Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

#81

Post by OneWordSoln »

sctb wrote: post #79
OneWordSoln wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it just simpler to say he's a moron? Because that's what I'd say.

Could you please stop violating the guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please point me to which guideline I broke.

I am referring to the subject of the article, not another commenter here. In fact, I was merely summarizing what I responded to and interjecting my opinion of a person who thought the frickin Segway would revolutionize the world.

I mean, that sounds like a moron to me. Sure, he's a good engineer, but the fricking Segway isn't going to revolutionize anything and anyone who thinks so is out of touch with reality, just as the person I replied to said.

Re: Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

#82

Post by wu-ikkyu »

Balgair wrote: post #53
msamwald wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is not a bad thing. Religion developed to cope with the unavoidable misery of human existence through a coordinated belief in an imaginary afterlife free of that misery. Enlightenment, science and technology showed us that most of this misery could be alleviated by advancing our technologies and social structures, while also revealing the imaginary nature of ideas of an afterlife. The tragic thing is that we mi…

> Religion developed to cope with the unavoidable misery of human existence through a coordinated belief in an imaginary afterlife free of that misery. Maybe. Gobekli Tepe is turning out to be very surprising, and it's only 10% uncovered. There may be even more paradigm shifting things in that rubble. I'd treat your thesis as theory for now and wait to see what we'll dig up. Not saying you are wrong at all, but big t…

What about Gobekli Tepe indicates otherwise? It is supposed that it was constructed by hunter-gatherers, which typically worshipped the animals they hunted as idols. Such animals have been found engraved into the ruins.

Re: Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

#83

Post by oxide »

petraeus wrote: post #77
r3bl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, sure, but... 2009 "Though desktop PCs are still common for data storage, individuals primarily use portable devices for their computer-related tasks." sounds pretty realistic now. So does 2019 "People experience 3-D virtual reality through glasses and contact lenses that beam images directly to their retinas (retinal display). Coupled with an auditory source (headphones), users can remotely communicate with oth…

Though desktop PCs are still common for data storage, individuals primarily use portable devices for their computer-related tasks .. is patently fals, we are nowhere close to "using" our handheld devices for the majority of computer related tasks. Portable devices are in most cases used to consume media.

Unless you do not have a PC. A decent phone IS the PC in some homes.

Re: Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

#84

Post by sctb »

glorkk wrote: post #74
iamonkara wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History is full evidence that true scientists have many a times revised their initial assumptions in the quest of truth.

Yes, but true scientists usually apply the scientific method, not drug-induced psychosis, in their quest for truth. Edit: for people who flagged the parent comment, this is an interesting read http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/

I don't think that article is going to take back your having been personally rude to another user, which is not what we do here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

#85

Post by mnemicmeme »

mnemicmeme wrote: post #59
cko wrote: post #34

I’m highly skeptical. It’s 2017, and we still debate if carbs are bad for us, we can’t effectively suppress a cough without highly addictive opiates, we don't have the cure for the common cold, and any drug treatment for any disease state involves a ligand binding to a specific site triggering a counterbalancing cascade of effects. Costly biotech drugs produced by recombinant DNA to treat autoimmune diseases? Increas…

> we still debate if carbs are bad for us Aren't (most) carbs bad for us (chains of sugar)? A low carb diet isn't pushed. It's quite the opposite. Keto/Mediterranean are seen as too extreme.

Can someone explain why I was given a negative point for stating this?

Re: Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

#86

Post by Balgair »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #82
Balgair wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Religion developed to cope with the unavoidable misery of human existence through a coordinated belief in an imaginary afterlife free of that misery. Maybe. Gobekli Tepe is turning out to be very surprising, and it's only 10% uncovered. There may be even more paradigm shifting things in that rubble. I'd treat your thesis as theory for now and wait to see what we'll dig up. Not saying you are wrong at all, but big t…

What about Gobekli Tepe indicates otherwise? It is supposed that it was constructed by hunter-gatherers, which typically worshipped the animals they hunted as idols. Such animals have been found engraved into the ruins.

My reply was to say that such strong statements about humans and religion are perhaps unwise at this time, considering we may be going through a paradigm shift in our understanding at this time. The statement is not wrong, per se, but caution is advised.

Re: Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

#87

Post by sctb »

OneWordSoln wrote: post #81
sctb wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please stop violating the guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please point me to which guideline I broke. I am referring to the subject of the article, not another commenter here. In fact, I was merely summarizing what I responded to and interjecting my opinion of a person who thought the frickin Segway would revolutionize the world. I mean, that sounds like a moron to me. Sure, he's a good engineer, but the fricking Segway isn't going to revolutionize anything and anyone who t…

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Re: Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

#88

Post by tarboreus »

mnemicmeme wrote: post #85
mnemicmeme wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we still debate if carbs are bad for us Aren't (most) carbs bad for us (chains of sugar)? A low carb diet isn't pushed. It's quite the opposite. Keto/Mediterranean are seen as too extreme.

Can someone explain why I was given a negative point for stating this?

Because the point was to say we're debating it, not to start a debate. And your starting a debate in order to show that we're not debating it is, debatably, silly.

Re: Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

#89

Post by tim333 »

jknoepfler wrote: post #43

As someone with a reasonable foundation in both the state of AI and the state of neuroscience research, I honestly have no idea why people give Kurzweil any attention. Just about nothing I have ever read from him is even remotely plausible, yet I've met intelligent people (usually mathematically oriented people) who think the detail-sparse garbage is gospel. It's a little infuriating, honestly. The details, which are…

I think with some important ideas like AI improving, he's the most prominent publicist and so gets quoted.

Re: Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

#90

Post by tim333 »

netsharc wrote: post #20

By "we", what percentage of the 1% top richest people are we talking about? Indians are dying because of heatwaves, Bangladeshis dying because of floods, Californians because of forest fires... Maybe if the elite build their Elysium-like fortress they'll make it, but my feeling is the vast majority of humans will be killed by climate change. And not within he next 50-100 years, more like 10-20.

Ray would disagree: "Grist: Futurist Ray Kurzweil says "we have plenty of time" to replace fossil fuels with renewables" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/21/ray-kurz...

I actually kind of agree with him on that - go solar cells and robots.

Post reply on HN