On Aug 15, 7:18 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Try this one, it is among the best I have 
> found:http://www.ivona.com/online/editor.php

It's nicer, but still not significantly more convincing than the
oldest version to me.

> I think you will be surprised by the progress of the next 30 years.

That's exactly what I might have said 20 years ago. I could never have
prepared myself for how disappointing the future turned out to be, so
yes, if in 2041 we aren't living in a world that makes Idiocracy or
Soylent Green seem naively optimistic, then I will be pleasantly
surprised. If you compare the technological advances from 1890-1910 to
those of 1990-2010 I think your will see what I mean. We're inventing
cell phones that play games instead of replacements for cars,
electricity grids, moving pictures, radio, aircraft, etc etc.

> > This is just mapping vocal chord vibrations to digital logic -
> > a miniscule achievement compared to mapping even the simplest
> > neurotransmitter interactions. Computers double in power/price, but
> > they also probably halve in efficiency/memory. It takes longer now to
> > boot up and shut down the computer, longer to convert a string of text
> > into voice.
> Lines of code (code complexity) has been found to grow even more quickly
> than Moore's law.  (At least in the example of Microsoft Word that I read
> about at one point)

Exactly. There isn't an exponential net improvement.

> > Like CGI, despite massive increases in computing power, it still only
> > superficially resembles what it's simulating. IMO, there has been
> > little or no ground even in simulating the appearance of genuine
> > feeling, let alone in producing something which itself feels.
> That is the property of exponential processes and progress, looking back the
> curve seems flat, look to see where it is going and you'll see an
> overwhelming spike.
> Have you seen the recent documentary "Transcendent Man"?
> You seem to accept that computing power is doubling every year.  The fruit
> fly has 10^5 neurons, a mouse 10^7, a cat 10^9, and a human 10^11.  It's
> only a matter of time (and not that much) before a $10 thumb drive will have
> enough memory to store a complete mapping of all the neurons in your brain.
> People won't need to freeze themselves to be immortal at that point.

Look at the interface that we're using to have this conversation.
Hunching over a monitor and keyboard to type plain text. Using ">>>"
characters like it was 1975 being printed out on a dot matrix printer
over an acoustic coupler. The quantitative revolution has turned out
to be as much of a mirage as space travel. An ever receding promise
with ever shorter intervals of satisfaction. Our new toys are only fun
for a matter of days or weeks now before we feel them lacking.
Facebook means less interest in old friendships. Streaming music and
video means disposable entertainment. All of our appetites are dulled
yet amplified under the monotonous influence of infoporn on demand.
Sure, it has it's consolations, but, to quote Jim Morrison "No eternal
reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." We may not need to
freeze ourselves, but we will wish we had frozen some of our reasons
for wanting to be immortal.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to