Arquivo para October 5th, 2017

The future of thinking machines

05 Oct

We made a point of making the classifications (post) between cyborgues, aRayKuzweilandroids and humanoids, showing that the hybrids are still a fiction for some and a delirium for others, as our view is the point of singularity of Raymond Kurzweil.
Points of singularity m (it is good to say technological, since there are others) would be that point where there would be a surpassing of biological human to a post-human technological, of silicon or even something more futuristic, photonic or neo-biological (biological chips, for example ).
Raymond Kurzweil’s definitions are clearer and more precise, he wrote in 1987 The Age of Intelligent Machines and then in an even greater delirium an update to The Age of Spiritual Machines where he seeks to find where the so-called Transcedent Man (documentary 2009), and then we can outline his ideas.
You can delineate your ideas in 4 points: technological evolution up to its definition of singularity is one of the tangible objectives of humanity (will be?) By exponential progression, the functionality of the human brain is quantifiable in terms of technology and can be built in a near future (but only functional); average advances can keep a significant amount of their generation alive enough for the increase in technology to pass human brain processing (one thing does not imply the other, could be done with future generations), and a point that is socially interesting that the theory of accelerated evolutions.
This theory says that the theory of accelerated change refers to the increase in the rate of technological innovation (and sometimes it may be accompanied by social and cultural evolution) and is always present in history, which may suggest faster and deeper change in future, although this is true how much accelerated depends on the historical perspective.
We define this evolution as the noosphere, a sphere of mind or spirit, based on the idea of John Searle, that the mental “real and ontologically irreducible” to the physical, and that technologies evolve and accelerate human growth but are separated by what Juergen Schmidhuber calls “uniqueness of the omega”, something at once similar and different from the omega of Gregory Chaitin, because it is not a number or a number, but what Teilhar Chadin (1916) defines in his noosphere as the beginning and end of the human , but wrapped in a connection of minds and spirits as if they were communicating vessels.
For Juergen Schmidhuber, the next Omega – 2040 (there was no film Blade Runner 2049) from his series Omega – 2 ^n human lives (n <10; human lives (n <10; a life – 80 years) about major stages of events would occur in human history.
He questioned the validity of such changes by suggesting that they merely reflect a general rule for “both the individual memory of the single human being and the collective memory of whole societies and their history books: constant amounts of memory space allocated to get exponentially greater, adjacent time slots more and more into the past, “and it is memory and not Moore’s law that speaks of the growth of digital memories.
His suggestion is that “the reason why there has never been a shortage of prophets predicting that the end is near – important events according to their own vision of the past always seem to accelerate exponentially,” so both ancient and modern prophecies are no longer that oracles that establish this reconnection between the “omega” of the beginning and end, announcing great changes and at the same time connected to them.
There is a very clear example of Jürgen Schmidhuber’s acceleration, given in Wurman’s book, “Information Anxiety” (1991), where he says that a person who read the New York Times for a year read more than the best of the men of the eighteenth and earlier centuries, then of course there is more reading today than in previous centuries, but thinking … need evolution.