The Science Video Thread

[Khorum]

Quick version is that around 2045, Skynet wins.

Well not really. Most singularitarians see the Technological Singularity as this glimmering posthuman future. And they brought some extremely persuasive argumants to that end.

Here's a 20 minute version of Kurzweil's keynote presentation, made during Google's Zeitgeist Conference. It's a shorter version of his Stanford Summit keynote basically, but with a little more economic and financial discussion.

Although a lot of the presenters at the conference spent their time extolling how awesome the Technological Singularity would be for all humanity, how superintelligent AI and nanomedicine would effect virtual immortality, that didn't keep them from building a non-profit research institute whose SOLE purpose is to avoid the creation of Skynet as soon as the summit was over LOL.


EDIT: The summit also had several critics and skeptics of the Singularity hypothesis. The skeptic with the most eloquent objections is also the one with the most credentials and is the man that was the organizer of the previous conference: Dr. Douglas Hofstadter; a pulitzer-winning Physicist (not to be confused with the Nobel Laureate Robert Hofstadter, his father). Though Hofstadter grills Kurzweil for his approach and some semantics, he basically agrees with him:

[Eomer]

a pulitzer-winning Physicist

What book did he win that with?

[Khorum]

Godel, Escher and Bach, in 1979. Never read it. It's apparently a study of consciousness, which is what he's made his career of, Cognitive science.

[gremlinz273]

Ok, I want some of those robotic red blood cellls. Where do I sign up for the clinical trial?

[Tallyn]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Godel, Escher and Bach, in 1979. Never read it. It's apparently a study of consciousness, which is what he's made his career of, Cognitive science.

GEB is a great book if you think epistemology is fun. It won't change your life, but it's a good read.

[eVasiege]

All those supplements Kurzweil's been taking look like they are having a more negative a effect with the amount of violent blinking he does. He's on the verge of schiz.

[Celebrindal]

Bullshit - Hypnosis

[Necrolyte]

I just wanted to quickly point out that when it comes down to it, there are literally hundreds of definitions of a scientist. Much of DF's arguments I agree with, but that's because my background lies in more empirical research.

The video on the Salk Institute's research on Stem Cells was interesting to me because I'm a new student working with professors at Salks, but I have not had a chance to view any other area's work except my own (CogSci).

Scientists/researchers in our field build a theory and then test it empirically to determine whether the theory is adequate or needs to be modified. Basically, these researchers make a theory that (if adequate) can predict certain results in a given scenario.

In Physics, or much of Mathematics and the on-going debates in this thread, the research is using math to "predict" theories which may or may not be empirically testable at this point in time. These researchers basically use current tools to create theories that (may be able to) predict certain results in a given scenario in the future. The only difference is, we can't test these theories now and there's no factual evidence or proof at the moment. Proving these theories wrong, is just as amazing as proving them right, because they'll reveal thousands of bits of information that can push research in new directions.

Both areas of research have been vital in pushing technology and academia forward, and I know first-hand it's impossible to convince either group that the "other way" is good. There's really no debate in this thread, the opposing sides simply stand in different camps of research.

[AngryGerbil]

Found a neat video that sums up my frustration with the "We see microevolution, but what about MACROevolution?" argument IDers use. The video isn't a perfect model or likely very scientific in and of itself, it simply illustrates a scientific point.

[Khorum]

That charlatan claiming hypnosis can suppress cancer should be in a fucking jail.

[Eomer]

I'd rather they just get diagnosed with lung cancer. That would be better.

[Windemere11]

I'm posting this mostly to pump this thread but I'd also like to hear some reactions to what this Dr. is proposing

Dr. Hugh Ross PhD. Lectures on "Creation as Science" - Google Video

I've thoroughly enjoyed watching all the different videos in this thread and would love to see some others that people dig up =)

[Celebrindal]

I didn't listen to it yet, I will probably try to stomach it later tonight, but is he saying that there is literal truth in the old testament version of creation?

I'm sorry, but that would totally discredit him as being taken serious in my opinion.

[Zuuljin]

To sum up that video: Everything is too complex to have just happened, therefore there had to be a "creator."

After watching the entire hour and 8 minutes, I actually came away with the thought that he helped disprove there being a creator, because his idea's and his point do a 180 halfway through. Let me see if I can explain.

He opens with how the universe is just too complex, and for life to be here, everything in the universe has to have been placed and designed perfectly. He goes through tons of science on how the universe functions, explaining it all, saying how it all points to a singular beginning, then concluding that that beginning must be God.

He explains how various happenings in the universe led to the creation of the earth as we know it, from a large planet crashing into earth and forming the moon, to all the planets must be aligned perfectly, to saying that if you add or subtract to the universe mass the size and weight of a dime, life wouldn't be possible.

Yadda yadda. So what I got his point being was that God created the big bang, and set all of the laws of physics up perfectly so that the earth would be created perfectly. Like a gigantic, cosmic scale domino board.

My first objection is that this is entirely over dramatic and unnecessary for God to create a huge domino effect, which creates 99.99999% of the universe and all of its happenings, just so that the earth could end up perfectly as it is now. If God was all powerful, couldn't he have just changed the laws so it wouldn't so dramatic? The earth, and like 2 or 3 planets for us too look at? Its like creating a machine, the size of Asia, so that it could control a pencil to draw a period on a piece of paper. He also states that the proof of God creating the universe is that the universe is here, and we exist. Keep this point in mind for later, when he uses the same conclusion to prove the complete opposite point.

Now for the 180 I mentioned. His point thus far was that God set in motion everything, and it was all designed perfectly to support life. Got it. He then focuses on the creation of life. One would think, following logically, that if God set in motion this whole thing, then he would have also made it so life could arise naturally through his laws right? Wrong. Now apparently, the whole perfectly aligned universe is meaningless because life cannot arise on its own. The only answer is that God put life on earth. So God sets everything in motion perfectly, but not really because he has to go ahead and make life himself? Again, why couldn't God have cut out 99% of the bullshit and just made the earth by itself and people all in one go?

The rest of his speech is just probabilities on how the probability is just so low, God is the only answer. He mentions life arising as it did would have the probability of having someone win the lotto 300 million times consecutively by buying only one ticket. Fine, thats pretty rare, but I respond with, "Is it still possible though?" to which the answer is yes, although unlikely, it is still possible. He says this is reason to believe in a creator, but didn't he just say above that the very fact we are here and exist, is proof that it happened? If there is a chance that something can happen, no matter how small, and that thing has happened, how can he conclude its impossible?

He also interprets bible quotes pretty obscurely. Here's an example (paraphrased because I"m not watching it again). He said the expanding universe is explained in the Bible, because theres a passage that refers to the creation of the universe as God stretching a tent over the earth. Well what is a tent? Its a surrounding shell. Kind of like how people live on the shell of the earth, not in the middle. And as scientists recently found, we live on the outer shell of the universe. So when the bible said God stretched the skies over the earth, he implied that its the shell of the universe as we know it! So the bible predicted it! Right.....

[AngryGerbil]

Also when they say "it's all so perfect!" and you point out that, no, in fact, it isn't...that's fun too. Yes, so perfect that we have a completely useless abdominal organ that can get infected, burst, and kill us. Oh and the Milky Way is on a collision course with Andromeda. Al dente! *kiss tips of fingers*