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

Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#41

Post by lukifer »

cbo wrote: post #16
akkartik wrote: post #10

So he's skeptical of the singularity but he thinks we'll be able to live forever in a lifetime or so. Weird.

They're two very different ideas, even if they're often shared by the same people. The singularity is all about AI surpassing human intelligence. On this front, I can tell you after having studied a lot of AI for the past three years, we are not close. We're a lot further than many people think, but still not quite that far. As for extending lifespans, this is something we've been doing from the dawn of medicine. We'…

> The singularity is all about AI surpassing human intelligence.

This is a common misunderstanding. According to Kurzweil's timeline, AI surpassing human intelligence is only a stepping stone to the singularity, the former happening around 2029, the latter around 2045.

Rather, the singularity refers to the point at which the exponential slope representing technological progress begins to approach infinity. What this mathematical model means for reality is anybody's guess, and the majority of the predictions that have been made are pure conjecture.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#42

Post by malkia »

omarchowdhury wrote: post #32
malkia wrote: post #24

He is one of my heroes. So charming, funny and educating at the same time. His speech on the islam downfall in the 13th century due to some "prophet" claiming that math and devil were interconnected was much enlightening on how religion actually stops scientific progress.

Does that one instance preclude all of the other people that contributed to science, who also had faith?

deGrasse's observation was that when a scientist reaches a point where he can't explain, or understand something often he attributes it to God... And then years later someone else find it's explanation, until he stumbles onto the next problem.

It's all good. I gues it's okay to put God where your knowledge limits you, or the current more wide one, but just don't spread it that it's because of God.

e.g. God is "what we don't understand"

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#43

Post by lukifer »

md224 wrote: post #28
cbo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're two very different ideas, even if they're often shared by the same people. The singularity is all about AI surpassing human intelligence. On this front, I can tell you after having studied a lot of AI for the past three years, we are not close. We're a lot further than many people think, but still not quite that far. As for extending lifespans, this is something we've been doing from the dawn of medicine. We'…

Has anyone considered the idea that perhaps this "AI" has already arrived in the form of the collective intelligence of the Internet? That perhaps the "Singularity" is simply a shift of scope in terms of consciousness from the individual to the group? Much like multicellular organisms evolving from single-celled creatures? I just think this makes a lot more sense than the whole "we will build a conscious robot" thing…

I don't think this started with the internet; the internet just made collective consciousness vastly more efficient. Just as information is processed algorithmically within the brain, information also passes from person to person via language, print, technological invention, etc.

We all want to believe that our consciousness is fully independent, but it's pretty hard to separate from our memetic history. Perhaps someday we'll be able to wire our brains together physically via wetware, and our philosophical questions about individually will take on a whole new level of complexity.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#44

Post by darkandbrooding »

malkia wrote: post #24

He is one of my heroes. So charming, funny and educating at the same time. His speech on the islam downfall in the 13th century due to some "prophet" claiming that math and devil were interconnected was much enlightening on how religion actually stops scientific progress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

"Ghazali has sometimes been referred to by historians as the single most influential Muslim after the Islamic prophet Muhammad.[6] Others have cited his movement from science to faith as a detriment to Islamic scientific progress.[7]"

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#45

Post by th0ma5 »

lobster_johnson wrote: post #31
davidhollander wrote: post #27

Anyone interested in NdGT, check out the show he hosts: Nova Science Now http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/ You can watch full episodes online, no commercial interruptions after they start. It does a good job at filling the popular science video niche, in addition to Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman.

I have been looking for a good science show, but Nova scienceNOW wasn't it. Not so much the content as the absolutely juvenline format. Can someone explain how I have misunderstood and the show really is meant for kids? Because it's designed like a kid's show, complete with silly music, wacky editing, colourful demonstrations/analogies to illustrate scientific principles, and narration that sounds as if written for a…

I can't agree with you more, on one hand the technical detail is somewhat increasing in American shows, but the over production and gimmicky nature certainly overshadows it. I'm always impressed by the technical level of BBC shows in comparison, but the best content is online, usually in lectures, and not TED.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#46

Post by bluedanieru »

sskates wrote: post #35
bluedanieru wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would help if their faith is what drove them to pursue scientific endeavors. And that is sometimes the case, in fact. But for every "understand the mind of god" faith-driven scientist there are at least one thousand screaming, irrational, dangerously unbalanced regressives who are one papal bull or fatwa or Dianetics away from ushering us into a brutal and stupid dark age. Like many human inventions religion can b…

Not disagreeing/agreeing, but do you have any evidence to back up the claim "for every "understand the mind of god" faith-driven scientist there are at least one thousand screaming, irrational, dangerously unbalanced regressives"?

No, sorry. This isn't Wikipedia.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#47

Post by suprgeek »

Q:What is your favorite fact about the Universe?

A:That is will never end. That it's on a one way trip of expansion. Something that many find to be philosophically unsettling. My view is that if your philosophy is not unsettled daily then you are blind to all the universe has to offer.

Priceless

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#48

Post by JeremyBanks »

lukifer wrote: post #41
cbo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're two very different ideas, even if they're often shared by the same people. The singularity is all about AI surpassing human intelligence. On this front, I can tell you after having studied a lot of AI for the past three years, we are not close. We're a lot further than many people think, but still not quite that far. As for extending lifespans, this is something we've been doing from the dawn of medicine. We'…

> The singularity is all about AI surpassing human intelligence. This is a common misunderstanding. According to Kurzweil's timeline, AI surpassing human intelligence is only a stepping stone to the singularity, the former happening around 2029, the latter around 2045. Rather, the singularity refers to the point at which the exponential slope representing technological progress begins to approach infinity. What this…

It's not a misunderstanding, it's a different theory that also falls under the umbrella of "singularity". http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/schools

To me, the name actually seems like a better fit for Vinge's or Good/Yudkowsky's predictions than Kurzweil's. They both have specific "singularity" points, while Kurzweil's "singularity" is just an ever-growing exponential (or super-exponential).

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#49

Post by skeletonjelly »

bluedanieru wrote: post #46
sskates wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not disagreeing/agreeing, but do you have any evidence to back up the claim "for every "understand the mind of god" faith-driven scientist there are at least one thousand screaming, irrational, dangerously unbalanced regressives"?

No, sorry. This isn't Wikipedia.

Exactly. Just because I declare something doesn't mean I have to back it up with facts. I trust my gut. That's where the truth lies.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson AMA

#50

Post by Jach »

tkahn6 wrote: post #8
jphackworth wrote: post #2

Really interesting. A couple of physics things I did not know that Neil mentions: 1) The fact that an electron has no known size -- it's smaller than the smallest measurement we have ever made of anything. 2) That Quarks come only in pairs: If you try to separate two of them, the energy you sink into the system to accomplish this feat is exactly the energy to spontaneously create two more quarks - one to partner with…

See also: Q: Since time slows relative to the speed of light, does this mean that photons are essentially not moving through time at all? A: yes. Precisely. Which means ----- are you seated? Photons have no ticking time at all, which means, as far as they are concerned, they are absorbed the instant they are emitted, even if the distance traveled is across the universe itself.

This answer bothered me. Is he just saying that any supposed delays of "light" we can set up through experiment are really just delays in instantaneous absorption/emission pairs, or is he talking about entangled photons, or some preferred space of simultaneity, or photons not being particles but vectors in a timeless configuration space?
Post reply on HN