merge together instantly. Ten computers--or one million computers--can become one faster, bigger computer. As humans we cant do that. We have destiny individuality that cannot be bridged.
P378 379Humans have consciousness. There is not a .test that can objectively determine its presence. Societies conscious is the practice of law. AI will have to prove its human rights in court.
P386 Kurzweil’s philosophy remains
p380 speaks to the difference a real experience and an illusion. An illusion is the ability to construct a perfectly consistent, scientific worldview that omits the existence of consciousness.
I think through interpretation, Kurzweil suggest that without conscious there is nothing. Does he really mean ''a reality with no human experience''
p 405 On the subject of the possibility of our reality being a mere simulation, Kurzweil writes: If the world we are living in is a simulation on someone’s computer, it is a very good one-so detailed in fact, that we may as well accept it as our reality. In any event, it is the only reality to which we have access. ONE!!!
P 411 I would pay to do a word search on the word ''ethical'' on page 411 Kurzweil writes: I do think that relinquishment at the right level (of granularity).needs to be part of our ethical response to the dangers of the 21st century technologies.
NOTE two basic paridigms are prevalent. First is computer technology, including algorithms and patterns. Second are exponential results.
p. 454 the Church-Turing debate interpretation reveals this paradigm, the problems machines cant solve cannot be solved by humans either. Kurzweil maintains this makes computers capable of being human.
The difference is not only that humans can make a decision without all the facts. They will take risks. They invoke their will with a sense of timing that goes beyond logic.
p. 464 i need to remember to use Kurzweils analysis of The Chinese Room test as he describe incremental parts of a brain uninformed of the overall objective of the brain (they are unconscious) as he correlates to each of many people not knowing the objective. There a multitude of business management books attesting to '' unconscious employees '' or consider the electorate, making decision not knowing the end game
Machines( no dogs) can be conscious but not conscience if conscience has a moral right and wrong. This needs to be sorted out.
P.477 Dembski states that an entity cannot be aware of God's presence without God's acting upon her, yet God cannot act upon a machine, and so therefore a machine cannot be aware of God's presence.
Kurzweils argument is based on the technical interpretation of man-v-machine. So there is no final resolution. Had he challenged Dembski's interpretation of God as being omnipresent and therefore always acting on all entities (god is merely reality) the key is does this entity fully realize and appreciate the consequence of this?
Kurzweil argues in this book that even with all the data presented, one must resort to conceptual thinking (be human) in order to visualize Singularity.
It seems in all machine -v- human argument, the bio-side defines humans as machines. So the argument seems to lay in the gray matter between consciousness and conscience ness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)