a) Dr. Linden seems to have no qualms with the idea of introducing something as invasive as nanobots, into the fabric of our minds. Frankly, that seems like an idea that could be abused in so many more ways than it could be beneficial. That’s where _I_ get off the bus. and

b) I suggest that our progress in _any_ field is neither linear nor exponential, it is sigmoidal (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SigmoidFunction.html). There is little progress for a time (a plateau) followed by a sudden increase followed by another plateau. That means it seems linear in some places and exponential in others. Where are we now in biology? Given the current state of experimental design and data analysis in that field, it’s on a shallow linear plateau before the big rise … and will be for some time.

Frankly, I don’t know if that’s an accurate statement or not, but the first thing to question is how long a period of time has he based this idea on? If he’s considering the progress of the past decade, is it really possible to determine if the trajectory is linear or exponential? I would think it would depend on which referents you’re measuring.

Over the past several months, I’ve taken an active interest in neuroscience, and it seems to me the rate of progress is moving quite quickly. I admit I don’t know, but regular readers of the KurweilAI news feed have surely seen the enormous progress in those fields. Couple that with rapidly advancing technologies in other fields, and Linden’s argument seems pretty weak to me. It appears that he’s focused on his own area of speciality and not taking into consideration that exponential progress is largely due to cross-pollenation of technological advancements. When you’re surrounded by trees, it’s hard the see the forest.

I love seeing counterpoints to Kurzweil’s ideas, though. Great food for thought.

Here’s his disagreement with Kurzweil:

“I contend that our understanding of biological processes remains on a stubbornly linear trajectory. In my view the central problem here is that Kurzweil is conflating biological data collection with biological insight.”

I think it’s wrong to assume that factor will STAY linear.. Even if our “insight” into that data has been linear thus far, it will soon start to pick up, and with it, our insight/understanding of MANY other issues too.

I assume he thinks that insight is a uniquely human feature, and that humans are the only things capable of figuring-out and understanding the usable information in that data. If that were true, then our insight may very well stay linear, and it certainly would us take a long time to make sense of and fully understand such huge and complex data, that way.

But we humans aren’t necessarily the only method for gaining such insight into data. Or at least, we wont be for much longer.

I’m sure this is what Kurzweil is getting at, as I’ve heard him explain this in various ways:

Time after time, over the last few decades, computers have shown us that they can rise to the challenge of matching our various “human” abilities. Ray explains this better, but the examples span from mathematics and logic, to winning chess, and even pattern recognition.. Each time, people assumed computers couldn’t do it as well as humans, if at all, because those features are/were “uniquely human”. But each time, eventually, the computers match us in those skills, and then pass us, like a jet passing a snail.

I see no reason things will be any different when it comes to our abilities of “insight and understanding”. And there’s already some promising examples of how quickly computers are catching up to us, on even these. IBM’s Watson is a good example. Watson did something no computer before it could; It can take abstract sentences with misleading hints, word-plays, and riddles, and figure out the one meaning behind them. And it does that using a vast database of general knowledge, which it has to make sense of all on it’s own! Isn’t this exactly what David in this article is referring too? Taking huge data sets, and getting the desired useful meanings and insights, out?

Watson is good at figuring out riddles, even better at figuring out straight-forward questions, and now he’s currently being fed an even larger data set, medical knowledge! Meaning soon Watson will be able to solve medical issues. And armed with almost all the medical knowledge and data out there, he’ll be able to take many more elements and factors into account. And when asked to solve medical problems and give diagnosis, he may very well be better at it than any human doctor, because no human can consider THAT many factors, and still make usable sense of it.

And Watson is only the beginning! His descendents will get better and better, leaving even him in the dust, probably in less than just a decade. Since this will follow the exponential curve of progress which we see with computers and processing technology.

So, I’d guess that by the mid 2020s, since processing power by then will make computers like Watson even more powerful and common, with broader abilities and areas of understanding; We’ll be putting those computers to use making sense of all that data, and boy will there be a lot more of it by then too. So I think we’ll see computers being fed tons of research data, most of it nothing more than simple observations, of how the brain works, and of making technology on the nano-scale, and all the medical knowledge and science in existence, and so on! Even the data-sets we think we already understand, these computers will be able to draw whole new conclusions from and links too and between! Data will be merged across disciplines by these computers. New connections will be discovered and understood, and insights in ways we could never have hoped to figure out, let alone come up with in the first place, will change everything, rapidly..

So does 2030 really seem like THAT huge of a stretch? Consider all the progress we’ve seen in the last few decades. Do I even need to describe that? These great futurist thinkers say “The Singularity is Near”, I say take a look back at our childhoods and compare technology and human knowledge from then, to now. The Singularity is Here, and it’s already started. We’re climbing our way up that ever increasing slope of exponential progress, and it’s effects are felt across every last single aspect of human knowledge and progress.. Even those which we currently believe are limited by our “uniquely” human abilities, wont remain untouched for long.

Perhaps there is another way. Perhaps we can accept ourselves as “enough” the way we are in the current moment. Anything beyond that then becomes a nice bonus to what we are today, but does not become a necessity. It is only a different way of looking at things, but perhaps a kinder and gentler one, with self-forgiveness?

But then the harsh lesson to humanity will dawn – we are all more or less flawed. Every human, up to the most uber-educated rosy colored preppy IQ 163 ideal son-in-law eternally smiling clark kent lookalike. Yes even Lady Gaga and Zizek ! – we are all flawed, afraid, temporal, limited, delusional, emotional, irrational and weak. And we are all too much dorks to fully appreciate how much.

The topmost reason for me to be involved with ‘transhumamism’ (for lack of a less ghastly term) are these two – to escape my own nature and nurture limitations, and to finally make all of humanity evolve the decency, even prosthetic if need be, how much utter crap all of us had to endure to this point.

The problem I have with Dr. Kurzweil is this: I have had laser surgery to correct nearsightedness. I am often approached by people that want to have the surgery but have heard some story somewhere about a botched procedure and they are now skittish. How do you think people will feel about putting tiny robots into their brain? I think Dr. Kurzweil might jump at the chance but most others will not, no matter how safe it proves to be. This is a basic aspect of human nature that Dr. Kurzweil does not take into account.

I also disagree with Dr. Linden about the need for these nanobots to penetrate deep within the brain. All cells need oxygen to survive and the capillaries which bring this oxygen will be able to take nanobots near enough to clusters of brain cells to be able to resolve signals down to a few cells which should be all we need to be able to pass information back and forth. There is no need to have a nanobot parked next to every neuron.

Lastly, these nano bots will likely be powered the same way our neurons are powered – by extracting energy from our blood. Since they are microscopic, they will need very little energy to operate. We already know how this works and how to do it.

Why is it assumed that a steadily accumulating and an undying populace must necessarily be a Good Thing for the world? I see a dark side.

The Singularity is an extrapolation on the demonstrable pattern of technological growth, not bricolage based on available technological assets.