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

Ray Kurzweil's Dubious New Theory of Mind

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: Ray Kurzweil's Dubious New Theory of Mind

#31

Post by RivieraKid »

skyhook_mockups wrote: post #21
omarchowdhury wrote: post #13

Kurzweil is the epitome of [reductionist, emergentist] materialism. The essence of this sentence is not in the individual letters.

Sorry, not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you arguing that there is more to consciousness than just the atoms in our brains? If so what is your reason for thinking this?

I'm not the author of the comment you'replying to but I'm pretty sure that consciousness is more than atoms. Feeling pain can't be explained as an interaction of physical particles. You could describe the chemical processes in the brain accompanying pain to very high detail. But at no point you can't explain why does it hurt so much when the atoms in the brain are in a specific state.

Re: Ray Kurzweil's Dubious New Theory of Mind

#32

Post by andolanra »

skyhook_mockups wrote: post #21
omarchowdhury wrote: post #13

Kurzweil is the epitome of [reductionist, emergentist] materialism. The essence of this sentence is not in the individual letters.

Sorry, not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you arguing that there is more to consciousness than just the atoms in our brains? If so what is your reason for thinking this?

I suspect the argument is more along the lines of, "The human brain does not obey the superposition principle." A sentence is just letters, but that doesn't mean that thorough examination of each letter provides you with the knowledge necessary to understand the sentence.

Anyway, saying "It's just atoms" is also misleading, because one also must content with the laws of physics which drive the atoms. Those laws are not yet thoroughly understood, and even with our significant current understanding we still have trouble programmatically predicting protein folding, to say nothing of the staggering complexity contained in the brain.

Re: Ray Kurzweil's Dubious New Theory of Mind

#33

Post by briggers »

> Hierarchical Temporary Memory

Temporal. It's such a jarring mistake that it looks more like misunderstanding than a typo.

He dismisses the concept of immortality out of hand, which is frustrating. Where I live the life expectancy has increased by 20 years over the last 50. I'll bet glide ratios were also improving before powered-flight happened.

He is also somehow unaware of the advances in the last decade in machine intelligence. At the consumer level, this should be as obvious as doing a search on Google. Long-hold your iPhone home button to see pretty good voice recognition, or try Google's and be blown away. Even a little deeper, there are many modern businesses with machine intelligence as part of their very fabric. If you've confused artificial personhood with artificial intelligence then it's an understandable mistake, otherwise not.

A useless distraction.

Re: Ray Kurzweil's Dubious New Theory of Mind

#34

Post by brianchu »

confluence wrote: post #25
pjscott wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Normal people do not do these things - the risks he took were abominations on a risk adjusted scale (if the recession continued to decimate the economy and kill demand for veblen goods and SpaceX didn't get that 4th launch - Musk would be done - as in out of money and out of luck). I suspect that he just values things differently from you -- that he's less averse to losing large sums of money, and more averse to re…

> I suspect that he just values things differently from you -- that he's less averse to losing large sums of money Truth. Same argument can be applied to terrorists and soldiers - they value the respect of their group and their families (in some cases this is monetary) over their own lives. But then again - I presume most people think most terrorists would be damaged in some way (brain washed/delusional/lost parents)…

1. Terrorists value things differently

2. Terrorists are mentally damaged.

3. Elon Musk values things differently

4. Ergo, Elon Musk is mentally damaged (or more likely to be damaged, or this is an indication that he might be damaged, as is implied).

Total analogy fail.

EDIT: Since I can't seem to be able to reply to your reply (too nested): Bringing up the analogy in the argument and finding it curious indicates that there is some reason as to why it even applies, when in fact it is completely irrelevant.

Re: Ray Kurzweil's Dubious New Theory of Mind

#35

Post by 1053r »

confluence wrote: post #2

Let's get this straight: Ray Kurzweil is just a few ticks off crazy. Outside of Moore's law graphs (which he didn't discover), his predictions quickly veer off course into crazy land, especially in the case of diets and theories on intelligence (which others have routinely criticized him for - see everywhere). But here's the problem I have with Ray Kurzweil and other people like him - you can't just ignore them, you…

> Outside of Moore's law graphs (which he didn't discover), his predictions quickly veer off course into crazy land

I think Ray Kurzweil would agree with you. That's why he uses language like "the intuitive linear view" and "the historical exponential view" [1]

The whole POINT is that the predictions sound crazy. But the reason why he gathers such a following is because, unlike most "futurists", who make bold predictions for decades in the future only to slink away and hide when the time comes to for a test, Kurzweil welcomes rigorous evaluation of his past predictions. [2]

You can read through second link there and decide for yourself. He laboriously goes point for point and evaluates (in 2010) how he did in his earlier predictions from decades before. I gotta say, it's pretty impressive.

So the reason people listen to him is because his future predictions are even MORE crazy, but it's hard to argue with an 87% accuracy rate. Even his failures aren't WAY off the mark.

1 - http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns 2 - http://www.kurzweilai.net/predictions.php

Re: Ray Kurzweil's Dubious New Theory of Mind

#36

Post by confluence »

brianchu wrote: post #34
confluence wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect that he just values things differently from you -- that he's less averse to losing large sums of money Truth. Same argument can be applied to terrorists and soldiers - they value the respect of their group and their families (in some cases this is monetary) over their own lives. But then again - I presume most people think most terrorists would be damaged in some way (brain washed/delusional/lost parents)…

1. Terrorists value things differently 2. Terrorists are mentally damaged. 3. Elon Musk values things differently 4. Ergo, Elon Musk is mentally damaged (or more likely to be damaged, or this is an indication that he might be damaged, as is implied). Total analogy fail. EDIT: Since I can't seem to be able to reply to your reply (too nested): Bringing up the analogy in the argument and finding it curious indicates tha…

I said the parallels were curious. If you read it correctly - I didn't state either way. I can't be logically incorrect because I didn't make a conclusion.

Secondly: http://sgforums.com/forums/2092/topics/154210

EDIT: Not necessarily. The relative percentage of CEOs, traders and investors who are psychopaths are much higher than the general population. We normally label such people as mentally damaged. Musk is both a CEO and an investor who doesn't think like normal people and fits into this group.

This does not mean he is part of the group though. It is merely interesting.

Re: Ray Kurzweil's Dubious New Theory of Mind

#37

Post by btilly »

confluence wrote: post #28
Osmium wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't put Elon Musk in that list. I think you're mixing up two distinct types of people there. There's a difference between a person having an unconventional idea, e.g. for a business, and an unconventional theory, which they claim has a sound scientific basis. These unconventional theories are often stated with an unjustifiable certainty by people like Kurzweil and I think that's what irritates people.

> There's a difference between a person having an unconventional idea, e.g. for a business, and an unconventional theory, which they claim has a sound scientific basis. You sure about that? I thought most business plans were thrown out upon any contact with the customer and morphed in feedback to the customer, after a crazy idea was attempted. Of course I could be wrong - but it feels like a false division between bu…

You have your scientific history wrong. I'm fairly certain that you confused Mercury with the bending of light by the Sun, and you are confusing general public recognition with the attention paid by scientists. Here is a timeline.

- 1859: Mercury's precession is recognized as not fitting Newtonian predictions.

- 1887: The Michelson-Morley experiment shows the speed of light not varying as expected with motion.

- 1905: Einstein publishes several groundbreaking papers, including his special theory of relativity, and an explanation of the photo-voltaic effect (which he eventually received the Nobel for)

- 1908: Einstein becomes a professor, is widely recognized in scientific circles.

- 1911: Einstein comes up with his general theory, explains the precession of Mercury, and predicts gravitational lensing.

- 1916: Einstein appointed president of the German Physical Society.

- 1919: An Englishman, Eddington, confirms the gravitational lensing prediction during an eclipse, the press seizes on this sign of international cooperation in the aftermath of WW I, Einstein soon becomes a household name.

- 1921: Einstein receives the Nobel award in physics.

Re: Ray Kurzweil's Dubious New Theory of Mind

#38

Post by monochromatic »

confluence wrote: post #2

Let's get this straight: Ray Kurzweil is just a few ticks off crazy. Outside of Moore's law graphs (which he didn't discover), his predictions quickly veer off course into crazy land, especially in the case of diets and theories on intelligence (which others have routinely criticized him for - see everywhere). But here's the problem I have with Ray Kurzweil and other people like him - you can't just ignore them, you…

> see everywhere

I am going to have to start using that citation format in legal briefs when a proposition seems uncontroversial.

Re: Ray Kurzweil's Dubious New Theory of Mind

#39

Post by confluence »

monochromatic wrote: post #38
confluence wrote: post #2

Let's get this straight: Ray Kurzweil is just a few ticks off crazy. Outside of Moore's law graphs (which he didn't discover), his predictions quickly veer off course into crazy land, especially in the case of diets and theories on intelligence (which others have routinely criticized him for - see everywhere). But here's the problem I have with Ray Kurzweil and other people like him - you can't just ignore them, you…

> see everywhere I am going to have to start using that citation format in legal briefs when a proposition seems uncontroversial.

I'm quite sure Apple used this defence.

Re: Ray Kurzweil's Dubious New Theory of Mind

#40

Post by akiselev »

confluence wrote: post #23
gavanwoolery wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good analysis. :) As history would have it, one (or many people) shouting at the top of their lungs about the future does not have a huge impact on the future typically. He has a lot of interesting theories, and plenty of uninteresting or outright dubious ones (I suspect he is accelerating his own death with his over-the-top vitamin consumption). The people who make history are the ones who make it, not speculate abo…

Agreed. I call most of the singularity/live forever/AGI crowd "all talkers - no walkers". But I keep a wary eye on them and their ideas from the periphery - lest I be on the the wrong side if they ever become right and start walking. You never want to be on the wrong side of a wave - it really sucks.

You should also be aware of what is happening behind the talkers. For example, look at Singularity Institute: while they are all talk as a foundation, the scientists and entrepreneurs who speak at the Singularity Summit (run by SI) are often at the forefront of the fields (or preceding fields) of the "all talkers" futurists.

Just look at genetic engineering: this is what the futurists used to talk about. Now in popular culture genetic engineering has a negative connotation due to Gattaca and eugenics and people talk often about bioethics and socioeconomics in this context. However, even now we can do in vitro fertilization while selecting against fertilized eggs that contain a specific gene (such as for Wilson's or Huntington's disease). The beginnings of genetic engineering are already here but it has snuck up on the public, just like technologies will sneak up from behind the futurists.

Post reply on HN