Futurist Ray Kurzweil Pulls Out All the Stops (and Pills) to Live to Witness the Singularity

To address the points raised in these comments:

1. We do NOT have "the equivalent computing power of a kitten's brain." That's like saying that because we have apples we have the equivalent taste of an orange.

The only real way to translate current silicon processor-based computing into a biological brain-based form is to ask how http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19767/">many neurons can we model on current hardware. The answer to that is: not nearly enough... yet. At the current rate of technological growth, we can expect to model a full rat brain within ten years, with a human brain shortly to follow (remember, exponential growth moves fast!) Once we can fully simulate a brain, the only limit to its power is the speed of the processor it runs on.

This approach also addresses the "recognizing a dog" point. By accurately simulating a brain, they will use the same algorithm the brain does to recognize objects. It is also worth pointing out that http://www.onintelligence.org/index.php">advances http://www.numenta.com/">are being made in deriving the cortical algorithm directly and using it for the very type of pattern recognition you mention.

Finally, the point is subtly flawed. Cats recognize dogs "without having ever seen one before" because the knowledge of what a dog is is hardwired into their brains from birth. In effect, they have seen dogs before, or some part of their brains have.

2. The point applying survival of the fittest to robots is ridiculous. I barely know where to begin.

First, we will use the term AI instead of robot, as a robot is just an AI with a body. Second, the only thing that matters to an AI is how "smart" it is - how efficient its algorithms are and how fast those algorithms run. Having a big strong body doesn't even make sense in this context.

Additionally, the idea that AI's will design AI's smarter than them is also flawed. If an AI figures out an algorithm that allows for a more efficient thought process, what's to stop the AI from modifying itself to use that algorithm?

3. Pills: Pharmaceutical drugs have (often serious) side effects. Homeopathic medicines usually have very little side effects. I'm not saying that taking all those pills is healthy or beneficial, but the rampant side effects people seem to be suggesting probably won't manifest.

The heuristic that seems to crop up in all matters of health/eating is "in all things moderation."

4. Ray Kurzweil suggests that the final form of immortality will manifest as computer systems able to model/run our consciousnesses. That way we will be able to exist for as long as the machines do, as well as back up and transfer our consciousnesses.

I submit that, even if this is possible, it wouldn't make you. Rather, it would merely ensure that some copy of you persisted. Consider if you could make perfect clones of yourself, with all of your memories and developments. Those clones would act exactly like you, but they still wouldn't be you.

5. On a personal note, if we agree that it's possible that a method for achieving immortality will be discovered in our lifetimes, the logical course of action is to devote the entirety of ones efforts towards realizing this possibility. The reward surely justifies the risk.

I think this is a much better argument against it than any of the more common technologically pessimistic ones.

I loved Kurzweil's book. Unfortunately in all the talk about Moore's Law and exponential growth, Murphy's Law was forgotten (perhaps in a self-referencing manifestation of the same law).

Example: My HMO has figured out that, if a patient has a serious chronic ailment (e.g., diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc.) then it is cheaper for them should the patient die:

I. Treat patient:

      cost of treatment           $100

      cost of future treatments   $???

Highly-variable costs borne largely by the HMO.

II. Let patient die:

      cost of treatment           $100

      cost of future treatments   $  0

Cost to HMO limited to $100. Remaining costs borne by the deceased's life insurance company.

The perfect HMO patient is one who never visits his doctor and then dies quickly.

Should the HMO increase profitability by speeding their chronically-ill patients to a painless death? Stockholders cry "Yes!"; patients whimper a fearful "No." Needless to say some cognitive dissonance must arise should one's income be so directly tied to one's ability to (not) keep one's patients alive.

Economic and social conflicts within the medical system are a greater hindrance to the singularity than are technical hurdles.

Exactly, they're only overused as long as they're cheap. We'll find alternatives quickly once the price signals that it's worth it. (The alternative might be a lower standard of living because no alternative can be found, but that's life). And usually, that shift creates an arbitrage opportunity that someone is going to make money off of.

For instance, while many people fear rising gas and oil prices, I'm pretty sure motorcycle manufacturers, bicycle shops, and rental property owners in dense, transit-rich cities are licking their chops. $10/gal gas makes NYC rent more reasonable.

I strongly disagree with Point #2. How we interact with our environment contributes greatly to how we perceive the world. Intelligence that is synthesized outside of natural processes (I think the term "AI" is paradoxical when describing super-human intelligence) will require means of interacting with the environment in the same way we require our bodies.

It would be evolutionarily advantageous for a superhuman intelligence to devise better ways of grasping/flying/swimming in order to expand upon the existing knowledge base that it would acquire. Also from the perspective of experienced-based knowledge having a "body" would be invaluable.

In other words, reading books and doing thought experiments do not contribute to our intelligence as much as these things in combination with experimentation and interaction with our real world through what our bodies can manifest. If a super human intelligence does come into consciousness, then it's possible that it would see the advantage of this...

Could you please elaborate upon Point #1?