Quote:
| Originally Posted by DaveB View Post The technology stuff sounds dubious to me, too, at least in the context of it happening within Kurzweill’s (or my) lifetime. I’m certainly nothing of a tech geek, but it seems to me that our greatest technological advances have generally been in the interest of efficiency. Humans, however, are not necessarily the most efficient creatures. It seems to me that we’re a different sort of complexity entirely than the leaders of technology are used to dealing with. We haven’t even gotten to all-around convincing AI yet, and that would just be the surface illusion of humanity. For Kurzeill’s ideas about nanotechnology and transferring consciousnesses, we’d have to achieve a very profound understanding of the brain and somehow figure out how to replicate it technologically. That’s more than just memory, which is hard enough. It’s also emotion, perception, intuition, all the connections necessary to create a thought; it’s also the hardware, which we still don’t entirely have a handle on. We can observe brain phenomena when it comes to fear, love, anger, etc., but we’re a ways from nailing down exactly how and why they happen. Like I said above, this is absolutely nothing like saving a file or recording a film. |
Also when he says nanotechnology which time of nanotechnology is he talking about. Is he talking about MEMS, DNA, Dry, Wet, or something else. I not sure he understand the technology he is advocating.