Live data from Hacker News

Ray Kurzweil thinks we could start living forever by 2029

businessinsider.com

71–80 of 90 posts

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

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd only add that it's another way to manufacture hope for people who have been left behind by how unbelievable most religions are. I've been trying for years (and will continue trying) to switch my parents hope for an afterlife with a hope that cryo will work. There is definitely no afterlife, but cryo might eventually work. That's how I see most of these "living forever" positions. It's just a more intellectual hop…

>There is definitely no afterlife For the sake of argument, how do you definitely know this?

[deleted]

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

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd only add that it's another way to manufacture hope for people who have been left behind by how unbelievable most religions are. I've been trying for years (and will continue trying) to switch my parents hope for an afterlife with a hope that cryo will work. There is definitely no afterlife, but cryo might eventually work. That's how I see most of these "living forever" positions. It's just a more intellectual hop…

>There is definitely no afterlife For the sake of argument, how do you definitely know this?

[deleted]

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

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd only add that it's another way to manufacture hope for people who have been left behind by how unbelievable most religions are. I've been trying for years (and will continue trying) to switch my parents hope for an afterlife with a hope that cryo will work. There is definitely no afterlife, but cryo might eventually work. That's how I see most of these "living forever" positions. It's just a more intellectual hop…

>There is definitely no afterlife For the sake of argument, how do you definitely know this?

[deleted]

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

#74
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason current scientists have not been able to understand the limitless and eternal nature of consciousness is their fundamental assumption which is "matter gives rise to consciousness". Unless this assumption is turned around to "consciousness gives rise to matter" until then this quest for immortality will remain just that, a quest and never a realized goal. I can’t tell if you’re trolling. If you’re not, I…

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/

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

#75
post #35
post #9

I imagine if it ever comes to that, society is likely to stagnate intellectually. People grow more conservative and reactionary as they grow older (I don't just mean that in the political sense), what would happen if all there is are infinitely old people? I think young generations are necessary, but if everyone lives forever, there's hardly space in the world for them. Maybe it's the fate of humanity and a singulari…

Imagine not having to dedicate your entire career to this one path you've picked, but having enough time to explore whatever you want and as much as you want. Imagine being able to postpone your career because you and your husband/wife decided to bring someone new to this world. You could still achieve anything you wanted, and not be tied by time in this case. In this scenario, you get to choose when you die. Would y…

s/adultery/adulthood

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

#76
post #58
post #29

What is forever? Surely there must be some limit to life, whether that be the sun exploding or the eventual heat death of the universe. Almost every species on Earth has gone extinct, and almost every great civilization has faded. Every solar system is doomed to collapse eventually. Why should humans be able to defy nature when there is so much evidence that death is inevitable? What if we start living 10000 years in…

10E65 if protons do decay. 10E(10E76) if protons do not decay and virtual black-holes do not exist. At about 10E(10E(10E56)) the universe should spontaneously create a new universe, so that that is the most upper limit of time in our universe. Fairly small actually, compared to things like Graham's number and Tree(3). Turns out, infinity is really big. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future https://…

I'll pass.

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

#77
post #41
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can check most of the predictions / dates on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_made_by_Ray_Kurzwe... 2009 "Artificial voices sound fully human" seems a bit optimistic. as does 2019 "Household robots are ubiquitous and reliable."

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.

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

#78

That's a pursuit in the wrong direction..... Hidden underneath the quest for immortality is the eternal quest of freedom from all known and unknown bounds. Unfortunately enough, this quest, when expressed from the confines of the apparatus called "mind" shows up as ego which is limiting, self serving and divisive. To experience the real singularity and immortality one needs an instrument which at its very core is lim…

GTFO with this pseudo-spiritual crap.

It seems as though you've come here just to violate the guidelines, so we've banned the account. We're glad to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll start posting civilly and substantively.

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

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

#79

Ray has been thinking about this stuff for thirty years. He has a knack for getting positive press, which goes back to his time in high school. His ideas reveal the narrowness of his experience in the world: it appears that he has only the vaguest notions of what the lives of most humans currently on the planet are actually like. If he understood humanity beyond the confines of Silicon Valley / Route 128 / Davos, he…

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

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

#80
post #74

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/

Hidden in your reply is an assumption that a scientific and reproducible method cannot be applied to spiritual quest. Hypothesis, experimentation and inference are basic steps in a scientific investigation but proving a hypothesis correct/wrong also depends on the instrument used e.g. if one doesn't use microscope one cannot directly show presence of bacterial cells. Similarly to prove that a state of thoughtlessness and beyond exists one cannot use the tools of thoughts, one has to observe by pure attention (without distracting thoughts) the state between 2 successive thoughts as a starting point.
Post reply on HN