We're doomed...

[peewee_RotA]

People living today think to themselves, "It must have SUCKED to live back in the 1500's! No electricity! No internet! Life today is so fucking awesome!" Yet in another 500 years, technology is probably going to advance so much that those people will say, "It must have really sucked to live back in 2010!"

That gap is changing. Remember that only 30 years ago, almost nobody had a personal computer at their desk. Now almost every single worker has a personal computer in front of them. This is for us youngsters in the audience. Can you even imagine how accountants survived without a computer and a company wide database to work with? THAT would have sucked.

15 years ago, most people didn't have a cell phone. Do you remember how much it sucked having to search for pay phones or hoping that you had friends near by?

There are so many huge leaps in technology that have happened in our own life time, and many more geezers like recycled's lifetime. () I don't buy into predictions that rely on "past performance is the only indication of future results". So I'm not going to say that in 500 years technology will grow at a faster rate or even at the same rate. But I do see that we've made more and larger leaps since the dawn of the computer age.

I actually think that we've entered into a "mobile age" and that the determination of "ages" has to adapt to how fast we have advanced. Society, Business, and every day life has changed so much due to ease of access to any kind of communication that we have now. I personally consider this impact to be vastly different than that of computers and the internet alone.

So I don't disagree that people will always look at advancements and think back "it must have sucked" when the people in the past didn't know the difference, since the technology obviously wasn't around then. I just think that we're going to have at least one more huge change in technology in our own lifetime, that will make us think "That did suck" rather than "it must have".


EDIT**

I also think that it's fair to say "It must have sucked" because limitations in technology are noticed even before a solution is found.  So for many things, the people described in the era probably did find it frustrating that they were limited. It did suck for them.

[reaper]

I see we haven't adapted to the double edged nature of the cell phone.  Hopefully we can learn our lessons.

 

As for the parallel computer analogy, that's quite a stretch.

[quadz]

As for the parallel computer analogy, that's quite a stretch.

In what way SPECIFICALLY?

FACT: (1a) our brains are an existence proof of low-power highly parallel computing machinery,

FACT: (1b) which can be constructed from a completely digital program (DNA). Our brains are a digitally specified mechanism...

PRESUMPTION: ...which (somehow) achieves consciousness.

The latter is a presumption because the relationship between the brain and consciousness is not well understood, nor is the phenomenon of consciousness itself well understood.  Nevertheless it is presumed the structure and functioning of the brain is instrumental in achieving consciousness.  (Rather than, say, that of the appendix or the spleen.)

Nevertheless, it is an established fact that DNA is a digital instruction sequence which specifies, ultimately, the construction of our bodies--including our brains.  Further, our brains are known to operate at low power, and appear to process inputs in a highly parallel fashion.

OK so far?

Now, all I've done was posit the following: Given that we have an existence proof of the brain, showing us that it is indeed possible to construct such a parallel computing machine from a digital instruction sequence (DNA), I am suggesting that it may be possible to construct an analogous machine on a non-biological substrate.

So what specifically about that do you think is "quite a stretch", and why? 

[|iR|Focalor]

As for the parallel computer analogy, that's quite a stretch.

In what way SPECIFICALLY?

Yeah. Speaking in vague terms? Come on, finish the point.

And while you're at it, explain what you mean by "the double edged nature of the cell phone".

[reaper]

Yeah. Speaking in vague terms? Come on, finish the point.

And while you're at it, explain what you mean by "the double edged nature of the cell phone".

I don't feel the need to elaborate on things, but anyways here is what I meant.  To me cell phones suck, people text all day with them, work calls you day and night and you're expected to answer.  Personally I hate my cell phone, I would much rather not have one.

Now, all I've done was posit the following: Given that we have an existence proof of the brain, showing us that it is indeed possible to construct such a parallel computing machine from a digital instruction sequence (DNA), I am suggesting that it may be possible to construct an analogous machine on a non-biological substrate.

So you can recreate the human brain with what human DNA?  That's not saying a whole lot.  Also at that point, it's not a computer but a human, and you didn't create anything.   The brain can't move bits around specifically to crunch numbers, but it can create computers to crunch numbers, I'd say that's a bit more advanced, and a bit different than a computer.  Also you're saying the input into the "parallel computer" totally dictates everything, along with the "hardware" of the computer itself, which is not known to be true.

[|iR|Focalor]

The "hopefully we can learn our lessons" part was as ambiguously random as a chihuahua dressed up like a Kenmore washing machine. Made as much sense too. Still makes that much sense (99% of none at all) after your elaboration. Sure, I think cell phones suck too. But if there is a lesson to be learned by how much they suck, the person can always turn it off. I used to turn mine off while driving. 99% of the time, I wouldn't get calls, but I'd get people beeping me on the nextel walkie-talkie, usually my girlfriend bugging me about nothing at all. At first, I'd just ignore it and start screaming things, "GOD DAMMIT, FUCK OFF!" or "GOD DAMMIT, WHAT NOW!?!". But like clockwork, she'd beep it twice and if I didn't answer back by 20 seconds after the 2nd beep, she'd hit the god damn alert to help push me to the brink of road rage. Everyone I knew was quite aware that I hated talking on the damn thing while driving. They all knew that I'd get off at 3:30 every day and it would take me 2 hours to get home. Yet they'd still suffer from a fucking bout of momentary mental retardation and fucking beep beep beep beep beepity beep beep beep me ANYWAY. These days, I leave it OFF unless I'm sure I give a fuck about whatever someone may be calling me for. I don't give a fuck if it's a matter of life and death, leave a message and wait, or deal with it your-goddamn-self.

[quadz]

So you can recreate the human brain with what human DNA?  That's not saying a whole lot.

I'm saying it's intriguing that DNA is a digital sequence.  And that our biological brains are constructed, ultimately, based on that digital code.

I'm saying that fact in itself is remarkable.  Because we have proof it's possible to construct a machine like our brain from digitally encoded information.  Nature has provided the proof, but it's a proof all the same.

It may well be possible to construct a machine like our brain, that operates electrically instead of electro-chemically.

We have huge gaps in our knowlege about how the brain functions; but the closer we look, what we're discovering is not magic, but chemistry and physics.

So far, you haven't provided any reasoning to support your claim that it's "quite a stretch" to imagine a machine like our brain might be able to perform equivalent computations electrically instead of electro-chemically.

[reaper]

I don't consider that proof at all.  For a number of reasons, one of which is that god made everything (not that I necessarily believe in god), so nature didn't provide you any proof.  The burden of proof is on you in my opinion.

ps., the movie Aliens had an android, and I don't consider that proof, but also remember it malfunctioned.

[VaeVictis]

So you can recreate the human brain with what human DNA?  That's not saying a whole lot.

I'm saying it's intriguing that DNA is a digital sequence.  And that our biological brains are constructed, ultimately, based on that digital code.

I'm saying that fact in itself is remarkable.  Because we have proof it's possible to construct a machine like our brain from digitally encoded information.  Nature has provided the proof, but it's a proof all the same.

It may well be possible to construct a machine like our brain, that operates electrically instead of electro-chemically.

We have huge gaps in our knowlege about how the brain functions; but the closer we look, what we're discovering is not magic, but chemistry and physics.

So far, you haven't provided any reasoning to support your claim that it's "quite a stretch" to imagine a machine like our brain might be able to perform equivalent computations electrically instead of electro-chemically.

consider that we are still very early into a technological age, and how far we have advanced over just a few decades, there is no doubt in my mind given enough time we could go one step beyond making a computer as fast as our brains and duplicate a brain in a more computer like fashion that may even be more efficient with practical uses in AI or even prosthesis

im just waitin for ghost in the shell days to roll around, prosthetic bodies ftw  lol i give it 65 years before japan is close

EDIT: and no i didnt read everything, i have no fuckin clue what reaper and foc ar arguing about, just felt like makin a response to quadz' comment

[quadz]

I don't consider that proof at all.  For a number of reasons, one of which is that god made everything (not that I necessarily believe in god), so nature didn't provide you any proof.  The burden of proof is on you in my opinion.

Dude.  The proof that nature has provided is that a biological mechanism like our brain can be constructed from a digital code.

It's irrelevant to my argument if you want to substitute "God" for nature.  Talk about God all you want, it doesn't change how DNA works chemically.

Right?

ps., the movie Aliens had an android, and I don't consider that proof, but also remember it malfunctioned.

Leave Robot Jeffrey Dahmer out of this!

[VaeVictis]

I don't consider that proof at all.  For a number of reasons, one of which is that god made everything (not that I necessarily believe in god), so nature didn't provide you any proof.  The burden of proof is on you in my opinion.

Dude.  The proof that nature has provided is that a biological mechanism like our brain can be constructed from a digital code.

It's irrelevant to my argument if you want to substitute "God" for nature.  Talk about God all you want, it doesn't change how DNA works chemically.

Right?

ps., the movie Aliens had an android, and I don't consider that proof, but also remember it malfunctioned.

Leave Robot Jeffrey Dahmer out of this!

quadz dont forget we have figured out much more than that we are to a point where we can actually manipulate stem cells in certain ways to get whatever kind of tissue we want to grow... pretty cool to see the videos of people growing cardiac muscle in one of those little dishes it was beating and everything... what we understand about human bodies now is quite amazing, and knowledge keeps coming

anyway im atheist so obviously ill just stay out of this one now... if you guys wanna argue about creationism and god vs evolution and science have fun...

[VaeVictis]

ok i finally read all the gibberish between quadz and reaper....

given enough time i have to agree with quadz, our brain IS proof that computing that way is possible... how exactly it works we dont know, but when we do find out how it works, and i have no doubt that we will in the future at some point, that opens up large opertunities in electronics... it wont be a traditional computer as we know now, with just ons and offs, but it will still be able to run algorithms and potentially work through things much faster

the brain is developed from chemical instruction which we are starting to understand, so all we have to wait for is more and more knowledge about all the functions

there should be no problem in the, most likely far, future to build a computer that works similarly to our brain

im a firm believer that if it exists... its possible to create we just may have to advance in several ways before we can

[reaper]

given enough time i have to agree with quadz, our brain IS proof that computing that way is possible... how exactly it works we dont know, but when we do find out how it works, and i have no doubt that we will in the future at some point, that opens up large opertunities in electronics... it wont be a traditional computer as we know now, with just ons and offs, but it will still be able to run algorithms and potentially work through things much faster

The idea is that instructions exist for both computers and humans and they are a digital sequence at the most basic level.

Computers use transitors to perform basic operations, like XOR, etc., then higher level languages are built by compounding basic instructions that manipulate the registers (processor memory), which the processor is hard-coded to work with at the electronics level.  It then goes on from there as you can use the low level operations to perfom complex routines.

The instructions in humans are a series of instructions made up of chemicals in DNA.  At the basic level there are 4 chemicals in various sequences, and these instructions can be written much like machine code,  0010101010, or AGCTAAAA.   A modern day computer is hardly analogos to a human brain.  I would also say that the instructions mean nothing, but that's just my opinion.

I hope that the digital sequences is explained properly, maybe someone can explain the human stuff more .



Also a quick workaround for humans running algorithms quickly : ).  Hook up the same system that makes blind people see (exists) to the internet.

[quadz]

The idea is that instructions exist for both computers and humans and they are a digital sequence at the most basic level.

To clarify: I'm not trying to claim explicit similarity between DNA's digital code and modern computers.

What is important to me about the fact that our brains can be built from a digital code, is that it is a very strong indicator that there is no 'magic' going on between the digital code (DNA) and the end product (biological brain.)

It also tends to suggest there is probably more than just one way to build a brain.

A modern day computer is hardly analogos to a human brain.  I would also say that the instructions mean nothing, but that's just my opinion.

I don't know what you mean by saying "the instructions mean nothing".  Obviously they mean something, since they determine whether the result is a carrot or a chimpanzee or a human, etc.

Further, we have already been able to design custom DNA to solve computational problems.  In 1994, actually... solving the "travelling salesman" problem in a test tube using custom-coded DNA
solving the "travelling salesman" problem in a test tube using custom-coded DNA.

Clearly the instructions mean something.  They may mean, "build a biological turnip".  Or they may mean, "solve a Hamiltonian Path problem."

So why do you say they mean nothing?

[VaeVictis]

The idea is that instructions exist for both computers and humans and they are a digital sequence at the most basic level.

To clarify: I'm not trying to claim explicit similarity between DNA's digital code and modern computers.

What is important to me about the fact that our brains can be built from a digital code, is that it is a very strong indicator that there is no 'magic' going on between the digital code (DNA) and the end product (biological brain.)

It also tends to suggest there is probably more than just one way to build a brain.

A modern day computer is hardly analogos to a human brain.  I would also say that the instructions mean nothing, but that's just my opinion.

I don't know what you mean by saying "the instructions mean nothing".  Obviously they mean something, since they determine whether the result is a carrot or a chimpanzee or a human, etc.

Further, we have already been able to design custom DNA to solve computational problems.  In 1994, actually... solving the "travelling salesman" problem in a test tube using custom-coded DNA
solving the "travelling salesman" problem in a test tube using custom-coded DNA.

Clearly the instructions mean something.  They may mean, "build a biological turnip".  Or they may mean, "solve a Hamiltonian Path problem."

So why do you say they mean nothing?

oh that... yeah there is very large portions of dna which we dont know what it represents... but the entire human genome is now mapped and there is a significant bunch that we do understand

not too far off before designer babies become a huge hit with the rich people XD all blonde hair blue eyes! GO!

lol and really if you think about dna... and you think about meiosis and such, you even just have to laugh if you try to think of a religious way to explain genetic traits like baldness XD "GOD HATES ALL PEOPLE IN THIS FAMILY, HE WILL TAKE THEIR HAIR!"