PDA

View Full Version : 2050 - and immortality is within our grasp


maximus
05-23-2005, 04:20 PM
Got this off of another site. Not sure what the link is.

Britain's leading thinker on the future offers an extraordinary vision of life in the next 45 years

David Smith, technology correspondent
Sunday May 22, 2005
The Observer

Aeroplanes will be too afraid to crash, yoghurts will wish you good morning before being eaten and human consciousness will be stored on supercomputers, promising immortality for all - though it will help to be rich.

These fantastic claims are not made by a science fiction writer or a crystal ball-gazing lunatic. They are the deadly earnest predictions of Ian Pearson, head of the futurology unit at BT.

'If you draw the timelines, realistically by 2050 we would expect to be able to download your mind into a machine, so when you die it's not a major career problem,' Pearson told The Observer. 'If you're rich enough then by 2050 it's feasible. If you're poor you'll probably have to wait until 2075 or 2080 when it's routine. We are very serious about it. That's how fast this technology is moving: 45 years is a hell of a long time in IT.'

Pearson, 44, has formed his mind-boggling vision of the future after graduating in applied mathematics and theoretical physics, spending four years working in missile design and the past 20 years working in optical networks, broadband network evolution and cybernetics in BT's laboratories. He admits his prophecies are both 'very exciting' and 'very scary'.

He believes that today's youngsters may never have to die, and points to the rapid advances in computing power demonstrated last week, when Sony released the first details of its PlayStation 3. It is 35 times more powerful than previous games consoles. 'The new PlayStation is 1 per cent as powerful as a human brain,' he said. 'It is into supercomputer status compared to 10 years ago. PlayStation 5 will probably be as powerful as the human brain.'

The world's fastest computer, IBM's BlueGene, can perform 70.72 trillion calculations per second (teraflops) and is accelerating all the time. But anyone who believes in the uniqueness of consciousness or the soul will find Pearson's next suggestion hard to swallow. 'We're already looking at how you might structure a computer that could possibly become conscious. There are quite a lot of us now who believe it's entirely feasible.

'We don't know how to do it yet but we've begun looking in the same directions, for example at the techniques we think that consciousness is based on: information comes in from the outside world but also from other parts of your brain and each part processes it on an internal sensing basis. Consciousness is just another sense, effectively, and that's what we're trying to design in a computer. Not everyone agrees, but it's my conclusion that it is possible to make a conscious computer with superhuman levels of intelligence before 2020.'

He continued: 'It would definitely have emotions - that's one of the primary reasons for doing it. If I'm on an aeroplane I want the computer to be more terrified of crashing than I am so it does everything to stay in the air until it's supposed to be on the ground.

'You can also start automating an awful lots of jobs. Instead of phoning up a call centre and getting a machine that says, "Type 1 for this and 2 for that and 3 for the other," if you had machine personalities you could have any number of call staff, so you can be dealt with without ever waiting in a queue at a call centre again.'

Pearson, from Whitehaven in Cumbria, collaborates on technology with some developers and keeps a watching brief on advances around the world. He concedes the need to debate the implications of progress. 'You need a completely global debate. Whether we should be building machines as smart as people is a really big one. Whether we should be allowed to modify bacteria to assemble electronic circuitry and make themselves smart is already being researched.

'We can already use DNA, for example, to make electronic circuits so it's possible to think of a smart yoghurt some time after 2020 or 2025, where the yoghurt has got a whole stack of electronics in every single bacterium. You could have a conversation with your strawberry yogurt before you eat it.'

In the shorter term, Pearson identifies the next phase of progress as 'ambient intelligence': chips with everything. He explained: 'For example, if you have a pollen count sensor in your car you take some antihistamine before you get out. Chips will come small enough that you can start impregnating them into the skin. We're talking about video tattoos as very, very thin sheets of polymer that you just literally stick on to the skin and they stay there for several days. You could even build in cellphones and connect it to the network, use it as a video phone and download videos or receive emails.'

Philips, the electronics giant, is developing the world's first rollable display which is just a millimetre thick and has a 12.5cm screen which can be wrapped around the arm. It expects to start production within two years.

The next age, he predicts, will be that of 'simplicity' in around 2013-2015. 'This is where the IT has actually become mature enough that people will be able to drive it without having to go on a training course.

'Forget this notion that you have to have one single chip in the computer which does everything. Why not just get a stack of little self-organising chips in a box and they'll hook up and do it themselves. It won't be able to get any viruses because most of the operating system will be stored in hardware which the hackers can't write to. If your machine starts going wrong, you just push a button and it's reset to the factory setting.'

Pearson's third age is 'virtual worlds' in around 2020. 'We will spend a lot of time in virtual space, using high quality, 3D, immersive, computer generated environments to socialise and do business in. When technology gives you a life-size 3D image and the links to your nervous system allow you to shake hands, it's like being in the other person's office. It's impossible to believe that won't be the normal way of communicating

ThunderingHERD
05-23-2005, 04:25 PM
Except for the fact that we still have no concept of how consciousness actually works or how to replicate it, and haven't advanced an inch on that front. So according to this "futurologist" we'll have the technology to download all the data from a brain--that'd be about as valuable as a hard drive in the stone age.

Hawglaw
05-23-2005, 04:26 PM
Got this off of another site. Not sure what the link is.

I don't think I could eat yogurt that told me "Good Morning." Now, if it told me to "Go to Hell," that's a different story.

SackAttack
05-23-2005, 04:33 PM
I don't think I could eat yogurt that told me "Good Morning." Now, if it told me to "Go to Hell," that's a different story.

New York City - yogurt capital of the world?

ThunderingHERD
05-23-2005, 04:35 PM
The entire concept is fundamentally absurd... to think that you could somehow gain eternal life through this process. I won't call it a soul, because that sounds spiritual and I certainly don't mean it in that way, but I think it's obvious that there's is a "spark" of life, or consciousness, or whatever--that simply cannot be duplicated. Do these people actually think that you'll just go on being "you" in another body? Or in a computer? So what happens in they download "you" into another brain, or a dozen other brains, while you're still alive? Are "you" in 12 places at once?

ThunderingHERD
05-23-2005, 04:46 PM
Ok, after reading over this again: this guy is completely full of shit.

<i>He continued: 'It would definitely have emotions - that's one of the primary reasons for doing it. If I'm on an aeroplane I want the computer to be more terrified of crashing than I am so it does everything to stay in the air until it's supposed to be on the ground.</i>

Why would an airplane with emotions be a good thing? Can't science tell us everything we need to know about the proper way to handle an aircraft given any particular adversity? Why would you want an airplane to be terrified when it is completely feasible, even with current technology, for it to be calm and calculating in its unemotional responses to its circumstances.

Franklinnoble
05-23-2005, 04:46 PM
The entire concept is fundamentally absurd... to think that you could somehow gain eternal life through this process. I won't call it a soul, because that sounds spiritual and I certainly don't mean it in that way, but I think it's obvious that there's is a "spark" of life, or consciousness, or whatever--that simply cannot be duplicated. Do these people actually think that you'll just go on being "you" in another body? Or in a computer? So what happens in they download "you" into another brain, or a dozen other brains, while you're still alive? Are "you" in 12 places at once?
Yeah, I didn't like "The Sixth Day" either.

maximus
05-23-2005, 04:48 PM
I just would like to say I do not agree with what this Pearson guy said but thought it interesting none the less.

WSUCougar
05-23-2005, 04:56 PM
I don't think I could eat yogurt that told me "Good Morning." Now, if it told me to "Go to Hell," that's a different story.
What if it said, "I taste like regurgitated toe jam?"

Hawglaw
05-23-2005, 05:04 PM
What if it said, "I taste like regurgitated toe jam?"

Now, you just hit on something. Is the yogurt lying to you just so you won't eat it? Damn you, yogurt!

I don't think I'm ready for this just yet.

kcchief19
05-23-2005, 05:15 PM
Does he have any thoughts on whether we will still be using napkins in 2050 or is this "mouth vacuum" for real? Also, does he think we'll be able to breath under water in 2050?

Hawglaw
05-23-2005, 05:16 PM
Does he have any thoughts on whether we will still be using napkins in 2050 or is this "mouth vacuum" for real? Also, does he think we'll be able to breath under water in 2050?

You know, in the year 2050, we'll all be on speed-dial. You'll just have to think of a person, they'll be talking to you. It'll be like, wup, getting a call here.

Senator
05-23-2005, 05:46 PM
Got this off of another site. Not sure what the link is.

linkfilter?

cody8200
05-23-2005, 05:58 PM
Does he have any thoughts on whether we will still be using napkins in 2050 or is this "mouth vacuum" for real? Also, does he think we'll be able to breath under water in 2050?

One of my favorite Kramer quotes ever! Still cracks my ass up.

Lathum
05-23-2005, 08:46 PM
'It would definitely have emotions - that's one of the primary reasons for doing it. If I'm on an aeroplane I want the computer to be more terrified of crashing than I am so it does everything to stay in the air until it's supposed to be on the ground.

What if it was depressed and wanted to commit suicide?

st.cronin
05-23-2005, 08:49 PM
Have none of you really read the writings of Kurzweil, the most important thinker in America today? Kurzweil talked about this stuff years ago.

Passacaglia
05-24-2005, 09:20 AM
'If you draw the timelines, realistically by 2050 we would expect to be able to download your mind into a machine, so when you die it's not a major career problem,'

Big deal. They already did this to Optimus Prime in 1984 -- OVER TWENTY YEARS AGO!

kcchief19
05-24-2005, 09:23 AM
After reading this again, I think this guy developed his ideas after a drunken night of watching one of the Data/Lore episodes of Star Trek: Next Generation.

Desnudo
05-24-2005, 12:54 PM
There's a lot of stuff in my mind that I don't ever want downloaded.

rkmsuf
05-24-2005, 01:01 PM
but it's my conclusion that it is possible to make a conscious computer with superhuman levels of intelligence before 2020.'

How many times must we be reminded that this is a very bad idea. It never goes well for the simple human.

Sidhe
05-24-2005, 01:29 PM
When we make computers smarter than us, the first thing they are going to realize is what a rotten little virus we are..