Transhumanism

[JanieCox]

Alright, I'm prepared for this to get buried real quick because it's a pretty niche subject, but let's talk Transhumanism

For those not in the know, I would personally define Transhumanism as a belief system characterized by two things:
1) technological advances will let humanity overcome its limitations and evolve into something entirely different from humanity as we know it today, and
2) this evolution is desirable
This is a personal definition because I'm no expert and finding a concrete one sounds like a lot of work. Anyways,
Transhumanism comes in many forms and there are many differing views between different Transhumanist thinkers. Some want to focus on anti-aging and hypothetically achieving immortality. Others would like to see the voluntary elimination of gender through technological means. The intersections between politics and ethics are innumerable as many believe the ideology to be the embodiment of humans playing God or raise questions of availability to these technologies due to social standing.

That's all well and good, but why am I talking about this? Well, I consider myself to be a transhumanist and I have for a while. The issue is a lot of people I talk to about it either don't take to it too well or aren't very interested. I'd like to meet other people who think this way and kind of pick their brains. And literature! Oh god I want to find Transhumanist literature. I can find a few pieces here and there (apparently there's a magazine called h plus that's for just this), but a lot of Transhumanism is actually based in Science Fiction. Novels and films are often brought up in debate, acting as hypothetical futures we may see if we go down the route proposed by Transhumanists.

As I've said, I haven't read the literature. I'm no expert. If you think this might suit you or if you're generally interested I can tell you about my beliefs. Why not come by and share yours? Hopefully this can be a cool, open space for us to discuss the potential benefits and pitfalls of Transhumanist thinking~

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Digital backups of the brain are the one thing that keeps my existential crisis at bay

 

[earl]

I personally don’t engage in wistful thinking about mind-uploads or whatever because I hope I would be at peace with death when the time comes, and any time spent worrying before then is just wasted time

 

[cookie]

reject transhumanism, embrace monky

ok now i have that out of my system...
depending on how you define it, we're already on the way to becoming transhuman. We augment our brains with computers that can perform calculations far more quickly, and access a vast repository of knowledge. The fact that this happens through a device that's not wired into our brains is kind of arbitrary: you can imagine more powerful voice-recognition allowing us to interface with them that isn't so far off but represents a huge jump in our ability to work with computers. Obviously a direct neural interface would allow orders of magnitude more bandwidth, which is why things would look very different.

I see transhumanism as inevitable as any other form of evolution - rather than biological or cultural it's technological

 

[JanieCox]

I personally don’t engage in wistful thinking about mind-uploads or whatever because I hope I would be at peace with death when the time comes, and any time spent worrying before then is just wasted time

I agree with that I think, but the eternal life aspect of transhumanism isn't what interests me. I'd much rather focus on how to get humanity as a whole to grow and expand what is possible than having individuals live longer lives. Improving lives for ourselves and future generations should be the goal

 

[Hipmonlee]

I have some pretty incomplete thoughts on this that I havent really indulged in anywhere... I thought about writing them up as a philosophy paper, because I havent really seen anyone else talk about this, but, I also dont really want to. I will write for a bit and see if anything worthwhile comes out.

I don't really believe this to be true. It's all metaphysics anyway, not really relevant to anything much. I just like to go on walks and think about weird shit. I dunno if it would offer any comfort to people who are so afraid of dying that they are going to pursue things like transhumanism? It all seems like a bad idea to me...

But anyway, my thoughts. I've bolded the chief assumptions/key points.


So lets assume our brains are turing machines. This I think is an assumption most people who understand turing machines and brains seem to agree with.


So out of this turing machine comes a thing we understand as consciousness, which is weird. I have seen people describe it as a an illusion, but an illusion requires an observer, and the fact of the observer is the weird bit.

But anyway, a turing machine basically just has state and the rules. The state is the information stored within the machine and the rules determine how the state is transformed. So essentially you have the state and how the state is interpreted and this is your turing machine.

So which bit is the conscious part? Is it the state? Well that doesnt really make sense. The state is just some representation of data. It's just a number. That would only make sense if there was some non-turing machine observer. But also the fact that I am able to have this conversation suggests that the metaphysical observer is able to in someway provide input to the turing machine. Although it doesnt really prove it, that bit could be an illusion. Anyway that violates our assumption about our brains being just turing machines, so lets assume that the actual representation of the state is irrelevant to the experience of consciousness.


The alternative is that somehow the process of transforming data generates that thing that we call consciousness. This feels a little more right to me.

But the other thing about turing machines is that they are deterministic. So no new information is ever generated by a turing machine. Once the state (including potential inputs) and rules are determined then all future states are determined.

Which is the where we get the Mary the Colour Scientist part. Is consciously experiencing something information? For instance, I experience "sight" a specific way. It is a metaphor for the information that my consciousness receives about what I see. But at the same time I could imagine a different experience that is an equally accurate metaphor for the same data that I would also be able to distinguish from my current experience of sight. Like, an inversion of all colours would contain exactly the same information, but the representation would be different. If I could distinguish the two things it suggests that this is information. So let's assume that consciousness is information. This is probably the weakest part of this argument.


There are countably infinite turing machines.

That being the case, it is possible to build a turing machine that will simulate all possible turing machines.

So having hypothesised such a machine---and it wouldnt be hard to code one (any hardware would quickly run out of resources trying to execute it however)---any given state of it would be predetermined. It might be hard to calculate any given state, but it would not be new information.


And finally, just for fun, lets assume that if two things are indistinguishable then they are the same thing.


So your consciousness is generated by a turing machine.
There exists a hypothetical turing machine that perfectly simulates your brain and all its experiences.
Your consciousness is information represented by a state of that hypothetical turing machine.
The actual physical execution of that turing machine, or physical representation of that state is irrelevant to the creation of any information.
From your perspective, the turing machine that is your consciousness is indistinguishable from the turing machine created by the turing machine I hypothesised and therefore they are the same thing.


Therefore you are already transhuman.


There's definitely assumptions here, but I think most of them are the assumptions that most people would be comfortable with.


But lets draw some more wacky conclusions from this.

Imagine two turing machines, with slightly different rules. But for the first n cycles will behave identically. If your consciousness were one of these two turing machines then during those first n cycles you cannot distinguish which of the two represents you. Therefore you are both of them.

There are infinitely many turing machines that you cannot distinguish from yourself and therefore are you.

Turing machines that led to your death are (kinda) irrelevant to you. You will continue to live on in the remaining (infintely many) turing machines. Your death will only be experienced by others.

There exist turing machines where you will live forever, probably in a completely banal way.

The fact that our experience seems largely coherent when it could be absolutely anything (why we dont wake up in the morning as an enormous cockroach) suggests that not all turing machines are equally likely. That turing machines where our experience of the world follow some comprehensible causality are probably a lot more likely. I am not sure about the maths here though? Selection from infinite sets is a weird concept.

While there are turing machines that result in never-ending suffering, at each cycle for such a turing machine there are most likely overwhelmingly many more futures where the suffering ends.

This theory also kinda answers the question of why anything exists at all.

 

[JanieCox]

I like the ideas posed there, but I guess I can debate the few things I can verbalize the best

From your perspective, the turing machine that is your consciousness is indistinguishable from the turing machine created by the turing machine I hypothesised and therefore they are the same thing.


Therefore you are already transhuman.

Firstly, I believe there are objective things in this world outside of experience (mostly in the form of morality) so I would argue with this based on that alone I guess. This feels like the matrix or an experience machine, and I think a lot of people, whether they have logical reasoning for it or not, believe that experience through a machine and real, true experience are two different things.

Apart from that, a belief that, because your mind is a turing machine you are transhuman would mean humanity never existed to begin with, so we can’t be a new form of humanity. Nothing has changed because those people in the past were turing machines, the same as us. The only difference is we have the wherewithal to figure it out.

There are a few other things I think I have gripes with, but can't exactly explain why so trying to talk about them would get confusing real fast.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Firstly, I believe there are objective things in this world outside of experience (mostly in the form of morality) so I would argue with this based on that alone I guess. This feels like the matrix or an experience machine, and I think a lot of people, whether they have logical reasoning for it or not, believe that experience through a machine and real, true experience are two different things.

Would that not mean much of what most think if when they talk about transhumanism is just completely impossible?

Basically if true experience is different to experience through a machine, then some part of "true experience" depends on something other than a turing machine. That is absolutely possible, just seemingly not what most people believe.

And if our brains aren't turing machines then at least I guess the singularity is an impossibility. Well, at least it is an impossibility until we invent some kind of non-turing machine computer. If your interest in transhumanity is in aid of something else, that's probably not an issue though. That's also probably a good thing too, because personally I consider the singularity to be quite a silly idea generally.

 

[orch]

I think that transhumanism is a cool subject. There's a lot can be talked about. I want to focus on #2 point.

What would the evolved form of anti-humanity look like? How can we strive for it? What are the steps to reach that level?

I think that video-game industry is inherently transhumanist, as that it provides stimulated experience that people can experience through their sensory inputs. VR is an excellent sign of the growing desire for transhumanity. Video game industry is in a weird state currently IMO, but I think that there's infinite amount of potential for video games. The social acceptance of video gaming is growing, and many people are starting to recognize that individualistic reality is superior to collective reality.

Most people's discontent with society is that the society isn't fit to their wishes and continually being alienated by whatever they dislike and unable to do anything about it because doing something would make other people alienated. With transhumanist mode of thinking, it is simply a matter of creating systems and getting people to select these systems to live in. For example, anarcho-primitivists can live in a reality hard-coded to be free from technological advances. You wanna live as a party elite in Stalinist empire? Knock yourself out.

Not to mention that, transhumanism would also emancipate the animal consciousness - is there any actual reason to think that human consciousness is privileged at all? I don't think so. Animal deserve better than suffering massively in the nature, and technology can be used to give them life that they want.

Use silicon to return to the monky.

 

[Myzozoa]

So lets assume our brains are turing machines. This I think is an assumption most people who understand turing machines and brains seem to agree with.

I don't follow this post, even if we ignore the actual definition of a turing machine, for the purpose of understanding the bolded part to read in common sense language as "is the brain similar to a computer in some way that is significant enough to be grammatical for the purposes of a thought experiment about turing machines or computers simulating human brain generated consciousness/the universe" my evaluation would still be no and probably most computer scientists and neuroscientists would agree with me up until some theory of powerful quantum computing is introduced to the discourse. Brains are mechanically too different than computers, a computer operates according to a binary language, where as the nervous system uses dozens of neurotransmitters, inhibitors, and exciters, as well as hair cells and such things of much greater complexity. I reckon even if you could code it and had infinite material to propel the simulation, there would still be a violation of mechanics or failure to accurately produce calculations related to observing speed and position simultaneously. The issue of the observer is central, there are in fact no actual states in the absence of the observation of the state, the observation if I am following any of this, which I find increasingly unlikely, is what makes a state a state in the first place.

Transhumanism is a well crafted corporate cult, it is very profitable and its foundational mythos is rather obviously meant as an abstract refutation of the brutal hard political and historical fact that technology is most often a tool for furthering human oppression. While people of a fairly high level of privilege can afford to introduce transhumanist contraptions in their lives, technology is mostly produced according to a the laws of profit over any notion of justice for humans.

One relevant 'thought experiment' here would unfortunately (for the seriousness of my post) come from the anime cowboy bebop. In this anime, humans have colonized the solar system, but earth is a desert with the sky blocked out by orbiting debris, from an accident caused 'by technology', and weaponized satellites. Shady scientists and corporate gangs dominate the environment. With democracy breathing its last in 2020, transhumanism offers little beyond a placating fantasy of techno-utopia and I reckon it is more important to grapple with the increasingly dystopic world corporate science is delivering.

 

[Hipmonlee]

When I say a turing machine I just mean something that follows the same mathematical limitations as a turing machine.

The signaling process is partly electrical and partly chemical. Neurons are electrically excitable, due to maintenance of voltage gradients across their membranes. If the voltage changes by a large enough amount over a short interval, the neuron generates an all-or-nothing electrochemical pulse called an action potential.

So fundamentally Neurons are binary, they either fire or they dont. Which means that part of your brain that is built out of neurons is going to be constrained by the same mathematical limitations as any computer. Brains are definitely complex and sure, there is probably more to it than just neurons. Whether that stuff makes it able to violate the mathematical limitations of a turing machine I dont know. I am pretty sure that most (atheist) computer scientists at least would guess that it doesnt.

So for instance, anything that takes continuous variables as input and produces continuous variables as output is altogether more sophisticated than a turing machine and my thought experiment is irrelevant to that. It is possible brains do that. But, such a device that does so meaningfully (IE, isnt just producing output that falls arbitrarily into discrete ranges), would be astonishingly sophisticated. If anything can do it it would be a brain, but like, neurons cannot do that, and I dont think I have ever heard anyone talk about an actual model for continuous computation.

But if brains are some form of continuous computer then I dont believe quantum computing is going to help anyone truly simulate a brain. I am not an expert in quantum computing at all, but my understanding is that it really just creates an amazingly efficient form of parallelism that can be applied for certain problems, but that it doesnt fundamentally change the mathematical limitations of a computer. IE this would be very bad news for anyone pinning their hopes on transhumanism delivering immortality.

It's also possible there are other ways for a brain to not be limited by the constraints of a turing machine. Although again, its probably bad news for the singularity crowd.

The issue of the observer is central, there are in fact no actual states in the absence of the observation of the state, the observation if I am following any of this, which I find increasingly unlikely, is what makes a state a state in the first place.

Yeah, its weird isnt it. It's like an argument for the existence of an immortal soul?

*shrug*

The important thing to remember is none of this really affects your lives. And I agree, don't let transhumanism be an excuse for billionaires to steal even more rights from you.

 

[Myzozoa]

So fundamentally Neurons are binary, they either fire or they dont. Which means that part of your brain that is built out of neurons is going to be constrained by the same mathematical limitations as any computer. Brains are definitely complex and sure, there is probably more to it than just neurons. Whether that stuff makes it able to violate the mathematical limitations of a turing machine I dont know. I am pretty sure that most (atheist) computer scientists at least would guess that it doesnt.

There is a binary layer of action potentials, but that does not mean that brains are fundamentally binary. what happens when they fire is an 'analog' result that depends on the disposition of the next neuron or next receptor and the neurotransmitter(s) being released. Secondly, in the sensory division which is central to consciousness there are graded responses.

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/29679/can-the-human-brain-be-reduced-to-a-binary-system

edit: Also it seems to me that we are basically resorting to a circular definition of turing machine and that if we examined what a turing machine is with any rigour we would find many of the questions posed itt to be ungrammatical.

 

[Hipmonlee]

There is a binary layer of action potentials, but that does not mean that brains are fundamentally binary. what happens when they fire is an 'analog' result that depends on the disposition of the next neuron or next receptor and the neurotransmitter(s) being released. Secondly, in the sensory division which is central to consciousness there are graded responses.

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/29679/can-the-human-brain-be-reduced-to-a-binary-system

Graded responses are only relevant however if they result in graded output. If a graded response can be reduced to something falling within a discrete range then fundamentally the model is still discrete. Having graded response does not refute the claim that a brain is fundamentally a turing machine.

But, I am not a brain expert and as I stated, I dont really believe this stuff. I still think most computer scientists assume this to be true. But I would make the point that either the human brain is a turing machine, OR many of the goals of Transhumanism are completely impossible. So it is reasonable to assume that all transhumanists believe that brains are turing machines.

edit: Also it seems to me that we are basically resorting to a circular definition of turing machine and that if we examined what a turing machine is with any rigour we would find many of the questions posed itt to be ungrammatical.

I suspect there is some room for what the source of consciousness is to contain some ungrammatical parts. As I noted in my first post, its weird, and that is the weakest part of the whole thing. Unless you have specific objections about the rest, I am gonna back my knowledge of turing machines here over your case of the seemsdas.

 

[JanieCox]

Transhumanism is a well crafted corporate cult, it is very profitable and its foundational mythos is rather obviously meant as an abstract refutation of the brutal hard political and historical fact that technology is most often a tool for furthering human oppression. While people of a fairly high level of privilege can afford to introduce transhumanist contraptions in their lives, technology is mostly produced according to a the laws of profit over any notion of justice for humans.

While the language is kinda harsh I see where this is coming from. I do, for one, disagree with the idea that technology is more often a tool for oppression than it is for betterment. Or, if it is, that is not the fault of the technology or inventor but a flaw of society, and one we should aim to fix. Yeah, this ideology will lead to rampant evil-overlord corporatism if left unchecked, but our laws and ethical beliefs need to change alongside technological advancements and keep up. I see myself as anti-corporation and hate the idea of people taking advantage of life-altering advances in science to turn a profit, focusing on that over human need. Regulation has got to be a part of the deal moving forward.

Human greed will get in the way of this. It's an idealistic solution, but my personal views have very little chance to actually change the world on a large scale so why not dream big. And, for me at least, transhumanism means having the ability to ignore what it means to be human. Our ability to override what is seen as "natural" shows our ingenuity as a species and amazes me greatly. I don't necessarily think we should get rid of things like greed or hatred, but defending them simply by merit of being innately human traits is dumb, in my opinion.

Again, I'm not the most eloquent nor am I an expert, just one person sharing their opinions. Feel free to disagree or tell me I'm wrong and why, but try not to be insulting. If you think I'm missing something, let me know, I'm very willing to consider new information or opposing ideas

 

[Latirae]

While the language is kinda harsh I see where this is coming from. I do, for one, disagree with the idea that technology is more often a tool for oppression than it is for betterment. Or, if it is, that is not the fault of the technology or inventor but a flaw of society, and one we should aim to fix. Yeah, this ideology will lead to rampant evil-overlord corporatism if left unchecked, but our laws and ethical beliefs need to change alongside technological advancements and keep up. I see myself as anti-corporation and hate the idea of people taking advantage of life-altering advances in science to turn a profit, focusing on that over human need. Regulation has got to be a part of the deal moving forward.

Human greed will get in the way of this. It's an idealistic solution, but my personal views have very little chance to actually change the world on a large scale so why not dream big. And, for me at least, transhumanism means having the ability to ignore what it means to be human. Our ability to override what is seen as "natural" shows our ingenuity as a species and amazes me greatly. I don't necessarily think we should get rid of things like greed or hatred, but defending them simply by merit of being innately human traits is dumb, in my opinion.

Again, I'm not the most eloquent nor am I an expert, just one person sharing their opinions. Feel free to disagree or tell me I'm wrong and why, but try not to be insulting. If you think I'm missing something, let me know, I'm very willing to consider new information or opposing ideas

This is exactly my mindset on the entire concept. Human greed will end up making this, if ever wonderful possibility, a chore. I really don't trust people in power with this kind of technology, yet I know it'll either become government controlled or profit-for-profit. It's a scary thought to think that our society we live in today would prevent us from becoming unified if this technology did exist. I share your view in that seeing greed or corruption take over life-altering advances (prices of insulin, for example) is appalling to me.

 

[Rugi]

Digital backups of the brain are the one thing that keeps my existential crisis at bay

A digital back of your brain would just be an exact copy of you. It wouldn't be you. You can prove this because you would be able to exist at the same time as a digital back-up of yourself.

 

[cookie]

A digital back of your brain would just be an exact copy of you. It wouldn't be you. You can prove this because you would be able to exist at the same time as a digital back-up of yourself.

in the context of reducing existential dread, that's good enough. Having a speculative out for death that's not yet completely falsified or proven to work is waaaaaaaaaay better than some mechanism rooted in mysticism.

 

[Rugi]

Definitely, ngl the thought that I might still exist somewhere or that maybe our universe is just some fuck's Sim game and I'll come back eventually is reassuring

But I've never liked the idea of brain uploading, shit freaks me out. Youd def just be making a clone of yourself

 

[cookie]

Transhumanism is a well crafted corporate cult, it is very profitable and its foundational mythos is rather obviously meant as an abstract refutation of the brutal hard political and historical fact that technology is most often a tool for furthering human oppression. While people of a fairly high level of privilege can afford to introduce transhumanist contraptions in their lives, technology is mostly produced according to a the laws of profit over any notion of justice for humans.

I think your view on technology is broadly correct, but ultimately a cynical one. Remember that these systems for oppressing humans are created by humans themselves. Technologies that fall under the umbrella of transhumanism have the potential to mitigate or entirely remove some of the legacy flaws in human minds that hold us back. How about neural augmentation extending our social capacity from 100 to the entire human population? That would make us far more cooperative as a species. Or a way to maintain youth levels of neural plasticity well into old age to stave off closemindedness. Or give women conscious control over ovulation, thereby fully emancipating them from the risk of childbirth and bringing societies closer to sexual post-scarcity (and removing one of many things that people squabble and kill each other over).

The thing here is that the idea of technology used as a tool for oppression is inevitable is heavily biased towards the current situation where, broadly speaking, humans are still subject to some very embarrassingly primitive urges. Transhumanist tech provides the opportunity to actually overcome those hurdles and allow a world where more cooperative and less oppressive societies are stronger and win out in the long run. At that point maybe we can't call ourselves humans any more but then maybe that's a good thing if it means evolving into something better.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

A digital back of your brain would just be an exact copy of you. It wouldn't be you. You can prove this because you would be able to exist at the same time as a digital back-up of yourself.

Stop reminding me.....

 

[Atha]

A digital back of your brain would just be an exact copy of you. It wouldn't be you. You can prove this because you would be able to exist at the same time as a digital back-up of yourself.

Well here is the core of a whooooole load of philosophical and ethical questions, including transhumanism. Problem being there can be no proof here. It’s all about belief, about guts. Can somebody please explain to me why one of the answers should inherently be considered superior (there is no singularity > there is singularity).

 

[Rugi]

Well here is the core of a whooooole load of philosophical and ethical questions, including transhumanism. Problem being there can be no proof here. It’s all about belief, about guts. Can somebody please explain to me why one of the answers should inherently be considered superior (there is no singularity > there is singularity).

Not really. If you create an upload of yourself, it means that you are capable of perfectly transferring the information that makes up you. In order to do that you need to be able to perfectly read and preserve said information, in which case a copy of that information could exist while the original continues existing.

Perhaps as part of the method the original would be destroyed, but that still means that its a copy.

If I ever get brain uploaded I at least want my copy to have some digital way of experiencing physical pleasures.

 

[Reisen]

I was waiting for a topic related to this.

I consider myself as a transhumanist since I've watched a documentary called "The Cyborg Era".
The definition of a Cyborg is basically a person that lives thanks to a machine device. Cyborgs exist since a long time, the first example is the Pacemaker.

Nowadays with the technology we can realize amazing stuff such as giving back sigh to a blind person with a bionical eye, or even
allowing a quadriplegic to walk by thinking with an exoskeleton that is connected to his brain thanks to electrodes.

Some people could say we shouldn't think we are "god" but the technology combined with the medical can improve so many things, i'm definitely for the transhumanism.

Although, in the documentary I've watched, something a bit scary was pointed out, they said they could improve ppl who had health issues, and then they said "What could we do for people in good health ?" then they were talking about boosting human performances, changing humans into super humans we could think it's science fiction but it could actually be a thing.

They were also saying that it would not be about religious wars or weapon races but about the country that is the first to build a "super army" composed by super soldiers.


edit sources:

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...leton-helped-a-man-with-paralysis-walk-again/ (Exoskeletton)
https://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/bionic-eyes.htm (Bionical eye)

(Cyborg documentary)

 

[OldM8]

And if our brains aren't turing machines then at least I guess the singularity is an impossibility.

Why do our brains need to be turing machines in order for the singularity to be possible? Our brains have nothing to do with the singularity directly, our only involvement with the singularity is to initiate it by creating an intelligent machine which can self-improve and create more intelligent machines, and the rest will be history.

That's also probably a good thing too, because personally I consider the singularity to be quite a silly idea generally.

The singularity isn't a silly idea, it's practically inevitable under the assumption that humans don't destroy themselves in the near future before it is achieved. The median year predicted for it to occur among AI researchers is 2050, a mere 30 years away. If a bunch of action potentials traveling through a mushy blob of neurons can generate human level intelligence, there's no reason to believe that electrical signals traveling through silicon can't also. A silicon brain, however, would operate much faster, more reliably, have a much greater memory and computational capacity, wont need to eat, sleep or get distracted in the ways that humans do, and can be mass produced in the trillions. From there, technological and industrial progress will clearly be insanely rapid.

 

[Hipmonlee]

If you are trying to build something that is in all ways superior to a human brain out of a turing machine, that will be impossible if the human brain is not a turing machine. And we dont have any model for a computer that is more sophisticated than a turing machine at the moment that I am aware of at least.

I guess you might be able to build something that for all intents and purposes is better than a human brain, but, that being the case, it does kinda raise the question of how humans managed to evolve a super-turing machine when a turing machine is more than capable of doing the job. I think its reasonable to assume that if human brains arent turing machines, then there is some reason they need to be more than a turing machine.

And the singularity is one of those things its kinda impossible to argue against, cause you never really know what it means when someone is talking about it. But some general observations.

If you are talking about the idea of a point in time where technological growth improves exponentially, then we already passed that. But there is no real reason to think that the exponential growth of technology will continue forever. Moore's Law is already over and there are plenty examples of technologies that havent fundamentally changed since hundreds of years ago.

But basically, I will back mushy blobs of neurons over silicon pretty much every time. Silicon is just not very good at anything other than doing really dumb stuff really quickly. Do you think it's possible that people's tendency to get distracted is actually helpful for technological progress?