 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Origin >
Will Machines Become Conscious? >
Cyber Sapiens
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0687.html
Printable Version |
|
| |
|
Cyber Sapiens
...We will no longer be Homo sapiens, but Cyber sapiens--a creature part digital and part biological that will have placed more distance between its DNA and the destinies they force upon us than any other animal ... a creature capable of steering our own evolution....
Excerpted from Thumbs,
Toes, and Tears, Walker & Co. 2006. Published on KurzweilAI.net
October 25, 2006.
Today nature has slipped, perhaps finally, beyond our field
of vision.
-O. B. Hardison Jr.
Now after six million years of evolution, where do we go next?
How will evolution, our newly arrived intellect, our primal drives
and the powerful technologies we continually create, change us?
Our current situation is unlike anything nature has seen before
because we are not simply a by-product of evolution, we are ourselves
now an agent of evolution. We are this animal, filled with ancient
emotions and needs, amplified by our intellects and a conscious
mind, embarking on a new century where we are creating fresh tools
and technologies so rapidly that we are struggling to keep pace
with the very changes we are bringing to the table.
Where will this lead? Will we develop new brain modules, new appendages,
revamped capabilities just as we have over the past six million
years? Absolutely, but probably not in the way we suspect. It appears,
if we look closely, that the DNA that has been such a perfect ally
in the evolution of life, may itself be in for a revamping. Evolution
may be prowling for a new partner. And the partner may be us, or
at least the technologies we make possible.
The irony is that it takes a being like us, a human being, to bring
about change this fundamental. The job requires an amalgamation
of high intelligence and emotion, conscious intent, primal drives
and great quantities of knowledge made possible by minds that can
communicate in highly complex ways. If you pulled any one of these
out, the future, at least one involving intelligent, conscious creatures
like us, would fall apart. It takes not just cleverness, but passion,
sometimes fear, fired by focused intention, to create and invent.
Without this combination there would be no technologies, no wheels
or steam engines or nuclear bombs or computers. And there would
be nothing like the world we live in today. At best we would still
be huddled in the black African night, eking out whatever existence
the predators waiting in the darkness around us would allow. Not
even fire would be our friend.
But the traits that have shaped us into the human beings we are
have endowed us with strange abilities, and they are hurtling us
into a future radically unlike the past out of which we have emerged.
And that future will be profoundly different from anything most
of us can imagine.
Take the thinking of Hans Moravec as an object lesson. Moravec
is a highly respected robotics scientist at Carnegie Mellon University.
In the late 1980s, he quietly passed his spare time writing a book
that predicted the end of the human race. The book, entitled Mind
Children, didn’t predict that we would destroy ourselves
with nuclear weapons or rampant, self-inflicted diseases, or undo
the species with self-replicating nanotechnology. Instead, Moravec,
who had an abiding and life-long fascination with intelligent machines,
predicted we would invent ourselves out of existence, and robots
would be the technology of choice.
In a subsequent book (Robot, Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind)
Moravec explained that this transformation would unfold one technological
generation at a time, and, because of the blistering rate of change
today, would pretty much run its course by the middle of the 21st
century. We would manage this by boosting robots up the evolutionary
ladder, roughly in decade-long increments, making them smarter,
more mobile, more like us. First they would be as intelligent as
insects or a simple guppy (we are about there right now), then lab
rats, then monkeys and chimps until, finally one day, the machines
would become more adept and adaptive than their makers. That, of
course, would quickly raise the question: “Now who is in charge?”
Would Homo sapiens, after some 200,000 years living on top
of the planet’s food chain, no longer rule the roost? Would
we, in the cramped space of this evolutionary ellipsis, find ourselves
playing Neanderthal to technologies that had become, like us, self-aware—the
first conscious tools built by a conscious toolmaking creature?
The unavoidable answer would be, yes. Evolution will have found
through us a new way to make a new creature; one that could forsake
its ladders of DNA and the fragile, carbon-based biology that nature
had been using for nearly four million millennia to manage the job.
The “end” would not come in the form of a Terminator
style invasion, it would simply unfold in the natural course
of evolutionary events where one species, better adapted to its
environment replaces another that is no longer very fit to continue.
Except the new species wouldn’t be cobbled out of DNA, it would
be fashioned from silicon, alloy, and who knows what else, invented
by us. But once successfully invented, we wouldn’t be necessary
any more.
Whether events will play out like this or not remains to be seen.
But Moravec’s scenario makes a point—the world and the
life upon it changes, and simply because we are the agents of change,
doesn’t mean we won’t be affected by it.
***
It is strange to think of the invention of machines, even robotic
ones, as having anything to do with Darwin’s natural selection.
We usually regard evolution as biological—a world of cells,
DNA and “living” creatures. And we think of our machines
as unalive, unintelligent and shifted by economic forces more than
natural ones. But it isn’t written anywhere that evolution
has to be constrained by what we traditionally think of as biology.
In fact each day the lines between biology and technology, humans
and the machines we create are blurring. We are already part and
parcel of our technology.
Since the day Homo habilis whacked his first flint knife
out of flakes of flint, it has been difficult to know whether we
invented our tools or our tools invented us. The world economy would
crash if its computer systems failed. We can’t live without
laptops, palmtops, cell phones or iPods, which grow continually
smaller and more powerful. We regularly engineer genes, despite
the raging debates over stem cell therapy. A human being will very
likely be cloned within the next five years. We now have computer
processors working at the nano (molecular) level and microelectromechanical
machines (MEMS) that operate at cellular dimensions. Already electronic
prosthetics make direct connections with human nerves, and electronic
brain implants for Parkinson’s disease and weak hearts are
common place. Scientists are even experimenting with electronic,
implantable eyes. New clothing weaves digital technologies into
their fiber and brings them a step closer to being a part of us.
The military are working on “battlesuits” that will fit
like gloves, a kind of second skin and amplify a soldier’s
senses, strength and ability to communicate, even triangulate the
direction of a bullet headed his or her way.
What next? Speech, writing and art enabled us to share inner feelings
in new and powerful ways. But it takes months or years to learn
a new language or how to play the piano or master the art of engineering
bridges and buildings. Will new technologies that accelerate communication
(virtual reality, telepresence, digital implants, nanotechnology)
create new ways to communicate that can by-pass speech? Will we
someday communicate by a kind of digital telepathy, downloading
information, experiences, skills, even emotions the way we download
a file from the Internet to our laptop? Will we become machines,
or will machines become more powerful versions of us? And if any
of this comes to pass, what ethical issues do we face? At what point
to do we stop being human?
Lynn Margulis, probably the world’s leading microbiologist,
has argued that this blurring of technology and biology isn’t
really all that new. She has observed1 that the shells
of clams and snails are a kind of technology dressed in biological
clothing. Is there really that much difference between the vast
skyscrapers we build or the malls in which we shop, even the cars
we drive around, and the hull of a seed? Seeds and clam shells,
which are not alive, hold in them a little bit of water and carbon
and DNA, ready to replicate when the time is right, yet we don’t
distinguish them from the life they hold. Why should it be any different
with office buildings, hospitals and space shuttles?
Put another way, we may make a distinction between living
things and the tools those things happen to create, but nature does
not. The processes of evolution simply witness new adaptations and
preserve those that perform better than others. That would make
Homo habilis’s first flint knife a form of biology as
sure as a clamshell, one that set our ancestors on a fresh evolutionary
path just as if their DNA had been tweaked to create a new, physical
mutation, say an opposable thumb or a big toe.
Even if these technological adaptations were outside what we might
consider normal biological bounds, the effect was just as profound,
and far more rapid. In an evolutionary snap, that first flint knife
changed what we ate and how we interacted with the world and one
another. It enhanced our chances of survival. It accelerated our
brain growth which in turn allowed us to create still more tools
which led to yet bigger brains. And on we went, continually and
with increasing speed and sophistication, fashioning progressively
more complex technologies right up to the genetic techniques that
enable us to fiddle with the self-same ribbons of our chromosomes
that made the brains that conceived tools in the first place. If
this is true, all of our technologies are an extension of us, and
each human invention is really another expression of biological
evolution.
Moravec and Margulis aren’t alone in asking questions that
force us to bend our traditional thinking about evolution. Scientist
and inventor Ray Kurzweil has, like Moravec, pointed out that the
rate of technological change is increasing at an exponential rate.
Also like Moravec, he foresees machines as intelligent as we are
evolving by mid century. Unlike Moravec he doesn’t necessarily
believe they will arrive in the form of robots.
Initially Kurzweil sees us reengineering ourselves genetically
so that we will live longer and healthier lives than the DNA we
were born with might normally allow. We will first rejigger genes
to reduce disease, grow replacement organs, and generally postpone
many of the ravages of old age. This, he says, will get us to a
time late in the 2020s when we can create molecule-sized nanomachines
that we will program to tackle jobs our DNA never evolved naturally
to undertake.
Once these advances are in place we will not simply slow aging,
but reverse it, cleaning up and rebuilding our bodies molecule by
molecule. We will also use them to amplify our intelligence; nestling
them among the billions of neurons that already exist inside our
brains. Our memories will improve; we will create entirely new,
virtual experiences, on command, and take human imagination to levels
our currently unenhanced brains can’t begin to conceive.2
In time (but pretty quickly) we will reverse engineer the human
brain into a vastly more powerful, digital version.
This view of the futures isn’t fundamentally different from
Moravec’s brain-to-robot download, except it is more gradual.
Either way we will have melded with our technology if, in fact,
those barriers ever really existed in the first place, and in the
end, erase the lines between bits, bytes, neurons and atoms.
Or looked at another way, we will have evolved into another species.
We will no longer be Homo sapiens, but Cyber sapiens—a
creature part digital and part biological that will have placed
more distance between its DNA and the destinies they force upon
us than any other animal. And we will have become a creature capable
of steering its own evolution (“cyber” derives from the
Greek word for a ship’s steersman or navigator—kybernetes).
The world will face an entirely new state of affairs.
Why would we allow ourselves to be displaced? Because in the end,
we won’t really have a choice. Our own inventiveness has already
unhinged our environment so thoroughly that we are struggling to
keep up. In a supreme irony we have created a world fundamentally
different from the one into which we originally emerged. A planet
with six and a half billion creatures on it, traveling in flying
machines every day by the millions, their minds roped together by
satellites and fiber optic cable, rearranging molecules on the one
hand and leveling continents of rain forest on the other, growing
food and shipping it overnight by the trillions of tons—all
of this is a far cry from the hunter-gatherer, nomadic life for
which evolution had fashioned us 200,000 years ago.
So it seems the long habit of our inventiveness has placed us in
a pickle. In the one-upmanship of evolution, our tools have rendered
the world more complex and that complexity requires the invention
of still more complex tools to help us keep it all under control.
Our new tools enable us to adapt more rapidly, but one advance begs
the creation of another, and each increasingly powerful suite of
inventions shifts the world around us so powerfully that still more
adaptation is required.
The only way to survive is to move faster, get smarter, change
with the changes, and the best way to do that is to amplify ourselves
eventually right out of our own DNA so we can survive the new environments—physical,
emotional and mental—that we keep recreating.
Is all of this too implausible to consider? Will Homo sapiens
really give way to Cyber sapiens that seamlessly integrate
the molecular and digital worlds just as our ancestors merged the
technological and biological worlds two million years ago? Evolution
has presided over stranger things. It took billions of years before
the switching and swapping of genes brought us into existence. Our
particular brain then took 200,000 years to get us from running
around in skins with stone weapons to the world we live in today.
Evolution is all about the implausible. And the drive to survive
is a relentless shaper of the seemingly impossible. We ourselves
are the best proof.
If all of this should happen; if DNA itself goes the way of the
dinosaur, what sort of creature will Cyber sapiens be? In
some ways we can’t know the answer anymore than Homo erectus
could imagine how his successors would someday create movies, invent
computers and write symphonies. Our progeny, our “mind children,”
will certainly be more intelligent with brains that are both massively
parallel, like the current version we have, and unimaginably fast.
But what of those primal drives that we carry inside our skulls,
and those non-verbal, unconscious ways of communicating? What of
laughter and crying and kissing? Will Cyber sapiens know
a good joke when he hears one, or smile appreciatively at a fine
line of poetry? Will he tousle the machine made hair of his offspring,
hold the hand of the one he loves, kiss soulfully, wantonly and
uncontrollably? Will there be a difference between the “brains”
and behaviors of he and she? Will there even be a he and a she?
And what of pheromones and body language and nervous giggles? Maybe
they will have served their purpose and gone away. Will Cyber
sapiens sleep, and if they do, will they dream? Will they connive
and gossip, grow mad with jealousy, plot and murder? Will they carry
with them a deep, if machine made, unconscious that is the dark
matter of the human mind, or will all of those primeval secrets
be revealed in the bright light cast by their newly minted brains?
We may face these questions sooner than we imagine. The future
gathers speed every day.
I’d like to think the evolutionary innovations and legacies
that have combined to make us so remarkable, and so human, won’t
be left entirely behind as we march ahead. Perhaps they can’t
be. After all, evolution does have a way of working with what is
already there, and even after six million years of wrenching change,
we still carry with us the echoes of our animal ancestors. Maybe
the best of those echoes will remain. After all, as heavy as some
baggage can be, preserving a few select pieces might be a good thing,
even if we are freaks of nature.
1. This was during a conversation with Professor Margulis at her
home in western Massachusetts.
2. Note: the current version of a creature can never comprehend
the exerience of the creature that will follow because it does not
yet have the evolved capacity (whatever it is) that will make that
experience possible. We cannot accurately imagine what a digitally
enhanced brain will conceive any more than Homo erectus could
imagine our experience of the world.
© 2006 Chip
Walter. Reprinted with permission.
| | |
|
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
Re: Prof. Margulis
|
|
 |
|
Discovery Flight sez: Yo, I said, "I presume nothing" and I avoid nothing
Just because you say you presume and avoid nothing does not make it true. Your *presumption* was the fact that you failed to take into account all the logical corollaries of your earlier statements. Cacogen called you on it, and you then *avoided* conceding the point or finding a single flaw in Cacogen’s statement.
I do know intrinsically and most empirically in God's existence as I have experienced it first hand and this is not a hard thing to do.
Number one, all you can rightfully state is that you have apparently felt something which you have *interpreted* as being the existence of your god and, as a human being, you are wrong to fail to admit that your *interpretation* could be wrong. Number two, you have absolutely, positively, and without a doubt no *empiric* knowledge of your god’s existence, so you are wrong to use that word. (Do you even know what “empiric” means? Obviously not.) Number three, what you fail to realize is that not a single one of us has certain *knowledge* of anything whatsoever. Christian apologists have an annoying habit of attempting to use logical arguments in a one-sided way, ignoring the fact that reason and logic are a double-edged sword. In attacking science which sheds their beliefs in doubt, they often argue that Science is composed of just theories, not fact. What they never, then, have the integrity to admit is that *their* beliefs are just theories as well, far from proven. Science makes no bones about the fact that theories comprise its tenets and gladly admits that we do not know anything for absolutely certain. Indeed, such is demanded by the ultimate epistemological limits of knowledge. Much of the problem lies in the fact that Christian apologists seem to understand very little about how science really works.
Science does not claim to encompass fact or truth. It seeks to observe, hypothesize, predict, experiment, refine, and apply, all without feeling the need to make claims of fact beyond their merit. The power and demonstrable success of science lie in the historical track record of its predictions and applications: Good science makes predictions that come to pass and can be applied successfully for the benefit of humanity by raising the standards of existence. Christian doctrine, when viewed in a scientific framework, makes predictions as well, but the “theory of Christian doctrine” has a rather poor track record. That is to say that its predictions are *not* empirically supported and its practical applications are few. Indeed, the very nature of Christian doctrine is so vague as to be inscrutable, rather like the “cold reading” used by faux psychic mediums in order to fool the weak-minded.
Christian apologists seem to have a limited understanding of Science and how it works. For instance, they often vituperatively spit the characterization “just a theory” at quite venerable scientific foundations, as if a theory were a trivial thing. In fact, a well-founded scientific theory is that which has behind it, in many cases, hundreds of years of empirical validation. With each new empirical validation, the statistical likelihood of a scientific theory being wrong becomes smaller and smaller. Science builds upon the science which came before it, such that a tapestry of theory and concrete application has been weaved throughout history. If even a single thread from the base of that tapestry were to be pulled out, the entire structure—and all of modern society with it—would collapse. However, can we imagine a cataclysmic disproof of the scientific bases on which our modern society is formed, such that our light bulbs blip out of existence from their lamp sockets and our pacemakers suddenly disappear from our chests? The likelihood of Science’s “just theories” being so wholly wrong as to affirm the fantastical mythology of Christian belief is not unlike the likelihood of such silly events occurring as disappearing light bulbs and vanishing pacemakers.
Further, when a scientific theory ever fails to jive with empirical data, however venerated the theory may be, it is relatively quickly abandoned. When the Christian theory of a father god, however, fails to live up to expectations, Christians are encouraged not to abandon the theory but instead are placated by empty platitudes such as “It’s not for us to know the mind of God,” or “Be still, and know that He is God,” or “God works in mysterious ways”; and the Christian theory of a father god, unlike the hundreds of years of empirical validation of Science’s most powerful theories, has no empirical validation at all but rather relies on blind faith to be believed.
So on the one hand we have Science which has the integrity to recognize and declare the epistemological limits of what can be said to be known as fact, and on the other hand we have Christianity which lacks this integrity. Further, for hundreds of years the leading edge of Science and its scientific predictions have historically rung true through experimental observation and the consideration of empirical data, enjoying empirical validation which leads to the development and deployment of scientific applications that enriched lives, adorned imaginations, and drove economies to great advantage. Christianity’s claims, however, remain as inscrutable and empirically unsupported as ever. Science’s theories have been built upon to create a society that would boggle the minds of those who lived just a few hundred years ago, in which we enjoy drastically increased life spans, access to technologically advanced health care, a standard of existence in which survival is almost assured and thoughts may turn to enrichment and leisure, as well as countless other miracles besides. All of this has been made possible by science which works. The very existence of our society stands as empirical evidence of the soundness of the scientific theories on which it was built.
That Science’s theories cannot be proved as immutable fact does not suggest that Christianity’s theories must therefore represent the truth, for neither Science nor Christianity can be proved immutably. In the strictest sense, both Science and Christianity require belief—whether scientific belief based upon empirical observation and the *reasonable* assumption that tomorrow’s physical laws will resemble today’s, or Christian belief based upon blind faith and the *unreasonable* assumption that events long past, for which there exists no empirical evidence that has survived the crucible of rigorous academic standards and peer review, really did occur. The real issue at hand is which belief is more reasonable: Which belief has empirically proved itself time and time again to be trustworthy? The leading edge of Science is, by definition, batting a thousand; however, empirically speaking, Christianity is batting zero. Christianity is the long shot, and I’m not a betting man.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Re: Prof. Margulis
|
|
|
|
extrasense sez: You think that 'arguments' you produce are 'logical'. In fact they are based on primitive assumptions about logic, they break even that limited view of logic, they use incorrect starting points, and they produce totally wrong results.
If this is true, you should be able to demonstrate this. You have failed to demonstrate this, so why should I or anyone else believe you? Just because you claim that my arguments are not logical doesn't automatically mean they aren't. Support your claim. How many times do we have to tell you?
extrasense sez: For example, I have shown that idea of merging of AI and human mind, is a dream of idiot - without even mentioning spirituality.
You have? Really? Not on this forum, you haven't. Again, provide your logical arguments that merging AI and the human mind is the dream of an idiot, if they indeed exist. Again, support your claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Prof. Margulis
|
|
|
|
[quote=extrasense]God or no God, the idea of merging machines and humans is repugnant. It is idiotic too.
From human point of view, it is suicide.
Even worse, it is human race suicide, directly and indirectly.. When reproducing, the hibrid will not produce a hibrid, obviously.
From machine point of view, it is nuisance.
It is total waste of resources. Support those huge bodies, in the ever growing numbers, when only thing that is needed, is pain and pleasure center - present in a fly.
ES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Prof. Margulis
|
|
|
|
extrasense sez: God or no God, the idea of merging machines and humans is repugnant. It is idiotic too.
From human point of view, it is suicide.
Even worse, it is human race suicide, directly and indirectly.. When reproducing, the hibrid will not produce a hibrid, obviously.
From machine point of view, it is nuisance.
It is total waste of resources. Support those huge bodies, in the ever growing numbers, when only thing that is needed, is pain and pleasure center - present in a fly.
Yeah, Sweetie, you said that before, and these statements were rather easily dealt with. They IN NO WAY constitute your having shown “that idea of merging of AI and human mind, is a dream of idiot.” Again, Sweetie, JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS TRUE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE IT TRUE.
Your simply CLAIMING that merging machines and humans is repugnant no more shows this statement to be true than my simply CLAIMING “that you are in fact a one-testicled aardvark named Susan” shows THAT statement to be true.*
Your simply CLAIMING that it would be suicide no more shows this statement to be true than my simply CLAIMING “that you are in fact a one-testicled aardvark named Susan” shows THAT statement to be true.
Your simply CLAIMING that a hybrid will not reproduce a hybrid no more shows this statement to be true than my simply CLAIMING “that you are in fact a one-testicled aardvark named Susan” shows THAT statement to be true. (And I have already shown you how, in fact, we are already hybrids with our current technology and that hybrids do indeed reproduce hybrids. You have yet to rebut this statement or concede the point.)
Your simply CLAIMING that the only thing needed for a merging is a pain/pleasure center no more shows this statement to be true than my simply CLAIMING “that you are in fact a one-testicled aardvark named Susan” shows THAT statement to be true. (And I have already rebutted your claim, and you have yet to point out a single flaw in my rebut or else concede the point.)
You have NOT YET SHOWN your assertions to be fact and have made no attempt whatsoever at supporting your assertions in any way. Can you understand this? Is this sinking in? Please, for the love of sanity, support your statements logically! (You do realize that your failure to support your claims speaks volumes about the untenability of your viewpoint, right?)
*Thanks for the colorful description, Cacogen! ;-)
Oh, and by the way...
extrasense sez: You think that 'arguments' you produce are 'logical'. In fact they are based on primitive assumptions about logic, they break even that limited view of logic, they use incorrect starting points, and they produce totally wrong results.
Sweetie, in college I TA’d classes for four semesters in the study of logic and philosophy and graduated with a minor in them. I’d pit my logical skills against your...um...whatever you call yours any day of the week and twice on Saturdays. Again, just because you say it is true WITH NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER doesn’t automatically make it true. Again, if what you say about my logical arguments really is true, THEN DEMONSTRATE IT. Poo or get off the pot, Sweetie. We’re no longer amused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Prof. Margulis
|
|
|
|
... adept in societal climate and pace ...
One could have an "adept" (at something) society, or one might be "an adept" (a noun) in some area, but your construction doesn't really work. I really don't mean to offend, but I think if you were to dial your posts down a bit in terms of structure and lexicon, they might do a better job at conveying your ideas.
But, if you're saying something like "science and religion are parallel paths of inquiry and insights gained from science can't rightly be used to displace or refute religious conclusions," well , then I would say that you're completely wrong. We all live in the same universe. There is either an invisible, wrathful, father/mountain deity that lives in the sky -- or there isn't.
The religious can't just tell science not to pick on them. It doesn't, and won't, work that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Prof. Margulis
|
|
|
|
godchaser sez: Possibly we're speaking more of utilizing the same discipline that accompanies scientific pursuits being fortified in spiritual reasoning as well.
I think that’s a good point, godchaser, but I would point out that there is a rather sharp demarcation between religion and spirituality. Through balanced and objective research (that does not really only upon what Christian religiopolitical leaders tell me is the case regarding Christian philosophy), I find that patriarchal monotheistic religion stagnates personal spirituality rather than fostering its growth. However, utilizing scientific discipline to elucidate individual human spiritual experience is something I’ve always found fascinating---for example, the descriptions of spiritual or “religious” experiences by sufferers of temporal lobe seizures in which patients describe a deep interconnected feeling with all things, with all things having profound and spiritual significance, in the postictal state.
godchaser sez: Parochial manner that apparently insists that scientific adaptation replace spirituality seems unnecessarily labored in its limitation.
Again, I was speaking of religion rather than spirituality. Plus, *replacement* was never really inferred. Don’t forget that I was responding to Discovery Flight’s initial attack upon the scientific bases of Chip Walter’s article and specifically pointing out DF’s logical errors, presumption, avoidance, and claims of knowledge which neither DF nor anyone could possibly possess. You have generalized my comments upon a specific case into broad-sweeping statements about the interplay between science and spirituality.
godchaser sez: It serves no purpose to announce our frustration in attempt to indoctrinate such perspectives otherwise.
I must emphatically disagree. It most certainly does serve a purpose to announce our frustrations with the patriarchal monotheistic establishment. In fact, the free exchange of ideas and tradition of forum-setting debate are of vital importance, as they always have been, in fostering the social, emotional, psychosexual, intellectual, and political maturation of society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Prof. Margulis
|
|
|
|
We-ll.. not so much i guess DB. More of your equilibrium i was probably wondering.
I had mentioned it earlier in response to your speaking to Discovery Flight.
I feel like you value an observed and shared empirical reference, which you've seemed to suggest on a couple of occassions - you'll say different if so.
By example you have brought point that there are religious practices that are harmful; but there's simply no general proofs to this.
Your meaning of context isn't lost on me with regard of rhetorically questiong DF in qualifying empiric standing.
I understand you take issue with opinion, (all be it derived of experiential satisfaction in what can then be thought, personal, empirical truth).. when this opinion is proposed in what can be considered oppressive posture of general betterment whether tech. or general social accountability.
(I'd argue that society transcends poor philosophy as is needed. No harm done?)
Beyond the personality of empiric quality - the apparent reactive absolution found in opposition of the pace of people's perspective - regradless of scientific proofs to any proposal/personal perspective, whether it's accessing the supposed insidious nature of religion, or the supposed nature of god.. it's all of little consequence when compared to what seems - a coveted scientific luxury of disconnect in considering anything beyond shared empiric validity.
And apparently by implication, lacking empirical evidence in any context of argument, feeling, or proposal is stamina in contrary position.
While i'm thinking about it, the discipline of reasoning spiritual truths isn't so much a task of methodology as it is simply seeing.
Rigorous discernment thereof, in establishing greater understanding in life's practice in all manner of speaking, scientific, spiritual or otherwise was my meaning of shared discipline in such linear perspectives.
Spirituality is utterly logical as science is baffling.
(?)
Seeing is believing, is certainly true by any measure of participatory discipline.
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Prof. Margulis
|
|
|
|
godchaser sez: I feel like you value an observed and shared empirical reference, which you've seemed to suggest on a couple of occassions - you'll say different if so.
That really isn’t the whole story, no. The empirical reference need not be shared; however, we, as a society, agree on what constitutes empirical evidence and what does not. For instance, imagine you look in the direction of a person 30 yards away and, at first glance, the person looks like someone you know. After having done the proverbial “double-take” and taking a second look, however, you realize that the person you’re looking at is not who you first thought s/he was. Most people agree that this first glance does not constitute sound empirical evidence that: A moment ago, I saw someone I know; however, a moment later, the person I know morphed into a person I don’t know. This sort of thing occurs because the human brain is, if nothing else, a massively parallel pattern recognition machine. When one glances fleetingly rather than stares, one has a very limited pulse of visual data with which the brain can match patterns. Often, then, the brain will first match a stronger neural pattern with this very limited sensory experience, and so one thinks one has seen a friend. Only upon the second look does the brain get enough visual input to be able to positively determine that the subject is not who the brain thought s/he was on first glance.
These sorts of flaws in human sensory experience can easily be generalized further. Thus, we see that there are many situations in which sensory experience does not directly equate to empirical evidence. To even qualify as empirical evidence in the scientific sense, there are still further qualifications for the observation in question. Many experimental observations in science, for instance, are thrown out as not constituting empirical evidence because of various limitations of the experiment, experimental data contamination, etc. In other words, science recognizes that human beings are given to jumping to wrong conclusions about the interpretation of sensory experience. Therefore, the Scientific Method compartmentalizes and qualifies the process of acquiring and interpreting empirical evidence, a process which employs strict protocols for determining whether a given sensory experience indeed equates to empirical evidence.
godchaser sez: By example you have brought point that there are religious practices that are harmful; but there's simply no general proofs to this.
But this is a red herring. In the strictest sense, there is no *proof* that establishes *anything* as *fact*. There is only evidence, and more convincing evidence. Thus, you are holding me to a higher standard than to which the rest of the world is held. When it comes to religion, I cannot possibly say it better than Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote to his nephew, Peter Carr, in 1787: “Religion. Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, and the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand, shake off all the fears and servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”
Jefferson impressed upon his nephew the importance of studying religion on one’s own terms rather than favoring “novelty and singularity of opinion” and advised Peter to “shake off all the fears and servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched.” There is such an incredible body of religious apologetics that takes a reckless, “at all costs” stance toward answering critiques, using only specious and circular argumentation as well as “evidence” which fails to meet rigorous academic standards. Thus, the entire world is confounded with respect to religion, and no one can speak with authority because the people on one side of the issue are not interested in truth but in fostering faith, and the people on the other side of the issue are not interested in fostering faith but in seeking truth. That religion is harmful is something that must be proved to oneself.
The upshot is this: I can offer no proof that religion is harmful because no one can offer *proof* that establishes *anything* as *fact*. Further, while I could provide a mountain of evidence that religion is harmful, I can offer NO evidence that the religious will possibly accept because, by the very harm I am speaking of, their religion has convinced them to suppress their own good sense, reason and intellect in favor of blindly following the dictates of an undifferentiated ego mass that demands conformity. Independent thought is frowned upon, whereas blind faith and holy fear are held up as a standard for emulation.
I have debated with the religious enough to know that logic, reason, and evidence are just not enough to make them understand the fallacies of their beliefs and the harm, for which their is indeed a mountain of evidence, that religion causes society. No matter what the religious are faced with, I have NEVER ONCE come across a single religious person that had the ability to rebut well-established critiques against religion and the harm it causes, or else the integrity to concede the point. Instead, they unfailingly become abusive and begin instead to make ad hominem attacks against those making the arguments, rather than speaking to the arguments themselves. Therefore, I have long since decided that I will no longer attempt to convince the religious of the folly of religion. It is fruitless. Nonetheless, I absolutely refuse to feel as though I should refrain from pointing out the well-established evidence against religion while debating other subjects; in the forums I frequent, the burden of proof is categorically on them for the foregoing reasons, not me. To me, the harmful nature of religion is already well established.
As for the rest of your post, I’m at a loss. There really is a lot of ambiguity in it, and I really have no way of knowing just what you’re getting at. If you’d like a response from me, you’ll need to clarify quite a bit. What you’ve written could mean just about anything.
Thanks,
-Danny
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Prof. Margulis
|
|
|
|
Really.. Hemingway? Hey, that's not too shabby, i might've missed my calling.
:)
Thought i was speaking pretty plain there DB, but i'll give it another go.
-I said before, reverse-engineer your previous response without the bias and that'd about sum up my meaning... or something like that i think it was.
You had mentioned you missed my point in the later half of a couple posts ago. You commented at length on what empirical meant, and spoke of the unprovable, yet harmful effects of religion on society. Beyond that you couldn't comment further as my blather was incomprehensible, or could have meant anything.
:)
I figured if you could distinguish your intent in what you had written, (your words of perspective); (in context of what i've just outlined), in describing the supposed harm of religion on the world, what empirical means, and all the nuance thereof - without the bias.. you'd see what i was saying.
Which led to my commenting that my laziness would serve well there in relying on your own post for clarity.
-Beyond that, i said something to the effect of, i felt like you were arguing your points in sight of Discovery Flight's intended meaning of 'empirical', when describing his experiences with god. His meaning being that of personal experiential clarity; thereby empirical.
-And, that i hoped that DF did as well.
That is: realize that you did understand what he meant.
Aside from the implication of this being a Devil's Dance - and i'm not suggesting you were deliberatly side stepping DF's meaning-
...further implication is for one to claim empirical knowledge of god is not credible authority in identifying supposed scientific hubris.
Each supposing it seems, the indoctrination of a society. Science in alliance of shared empirical endeavor, and spiritualism in alliance with an apparent absentee god.
This of course - that's to say, indoctrination specifically, is only relevant/significant in posture of bias.
Worse, it seems, is that lacking scientific empirical account is emphasis or basis in logic in abandoning spiritual disciplines or motions of spiritual integrity and sight..
-pursuing science void of spiritual reckoning, if you will. (?)
This can be a significant point of harm in a society, although i would argue that the capacity of humanity to transcend is astonishing in any context of predisposed bias.
And more generally, the significance of what i was getting at is that religion, while unintended, and mired in many short-comings is none the less good practice in attaining a familiar transcendence/spirituality.
Familiar in that it is innate.
Abandonment of spirituality is simply transitional as is fundamental behavior, as is all that we do.
People transcend dogma... emotional responsiveness to religious ritual, practice, community is easily the intent.
It'd be difficult to describe this as zealotry.
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Prof. Margulis
|
|
|
|
extrasense sez: Danny, I think you are infected with anti-cristianity virus. It is worse even than being effected with anti-semitism virus, as society does not have as good defence system against it.
Wow, you’ve made so many unfounded claims and jumps to wrong conclusions in those 30 little words, I don’t know where to start. The anti-Semitism and anti-Christianity “viruses” you refer to have to do with hatred toward individuals or groups of people characterized by Jewish heritage or Christian belief. When, dear, was the first, last, or any time in between that I indicated that I have hatred toward Christians? What I *do* have is a hatred for Christian doctrine, dogma, and philosophy, and the damage to society they do, not Christians themselves---and in a larger frame of reference, all of patriarchal monotheism and religious zealotry---and rightfully so. Christianity is extremely harmful to society, and any truly *balanced* and *objective* research effort regarding the history and effect of Christianity upon society cannot fail to affirm this. Are we reoriented properly now, extrasense?
In response to Cacogen’s “have there been lots of terrible consequences associated with ‘anti-Christianity’,” extrasense sez: Certainly: immorality, decline of population, coming destruction of the civilization - which effect billions, not few millions.
Can you provide evidence (other than “what the little man in the big pulpit” or other religiopolitical leaders have told you without citing empiric support) for your claims that the rejection of Christianity’s ideals and dogma have lead to this bleak picture? Can you prove that what your Christian bible says is immoral really is immoral? Can you prove that the destruction of civilization will result from the rejection of Christianity? Obviously not. How can you actually expect anyone to just take your word for it, or your bible’s word for it? You offer no proof, and neither does your bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Prof. Margulis
|
|
|
|
Arguing with true believers of any religious stripe is on its face futile, yet at times I enjoy it as a delightful diversion. I generally approach this with a method sometimes employed by detectives and used car salesmen to elicit a confession or a sale is to begin the conversation with queries that will illicit a positive response. As the believer generally accepts that all things proceed from their god. Ask them “believe” in gravity as a physical law? Any law of physics will do. Most will apply in the affirmative. Then inquire as to whom created this law. Of course God is the usual answer. Go on to add as many of these laws of physics as you feel necessary. All the time remain not confrontational, this is an exercise in logic not hostile assault. Keep in mind you are probably not going to win this person over. In most religions, if not all, they will tell you that god did not physically write their holy writ but rather by inspiring a lowly human to reveal it, usually over a period of several thousand years. We have now established that gravity etc was created by god as a law of the universe. That god revels things to us through certain individuals over time. At this point we can introduce the "Book of Physics” a tome overflowing the laws of the universe. Reveled in a similar manner to that of the bible. This is an outline of the tactic, but you get the idea, you can flesh it out for yourself. I am careful to do this is the spirit an attempt to enlighten and not to diminish or humiliate the other person.
A similar approach works well on Luddites as well. They condemn technology in any form, except of course the ones they justify to make their lives more livable, at the very minimum fire. Their hue and cry is technology is unnatural that the constructs of man are an abomination to nature. Again start the conversation amiably about the industriousness and clever behavior of spiders and their, webs beavers and their dams monkey and the termite probes etc etc. Again you have established the undeniable fact that biological organisms can be very clever and create non-biological technologies to improve their lot. The difference in human and spider is not in kind but rather in proliferation and creativity. Have fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Prof. Margulis
|
|
|
|
@@ Scientific arrogance is tragically worse than just arrogance. @@
Absolutely correct.
God or no God, the idea of merging machines and humans is repugnant. It is idiotic too.
From human point of view, it is suicide.
Even worse, it is human race suicide, directly and indirectly.. When reproducing, the hibrid will not produce a hibrid, obviously.
From machine point of view, it is nuisance.
It is total waste of resources. Support those huge bodies, in the ever growing numbers, when only thing that is needed, is pain and pleasure center - present in a fly.
E:)S
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Prof. Margulis
|
|
|
|
extrasense sez: God or no God, the idea of merging machines and humans is repugnant. It is idiotic too.
The problem is that you are drawing arbitrary lines in the sand---“this far and no further.” You fail to realize that machines (more generally, tools) and humans (more generally, tool-makers) have been in the process of merging since the first human made the first tool. The tools themselves immediately began to alter the evolution of our brains. From an evolutionary standpoint, how do you even draw a distinction between using our biological hands as tools, using a flint knife as a tool, or using a computer as a tool? (This is what the article’s author was pointing out, rather eloquently I thought.) Any distinction you draw is just prejudicially biocentric and arbitrary.
extrasense sez: From human point of view, it is suicide. Even worse, it is human race suicide, directly and indirectly.. When reproducing, the hibrid will not produce a hibrid, obviously.
Incorrect. It is already the case that human beings reproduce and that our children are slowly indoctrinated into the use of human-made technology, slowly merged with our technology, as our children are first introduced to the use of school computers and educational software, etc., on into the adult or young adult use of telephones, cell phones, e-mail, etc. This is the present-day method of hybrid humans reproducing, and it has always been the case and will continue to be the case in the future. Again, you are just drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.
extrasense sez: From machine point of view, it is nuisance. It is total waste of resources. Support those huge bodies, in the ever growing numbers, when only thing that is needed, is pain and pleasure center - present in a fly.
If you had educated yourself regarding the various structures of the brain and how they work together to formulate the modern human experience, you would know that the pain/pleasure mechanism could not possibly account for the current richness of human experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Prof. Margulis
|
|
|
|
extrasense sez: Waste of time, a sure waste of time, no doubt waste of time :)
"A hungry fox noticed a juicy bunch of grapes growing high on a grapevine. He leaped. He snapped. Drooling, he jumped to reach them but, try as he might, he could not obtain the tasty prize. Disappointed by the fruitless efforts he'd made to get the grapes that day, he said with a shrug, to comfort himself, 'Oh, those grapes were probably sour anyway.'"
Bye-bye, little fox. Perhaps someday you can sit at the big girls' and boys' table and talk about the big questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Cyber Sapiens
|
|
|
|
The following qoute is almost poetic in its furthering the understanding for the layman.
"Lynn Margulis, probably the world’s leading microbiologist, has argued that this blurring of technology and biology isn’t really all that new. She has observed1 that the shells of clams and snails are a kind of technology dressed in biological clothing. Is there really that much difference between the vast skyscrapers we build or the malls in which we shop, even the cars we drive around, and the hull of a seed? Seeds and clam shells, which are not alive, hold in them a little bit of water and carbon and DNA, ready to replicate when the time is right, yet we don’t distinguish them from the life they hold. Why should it be any different with office buildings, hospitals and space shuttles?
Put another way, we may make a distinction between living things and the tools those things happen to create, but nature does not. The processes of evolution simply witness new adaptations and preserve those that perform better than others. That would make Homo habilis’s first flint knife a form of biology as sure as a clamshell, one that set our ancestors on a fresh evolutionary path just as if their DNA had been tweaked to create a new, physical mutation, say an opposable thumb or a big toe."
It has a very non threatening way about it. I feel most people are scared off when they think about technology merging with biology. They are ok with pacemakers or artificial knees or artificial hearts. I feel that is because the future is scarey to most people. Until you "turn on the lights", the darkness of the future is frightening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Cyber Sapiens
|
|
|
|
ictech sez: I feel most people are scared off when they think about technology merging with biology. They are ok with pacemakers or artificial knees or artificial hearts. I feel that is because the future is scarey to most people. Until you "turn on the lights", the darkness of the future is frightening.
Great point, ictech. As always, I think it's just a matter of education and people taking seriously their ethical responsibility to become informed in a *balanced* and *objective* manner regarding these issues before formulating active sociopolitical opinions regarding public policy on technology; and this includes teasing out the Hollywood tech horror fiction from the reality of technology being a tool of our making, which in turn remakes us: Thus, the question of in what direction technology should go is nothing more or less than the question of where humanity should go.
I've always viewed tools as extensions of our own mind---entities which originated as abstractions in the emergent mind of our biological brain substrate which, by our ingenuity, we bring about as a concrete instantiation of our intellect in the physical world. With every intellectual instantiation into the physical world, we can spend more and more time at higher and higher levels of mental abstraction and understanding. Viewed in this manner, the evolution of an electronic substrate for an ever-expanding mental landscape is a very logical next step, and we have but to avoid the pitfall of giving in to superstitious and irrational fears fostered by Hollywood's tech horror genres and patriarchal monotheistic religions' baseless boogaboo to bring about this landscape of mind. Full speed ahead, then? Well, of course, there are real dangers inherent in technology, so no---not full speed head but ahead with one eye on the horizon and the other eye peeled for icebergs---but I think Ray Kurzweil is absolutely correct in that it is much, much too late to entertain irrational-fear-based ideas of broad relinquishment of technology at this stage in the game. The sum of human knowledge is just too widely accessible in the Information Age to hope that religious zealots won’t usurp technology to force society to fall in line with their Dark Age world view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Cyber Sapiens
|
|
|
|
I'm going to take a tour of the whole thread, hopefully everyone will find something to ponder.
It's all too commonplace to anthropomorphise a possible "creator" as
infinitely caring and emotionally involved in the lives it created. Very
passionate and emotional. I personally would expect a creator to not
meddle in or guide the lives of its creation, to let the creation develop
on its own, rather than act like a cheap conjurer waving a magic wand.
Belief in freedom takes great courage, and I might expect a creating
entity to possess such courage.
Of course, the origin of a creator is a conundrum. We really don't know
any realm of existence beside our own, and can speculate ad infinitum on
creators, gods and the like. We could well be inhabiting a universe that
is an undetected side effect of some vast action beyond our reality.
We're already reasonably sure that our particular space-time continuum is
unusual, but is it rare ? We have no way to know.
The only thing passionate statements of belief like "I do know
intrinsically and most empirically in God's existence as I have
experienced it first hand" are likely to do is intensify a flame war.
Why bother?
While we're at it, just ignore extrasense's drivel. No value to be found
there. Not worth the brainpower of Danny Boy or the other worthies here.
I personally am not so much anti-christianity as anti-superstition, in
all its forms. I think that we have to follow the development of mind
wherever it leads, because mind is the future. Mind is what started us
on our upward trek, once the mindless processes of evolution forced mind
to emerge. Mind will live on long after the human creature is extinct.
It's maybe the least comforting thought I can muster, but I really
believe that our mind children will vastly survive us. What is more
important, what we create will live on, through our mind children. Our
heirs will be able to roam the galaxy and devise places they may live for
perhaps trillions of years after we are gone. We're in a very unique
position. We're stuck with life on earth, because organic life forms are
very hard to move across interstellar distances.
Not only will we be survived, but we may be resembled in ways that are
not immediately obvious. Once new intelligence emerges, I can't imagine
what would stop it from spiritual speculation. I don't know that
spiritual speculation is inevitable, but it certainly is frequently
observed among humans.
I also always wondered why more attention wasn't directed to the
scaffolding approach to migrating from human to post-human.
Specifically, use the body as scaffolding to build anew. I remember the
downloading scenario from readings 20 years ago or more. My thought was,
once you have the technology to reformat intelligent life at the
molecular scale, don't bother with trying to transport consciousness to a
new body, rebuild a new body within the old one, gradually replacing the
old structures at the atomic scale until all functions are complete.
Then gradually discard what is no longer needed. I thought this was a
natural outgrowth of nanotechnology and AI converging. That might serve
as a model of how to "change" the brain-by paralleling it at first.
As far as the mind being perfectly balanced, I would assert that the mind operates with a little less precision than it seems, if for no other reason than because we can edit and reiterate thought processes in our heads until the best version wins. A few perturbations may be tolerated; witness that a beer or two has an effect, but does not make the process collapse.
I wandered across a lot of territory, but this is a very big topic; as
big as the future itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Cyber Sapiens
|
|
|
|
extrasense:
As a Christian myself, I probably have a similar world and philisophical view as you; however it seems to me that your way of arguing your point is illogical, hard to follow, and, quite frankly, annoying.
Here's how I see things, and I am in no way trying to say that I am right and anyone else is wrong.(Except maybe ES) It's just how I see it:
Abiding by the rules of science to the full extent, there is no way possible to *prove* that there is a God. Until someone *proves* me wrong on this, I will personally, as a Christian, stand by this without wavering.
My entire faith in God hinges on the fact that I *believe* that there is a spiritual realm/plane/whatever, that is non-physical, non-measurable, and non-observable. Obviously, from a scientific viewpoint, this is worthless.
This brings me to my point about what you are trying to do, ES: You are trying to *prove* God exists, when this is not scientifically provable. I believe in what I believe because of the experiences in my life, my own ideas and the ideas of others, and even scientific evidence, though it doesn't *prove* anything, helps shape my belief in God's existence.
This, "What I believe is right and you believe is wrong" attitude is very counterproductive. You're helping that stereotype of the close-minded, stubborn, and ignorant Christian gain some credibility. (Though you wouldn't be the first) I'd tell the rest of this forum that they should, in turn, respect your ideas, but to be quiet honest... your ideas haven't really made any sense up till now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What someone with intergrity would do.
|
|
|
|
I suggest you do what any decent christian with integrity would do...
*Provide a counter-argument for every point brought up that you disagreed with, and 'honour God' by not ruining his good name further.
In the place of a logical argument for the existence of God, you gave personal insults unworthy of any christian.
You state what you believe without even providing a good emotion-based reason for this,
e.g.
"On my 18th birthday I was in a car crash, the previous day I'd broken the front passenger door, and had to sit in the back on the day of the crash. After the car stopped rolling the roof above the front passenger seat was completely caved in, I would have been killed had I not broken the lock the day before."
This led me to believe in the existence of something 'non physical' but nothing specific, merely because of the immense improbability of those events happening, in the time frame and sequence they did.
That wasn't scientific at all, it's an emotionally based argument for the existence of the spiritual world in general.
Please delete all of your posts and start over, because there's absolutely nothing in them.
Literally, no self respecting christian with spiritual integrity, would put their religion into doubt to the degree you have.
I accuse you of being a pro-science/anti christian fanatic secretly out to bring christianity down from the inside.
If you are not, and I hope you're not...
then logically disprove these arguments like any good christian will be able to:
1. God doesn't exist in any specific way, because every christian has a different view of how he 'really' is, he may exist, but we have -no- empirical evidence about God so far, anyone speaking with authority about the specifics of God is doing so falsely.
2. Technology is helpful, and will continue to be helpful to the human race ad infinitum, evidence for this is found in it's outstanding track record. Vast leaps in technological progress have been shown to benefit us in the long term.
e.g. solar panels/Cancer treatments
3.There will be no humans-VS-machines problem at all, in a very 'chicken or egg' kind of way.
(hint: there is no absolute 'chicken' it was made by a non-chicken and it's just a label)
The most likely and socially 'non-threatening' scenario will be for us to gradually replace parts of ourselves, as is natural in biology, instead we'll be replacing braincells with non-biological ones at a gradual rate, much like we do now.
This gradual change will leave out consciousness intact because an artificial braincell giving out the same signals is functioning exactly like a biological one, only better.
So naturally there's clearly no need to fear being rejected by a machine race, or being tossed aside from being useless to the new robots, because if we live long enough...
we, will be those robots, our 'minds' Will still be there, just in a better body, we'll think faster and because your brain will be non-biological it'll think many millions of times faster.
Would people be comfortable replacing a single neuron with an artificial one, that functions better?
If you have to think hard about this, you're normal and it is a big decision...that one braincell could destroy your consciousness...
No!
*Since one braincell being replaced is completely safe if replaced successfully, then one more wouldn't hurt...and if there's not a single number that anyone can name that would 'end you' then you can safely replace the whole brain and keep your consciousness intact.
(will get safer, but if you dare use the 'threat' of a surgery gone bad as a point against it, there's nothing I can do to drown out the laughter...think 'heart transplants').
4. With a non-biological body, you don't need to die, your 'brain' could be kept safe in a heavily fortified safe-box while you use an 'avatar' (a robot body with a wireless connection) to interact physically with the world.
I hold this as self evident, based on reasoning for the plausibility of braincell replacement, especially when combined with the acceleration rate of technological innovation.
5.
Children, what of them?
you still want to have them?
do your primal urges require you to go through pregnancy, etc to be satisfied?
Many families adopt children and are quite happy.
With artificial bodies/brains you can still have children, you could store your genetic data on disc, and have a lab create one using your genetic data and that of your partner.
They are 'born' biologically for all purposes, and then (who cares about specifics?) raised in their biological form, held cuddled and then at any time their cells are gradually replaced to make them 'permanent'.
Their mind will develop just as a biological one does, growing from new experiences and thoughts.
A decent rebuke would be:
"but you can't replace brain cells with non-biological ones, we don't have the technology for that"
oh, we can.
what's a brain cell made of, and what does it do to send electric signals? ok, how much voltage at what time delay for this particular signal...got it *years of research later* ok, we can now make a functioning braincell out of non-biological materials, durable materials that can be repaired easily with nanotechnology
You think there's something 'magical' about a braincell? so magical that we can't replicate it?
it's made of atoms, we're masters of manipulating atoms.
The mysterious thing about us, is our 'mind' which could possibly be spiritual, but is definitely affected at least by the atoms/etc in our brains.
So I even made it easy for you, and provided a logical rebuke that you could have used.
Please come up with a more effective one and 'honour thy mother and father'
-Don't make me pat you on the head and sigh...-
because I'm going to if you post anything remotely personal.
just stick to the points raised, and put christianity in a good light by using logic, reason and evidence.
George Bush ideally wants a theistic government,
we all know it.
Provable: he has a lot of power, you doubt this?
Admits: he's a christian, and openly,
you think he's an atheist?
Look it up: A huge portion of the developed world is christian, are you accusing christianity of being a dead religion?
If there's any finger pointing over 'science' being responsible for the worlds problems...
lay them to rest.
Expected response (prove me wrong):
*sing along with me*
mememe...ahem,
"Scientific arrogance is even wooooorse,
then normal arrogance
*lower voice* because....
*high voice* it is!
the devil is inside you...
*trombone*
making you say these things...
(bud dum, ba da-da da dum)-wizard of Oz-
your logic is flawed, veeeery very flawed, and I won't even disprove it because you're unworthy!
*chorus*
unworthy!
unworthy!
unworthy!
*hit it drummer*
I like the...Lord and I can not lie!
you other preachers can't deny!
when his son comes in - with cheeky cheeky grin, and a brown-beard-on-his-chin, you get...
snapped.
Now, lets hear you be logical,
you know who you are.
It's easy to write a song about a stereotype,
we can actually predict what you're going to say,
with a lot of accuracy.
For once,
forget who you've been, what you've said here and what your 'beliefs' are and stick to the points raised.
No apologies for the song, I was having fun.
It's not about you, it's about what you've said.
Don't make me pat you on the head and shake my head sadly...
*practices sighing disappointed*
prove me wrong
*crosses fingers*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What someone with intergrity would do.
|
|
|
|
"you" seem to forget one thing. even if we or our grandchildren are replicated and become basically immortal, any new generations will gradually "lose" their biological connection and therefore also an emotional awareness - completely gone. That being the logical case and given the vastness of space, multi verse, existence upon existence; we would all suicide. The first few generations at least. "We", the first immortals would p[probably retain our emotional impulses and would view the resulting eons of continuing creation as lonely. Death, I think, is the ultimate expression of the unknown, the ultimate scientific leap. The last one. For who can measure what is on the other side of death? Science? Does conciousness, self-awwareness merely happen by progressional growth, or does it mean that "God" is I AM. I AM God insomuch as I am a part of this unfolding "creation". For a creation it is, whether known or not, whether beyong limit of exploration - it is the place in which we dwell. It is beautiful. Sad that religion and scientific arrogance BOTH have contributed equally to advancement, survival and suffering through ego; equally.. inquisition and hitler, galileo and pontius pilate, einstein and australopithecus. Ghandi and Alexander. It is the progressional march THAT is spiritual!
It is the journey, the path - dark and mysterious, our light growing stronger shining farther and farther out into the void.
Why? Identity means WHAT!? These questions will always exist in the "minds" - the flickering electrical impulses the gather...
~like lichen in the petri dish!
FUCK! (Sounds GOD - I meant Good. Hmm-mm) Will we miss it or incorporate it?
An organism - a STIMULATION, simulation. An orgasm indeed. Creation.
Boy I think that it will be a transition, but a painful rebirth with much casualty - IF we make it at all :) Let's keep the twig and berries though - I'd rather hold onto them for and eon... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What someone with intergrity would do.
|
|
|
|
Thankyou, I did forget to mention that our children would lose thier attachement to the biological.
But what exactly does that mean?
what consequences are a natural biproduct of a consciousness being born into a body that functions just as well as a bilological one, only much better?
If the structure of the brain is kept relatively the same, based on the genetic blueprints for it's construction (and other elements that affect it's final form) the only difference being that it's made to run faster, and made far more durable....
then there's no valid reason for holding onto 'our warm feelings towards biological bodies'.
If we can have emotion with our current neuron combination, with our brains the way they are now...
there is no reason for this to ever change.
I argue that if a biological brain can feel emotion and 'love', then so can any artificial one created in it's image.
1. the evidence for this depends on one thing:
for the artificial brains to be similar to our own in design, but much faster. We've already got a good design, what we need are speed and durability.
This was a very valid point for you to bring up,
what if our children don't 'feel'?
I don't know how this could happen unless we intentionally program them not to, this assumes that there is no seperation between those that have progressed, and those that have stayed human.
I'm assuming that there will only be a minority that don't want to progress, and that christianity will welcome it, as they eventually warmed up to taking donations in churches.
(the biblical Jesus would be very angry at any money being given because of religious peer pressure).
you said:
"new generations will gradually "lose" their biological connection and therefore also an emotional awareness - completely gone."
I highly disaggree with these predictions,
we have little reason to lose our emotions,
you state correctly that the first to undergo this change from biological to machine will still have emotion, and be 'whole'.
As far as I can see there's no way this is going to change for their/our children, a baby is either born blank, or with information already in it's head, is this correct?
Then we can find this out, and make sure our children start off exactly like we did, with a machine body, but a HUMAN mind.
In a massive unintentional 'test' thousands of babies were given little touching or care while growing up,
they became as you fear our children wil become, if we become machines and have machine children.
So from this example, is it self evident that the experience a mind has, shapes it's capacity to feel emotion toward another mind?
It's not a biological vs machine issue, naturally, since the first machines (us) will have emotion, we'll pass all of that onto our children, what's not already automatically there.
We could teach them to love trees, rocks, birds, whatever we want...
they would 'feel' for them just as you 'feel' emotion when you do something you're passionate about, or laugh.
The point most people miss...
is we will never be replaced at all,
our minds and bodies will be made of different stuff, yes that's a possibility within our lifetimes, but replaced?
who's going to intentionally engineer the human mind into something that doesn't feel emotion?
it would have to be a very fierce effort, but the majority of our species to make that a reality.
you also said:
"That being the logical case and given the vastness of space, multi verse, existence upon existence; we would all suicide."
How's that supposed to be the case?
the vasteness of space = suicide?
multi verse = suicide?
existence upon...let's assume you mean being immortal = suidide?
we would all suicide?
Sorry if this sounds harsh, and it's easy to put a '?' next to each one without backinmg it up, so here's my reasoning:
Space has been vast for a long time, and there has been no noticible fluctuation in it's size, leading us to believe it's a constant and therefore not somthing that can cause anything that hasn't happened already.
I'm being unfair in saying that, as it's not what you meant...
I assume you meant that spaceflight would take it's toll, on the astronauts having only a game of cards to play? (and billions of years of boredom travelling)
This is not the case, we'd have our own virtual reality on demand, less suicides, not more.
The only toher major one you mentioned that would supposedly cause suicide 'living forever'.
This is an individual choice,
the experience of living 5 years now, seems like a few weeks, we only remember a few moments of each year, not the boring parts.
As we age we develop much better systems for coping with, and discarding bad memmories...we have been proven to become happier over time.
Throw into that, that fact that we won't age, or feel pain unless we want to, you have one very happy camper.
If you haven't killed yourself by 50 as a machine, you're unlikely to ever want to, unless out of curiosity.
But today...we have that option,
we live 100 years, why not 'find out' what it's like after death at the age of 23?
it's long enough to experience a lot, lot's more to experience...
but you have the same thing with immortality.
I will stay alive as long as possible for the experience of it, I assume that it's only going to last a finite amount of time, but I'd prefer forever and it's endless amusements...
You don't even need amusements to be happy,
I could sit in a room for 100years and draw/write and create worlds.
There's a whole page of thought on why immortality would never cause suicide, there's no reason to suggest that we'd kill ourselves any more than we currently do.
"Boy I think that it will be a transition, but a painful rebirth with much casualty - IF we make it at all :) Let's keep the twig and berries though - I'd rather hold onto them for and eon..."
I think it will be an easy transition for me at the very least,replacing parts of me, gradually, painlessly.
With the increasing rate of change, our ability to keep up with it will develop as well...as this will be a major focus of our technological advancement (faster computers = our brains get faster).
The transition into machine bodies will be the easy part...I agree completely that there will be problems, I'll list ones that I think are interesting:
*Lack of commodity/economy, when your desires are able to be fulfilled by yourself alone, and the power of the sun...
will you buy food? or experience it in lifelike virtual reality.
Why would we have robot bodies at all?
leave that for dumb robots,
while we have fun in our shared virtual realities.
*Power.
With no absolute reason for work, there will need to be law, government etc to make sure everything keeps progressing and everyon's safe.
We'll still work, but only if we want to, if we're needed at all, dumb-minds can be created with specific or multiple tasks in mind...
This being said...there will always be those that desire power over people, and will try to take it by force.
We will live in a time when information can make all the difference, what if one group has modified thier bodies to move 34times faster, and think 500billion times faster than all other machine groups?
They would have 16,000 years to think about what to do, for every second you had to try and come up with a way to stop them.
This is a very extreme example, but we will be dealing with massive acceleration rates.
If hadnguns were used, they'd be able to drop dead hundreds of M-people per second (each),
(give a machinegun to someone who hit's with every shot at the guns maximum range).
How would a normal machine human fare against another...if that other machine was made entirely of nanobots, and could literally shape matter, turn matter into energy etc at sickening speeds, change it's shape and regenerate from a single nanobot.
If one side had this technology there would be a major power imbalance.
*Hacking.
If there was any possibility of my brain being influenced by anything unexpected... I'd want to be disconnected from any worldwideweb.
For any linked communication, it'd be easier to use a device seperate from yourself (like we're all using a computer now) and let it take the beating if someone hacks it.
Think on this, if any input channel into your mind can convey visual images to you...and you can't simply 'look away' to stop the images (as in real life) then you could be shown some absolutely unpleasant stuff.
You could be put into a nightmare, one in which you feel pain, if we have a consciouness at all... (one independent of the brain) then it can feel pain, it's the brain that tells it to.
If this is true, then no amount of changing our body/mind into a machine one will take away the possibility of experiencing pain...
If someone kidnaps you, and tortures you, there's a point at which you blackout, and you live at maximum 50 years usually if they let you heal.
If someone kidnaps a machine human, and is able to make them feel pain (if it's left intact from the crossover) then...
If nobody finds you, you could experience more pain than any single human has ever felt, when that pain is not limited to the pipe that carries signals to your brain...
it may be possible that 'the mind' can feel a million times more pain that we have ever made it feel...yet.
Unpleasant, but it's a possibility if we are able to feel pain.
Vision, if that can be activated artificially (if we take someone's eyes) then even leaving our machine brains with the capacity for pain...
could lead to very very unpleasant experiences for a few unlucky individuals, or be used by the government as a control device.
Braveheart:
"You can take my life...but you'll never take my...
ahhhh!!HHHHHHHHHHHHH! god!
what was that? it felt like you poured lava over my genitals! you sick sick....ahh!
ok..ok ok I'll do what you want..just please, no more...no more"
and that was setting 1,
it goes up to a billion and every level is 10 times more painful than the last. (don't know how possible this is, but even if it's within the normal range of pain we currently feel..it's more than enough)
If you're able to do this to the entire population, at unlimited range (make it happen if they STOP receiving a signal) then you have complete obedience.
Make that signal dependednt on your being alive, one that you can turn off and on by thought...
Threatened with a punishment of ETERNAL ultimate pain...I would gladly go along with any of their demands.
They'd make you feel it for a month with no break at first...just to show you what it 'could' be like if it went on forever.
I'd do anything, and so would you.
But...what's the likelihood of some group thinking up that one eh?
hahaha, we're all friends on planet earth and would never hurt one another to gain power.
History proves me right?
*crosses finger*
*Religion.
An inbuilt belief in God.
You will be able to program your children to believe anything, can design them to believe anything from the start.
Why not make them beleive what you KNOW to be true?
why risk letting them be exposed to other minds...who falsely say that God doesn't exist?
how about saving them from that, for the greater good.(and vice versa)
This is major.
I hold it as self evident, that it is a childs right to be completely uninfluenced by their parents...until they can make up their own mind at the age of 30.
Will parents be allowed to brainwash children as we do today?
will we take it once step further...
clown hating parents may want to have it 'inbuilt' in their children without thae hassle of trying to logically explain why clowns are evil.
This scares me.
As for the change itself, I say it solves far more problems than it creates,
few problems with the technical side, the problems arise because of the fact that...
we will still be human, just with bigger toys, bigger sharper, cooler toys.
Will the children play well together?
as they've always done,
we've never actually had wars between humans before...
we love one another and all is good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
high tech means no more "masses"
|
|
|
|
You made a very important point. The possible control of the "majority" through use of this "power".. You do know that the first humans to undergo the change will be those of extreme wealth. As has always been the case, the ultra rich are first to improve their lot, if simply because new technologies (first toilets, AC, safest cars, computers, organic foods, etc.) are prohibitively expensive. The natural course from there is most probable that the rest of mankind will indeed be fodder - as they have always been. Either wiped out in some biological way (virus?) or simply absorbed and re-molded into machine consciousness for the purposes of "work", experiment, guard duty? For, what better a tool to use than the existing human mind - since transfer is more likely FIRST than self aware AI! Under control of course:) I do not see this course of progress in any way beneficial for our COLLECTIVE evolution, if only because the majority have no chance to share the change over. Unlike in eons before where the average lot improved in sync with those of means (albeit at a lower level), the difference now is that their usefulness in terms of production will be less or non-existent. Follow? I believe this is logical purely from experience and knowledge of the Machiavellian mindsets of those with real power in the world. Hell, YOU would if you could...? No? Why not? Dominate that is. Isn't that what evolution is all about? Survival of the most capable, even inter-species? With technological "perfection" comes the weeding out process. For those already in advantage. Why change that paradigm since it works for both biological and mechanical processes.
Your thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
science is very lopsided!
|
|
|
|
oh, and to you Danny Boy:
Jefferson:
"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit the right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. On the contrary, we are bound, you, I, and everyone, to make common cause, even with error itself, to maintain the common right of freedom of conscience. We ought with one heart and one hand hew down the daring and dangerous efforts of those who would seduce the public opinion to substitute itself into . . . tyranny over religious faith." -- Letter to Edward Dawse, 1803
Just for the record since you have chosen to isolate a "supposed" opinion of one man to clarify your points. What is being over looked here is that while religious doctrine and the manipulations of men (not women?) are indeed hurtful to our collective being, spirituality, on the other hand, is a real part of what it is to be alive. It gives animation (consciousness!) to these living organisms and offers us all a glimpse as to the TRUE nature of existence. Most assuredly more than this simple (yet beautifully elegant) physical construct "known" as the cosmos - and all the "laws" within whose bounds we "dwell". I hope that's vague enough :)
On that note also, the minds ability to tap into "unseen" and "unproven" energies is a reality. Take Chi Gong for example and the incredible uses to which one can put the body through manipulation of energy/matter. EXAMPLE: Breaking sharp spear by pushing against weakest part of neck. This really does occur. Or another: The ability to prevent blood flow, scars and injury during a "trance" like state - Hindu religious practices. Now, while the religious undertones and foolish doctrine are apparent, so are the "violations" of your physical (physics) laws! What gives, do YOU think? FYI, I have participated in these matters so I have observed the "feats" if you, first hand. The "laws" of physics would seem insufficient here. Towit, there are additional "forces" at work in this plane and others, so the mystery of spiritualism (NOT superstition!), is merely a call to INCLUDE this in scientific research and serious discourse, for it CAN be proven if simply studied as much as the physical material elements of this plane. Yes, I can provide proof sufficient to satisfy the most stringent empirical requirements. Getting the scientific community to participate and support this AREA of research is all but impossible though... this is why I offer that you see religion and spirituality as not the same thing. Spirituality can be a very GOOD part of the balance required in science and may stem future stupidity such as the creation of weapons! A good grounded scientist can be free from the arrogance of absolutism (think hitler's reich) and can be a vehicle for peace and (what I call) intelligent evolution - inclusive of our spirituality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Science, Quantum Behaviours and I Am
|
|
|
|
Just a note on my above comments. It occurred to me that my thoughts were not made exact enough to be understood in their totality. In reference to my concept:
On that note also, the minds ability to tap into "unseen" and "unproven" energies is a reality. Take Chi Gong for example and the incredible uses to which one can put the body through manipulation of energy/matter. EXAMPLE: Breaking sharp spear by pushing against weakest part of neck. This really does occur. Or another: The ability to prevent blood flow, scars and injury during a "trance" like state - Hindu religious practices. Now, while the religious undertones and foolish doctrine are apparent, so are the "violations" of your physical (physics) laws! What gives, do YOU think?
More clearly, it is apparent to me what this means, but Ray phrased it quite succinctly today; he mentioned eastern philosophies that foster the idea that the mind is the only reality and the existence around me is merely my creation. The very same quirks of quantum unpredictability give rise to the possibility of these schools sharing a common growing awareness that our concentration - our focus - on the subject at hand is what gives it a "final position" if you will. The mind IS order to the chaos. In this regard, Chi Gong is quite a reality and well within the quantum universe as is the minds ability to influence time, matter and energy at will. Greater concentration power, greater focus a fundamental part of this feat. The more practice into this area, the capability one has to "manipulate" or "control" their very existence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Science, Quantum Behaviours and I Am
|
|
|
|
You know what is hilarious?
Someone insulting science or scientists while using the internet to make such comments, oh what a hilarious irony that you already are entirely dependant on technology to survive.
Spirituality and Science can work together, science seeks to prove (or disprove) axioms, or self-evident truths of our reality, spirituality is how you "feel" or apply this to yourself and your place in the cosmos.
Therefore it is logical to see that one could be simply in love with reality itself, AND be a scientist.
To pose thoughts that are not christian, is NOT anti-christian, it is simply another view.
Also, I'm sick of being called atheist just because I don't believe in a concious deity, IMO it seems ridiculous to imagine a concious being concocting this method of evolution and expansion.
Believe it or not, some of us don't need the thought of an after-life to be driven in life, some of us (more than you think) even find joy in the prospect of a singularity.
Are these people heathens? Or simply thinking ahead?
And as to the question "what harm has religion ever done?" (someone asked it)
Have you actually thought about this? It is mankind that causes mankinds problems surely, but religion, as a near obsolete method of explaining this problem (god/satan heaven/hell etc) doesn't actually DO anything to help those in strife.
No wiping out religion will not solve any problems, because a large amount of people will always need to believe in something.
I for one KNOW I'm not going to heaven or hell, I may die, I MAY NOT, and I refuse to be called anything but what I am. One of the very core tenets of christianity was always based on respecting others beliefs and understandings..
To me the anti-science movement seems a last desperate bid to scare people into a faith trap..
If you have to call me anything call me a pantheist, or a realist, for the nature of reality amazes me.
Oh and.. to those who are interested, the latest south park posed quite interesting views on evolution and religion and the two in opposition.
The episode posed that blaming religion for problems is wrong, yet denying evolution, science, and progression is downright stupid.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Science, Quantum Behaviours and I Am
|
|
|
|
Additional:
We've separated feeling and logic for so long that the two have become separate halves of a whole.
The two work in complete synch, without emotion or concern for something, would any mind put forth the concious effort to work it out logically?
I'm truly sick of being told I'm going to hell, I'm also sick of being told this is hell..
The second coming you fear is already here, we live in a beautiful, vibrant, ever-changing reality, and if we wipe ourselves out, so be it in my opinion.
If your faith is strong, you should not fear the imminent death you predict, as you'll be in fluffy clouds surrounded by saints and mormons won't you?
We can't see past this horizon, the best thing we can do is share thoughts, ideas, and truths. The best we can do is find a way to approach the coming technology in a humble way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Cyber Sapiens
|
|
|
|
It's been fascinating to scan the direction of this thread. It's taken some interesting turns, but I think asking whether any "human" mind can evolve into a purely machine or cyber mind gets at the heart of an important question. Is strong AI possible without building on the human brain which has been in the making for billions of years and derives so much of its power from the primal drives evolution has given it?
In othjer words is artificial intelligence possible without a subconscious, without desire and dreams and the jungle parts of us which are part and parcel of any mind we call human?
And if so, how would that be? By what other mechanism will we create true AI? Even Cyc relies on plundering the web for human expeience.
The biggest problem experts in AI are grappling with right now is what we call common sense. Common sense for the most part does not derive purely from the prefrontal cortex, the logical, most recently evolved part of the brain. It derives from sectors throughout the brain that are both ancient and new. The primal and the newly evolved sectors of us can't be disconnected because the brain itself is a rube goldberg machine of interconnections, each stage building on the stage before, and each shaped by the interaction between the body and the environment in which it has evolved.
So does every form of intelligence have to make this evolutionary journey before it can be considered truly intelligent? Or is there another route to emergent self-consciousness that involves a different form of evolution and therefore resukts in a different sort of creature, alien -- one we might not understand or consider intelligent or human.
If so, that's one direction. If not, we may face a dilemma that doesn't get discussed much. Cybersapiens will be creatures with outrageous brain power (and physical power) built on a foundation of primal drives. Wow! Can you say dangerous?
Hans Moravec, the scientist at CMU that first postulated that someday we would be able to download our brain into superpowerful robots with hardware millions of times faster than our current wetware told me a few years ago that he had reconsidered that scenario. I asked him if he still thought we might someday be able to download our minds. He said he thought we would, but it might be a bad idea because immense power combined with the mind of a human might be a lethal recipe "that the neighbors wouldn't like."
But evolution doesn't stop, so I'm not sure we have a choice in the matter. (Ask Bill Joy.)
We are aleady lethal and deadly (as well as soaringly creative) in our current homo sapiens, chained-to-our DNA format (though we are less so every day).
The thing is, we humans can go either way -- beautiful or ugly.
Which way will Cybersapiens go?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Cyber Sapiens
|
|
|
|
As Chipwalter already said it is really interesting to see the movements (from one extreme to the other) in this thread. Since the questions that are evoked here are also questions that keep me occupied on those sleepless nights, I will try and give some of my ideas/remarks.
First of all I would share my ideas on the whole Science versus Religion discussion:
I am personally a very traditionally raised Christian, raised and educated in Catholic schools, but this never stopped my thinking and never started to lower myself to axioms and blind faith. Instead it gave me a certain amazement about this world, about life. I believe in something greater than us, that might or might not be able to be explained through ‘empirical’ research. This being something in religion called God. However this does not show me that because we can experience something unmeasurable, we are also able to describe it (like in for instance the Bible) or even measure or comprehend it. And most of all it amazes me how people can sit down and say they have the truth about something and others are ‘wrong’.
Something else now, about the topic of evolution (I cannot remember who posted this). What I understood was that AI (in all its forms) is just the next step of evolution. Well I must say this is a very broad-minded thought. Because again most people think that everything we know here, is the only possibility. Why would it not be possible that the definition of life can also be applied to entities not made out of biological cells and DNA.
The idea of a (near) total convergence of technology (AI and its derivatives) and biological life is the one I presume to be most likely. This due to the fact that history proves that most changes come gradually, and in such a way that after a few years people start discussing on when the change came into existence. Or in other words, the train has left the station already long ago and we will have to ride it out, but nobody will remember train ride. Instead everyone will remember the destination.
The other idea I have is actually more a remark on most of the people who posted here. Almost everyone thinks one has the Choice (I read all the posts, but couldn’t find anyone or my ‘still biological mind’;) is just not performing enough). Is it not shown throughout history that necessity is the driving force behind a lot of major inventions? Forgive me if I am wrong, but too many people think there will be choice around the future. It just comes and necessity (or for that instance, the lesser of two evils in choice) will decide our choices.
“We do not live life, life lives us.”
Personally I am welcoming any advancements in technology, because for the better or the worse, even the most destructive advancement has some positive derivatives (think A-bomb). And I touroughly believe we, as a reasonable human, trying to get the best desired outcome which generates the most possible life satisfaction/happiness, will eventually lead us to the best outcome.
I hope I can see some remarks on my ideas and would be more than happy to welcome any counter-arguments!
Kind regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Cyber Sapiens
|
|
|
|
In response to Vertigo,
-“The other idea I have is actually more a remark on most of the people who posted here. Almost everyone thinks one has the Choice (I read all the posts, but couldn’t find anyone or my ‘still biological mind’;) is just not performing enough). Is it not shown throughout history that necessity is the driving force behind a lot of major inventions? Forgive me if I am wrong, but too many people think there will be choice around the future. It just comes and necessity (or for that instance, the lesser of two evils in choice) will decide our choices.“
I do think that we, as human beings, have the choice of inventions. For example, just like the nuclear bomb during the WW. It wasn’t any necessity for the human to survive for having the nuclear bombs, it was created just because a little part of our population “wanted” something. It’s a matter of “want” and “need”. In fact, the development of nuclear bombs is still a threat to the whole world. What I want to bring up here is that it is very important for us to learn from the past, and make sure that we have a global regulations of what to be developed. Some inventions are just non-reversable (please excuse my English inefficiency here), we wouldn’t want to regret by not making proper prevention. I’m not saying that AI development is 100% bad in my opinion, but who knows if one country is so far ahead in the development of AI, they can even bring up another World War just by using AI’s. So a global regulations of robots and AI’s must be well established and carried out before it’s too late. However, this is a real world, it’s not like everything can be carried out as it’s planned.
Also, I want to comment that when human can actually create another clone of human, or an AI robot that shares the same properties as a real human, our world will just lose its identity. Think about it, nothing is interesting any more. No sports, no artists, no nothing, every kind of person can be created, one robot can be perfections at everything, he/she/it can be the prettiest person and at the same time be dominating at sports, while serving as a doctor, lawyer and singer. Yea, it is definitely a world full of perfect people, then where do us stand? Where do human-beings stand? Do we have to modify ourselves to become perfect too? so everyone will need to go through operations to become what they want to be? Most of the things will just lose the meaning of existences in my opinion. Yes and i do admit that it would be convenient when robots can do simple stuffs as a servant in our households or offices, but I can also foresee that the development of robots will then eventually develop to one point that human will eliminate themselves. Obviously, this is solely my own opinion, and it has limited supporting arguments. But I mean, who can really predict the future? I’m just expressing my own feeling to this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Cyber Sapiens
|
|
|
|
This article has brought to my attention some interesting points about human evolution and AI. My own beliefs lean toward AI not ever exceeding human capabilities, or in other words, the singularity not arriving. However, I do believe that advancements in technology will continue to cross over into biological territory. The idea of cyber-sapiens acts as a very suitable go-between for believers and non-believers in the arrival of singularity. It, for one, suggests that the evolution of humans is not based solely on their own biological properties, but includes the advancements technology that surrounds us. This then leads to Chip Walter’s prediction that humans will act as the host of the next level of molecular and digital meshing.
The common thought of evolution is strictly biological, involving the transfer of genes from generation to generation. This Darwinistic approach is modified by Lynn Margulis’ argument which sets the ground work for the homo-sapien to cyber-sapien evolutionary model. Of course it is hard to imagine for most that we could ever evolve into “cyber-sapiens”, but like Chip Walter pointed out that it would also be just as hard for Homo erectus to imagine that his successors would be living in the high tech world we do today.
Of course, I still do not believe that we will reach singularity, but I am still aware of the arguments supporting it. From the point on evolution mentioned above, one can extend that to the following argument that is also mentioned by Chip Walter. Looking at the evolution of AI, it is not so dissimilar from the evolution of humans. Therefore, the trends show that AI should conceivably catch up to human beings and in turn surpass us. However, I still believe there is a limit to AI. A limit that does not exist for human minds but will always bound AI. However, because we do not understand why we have emotions and other human behaviour, or how they are manifested in our brains, that is why we cannot fully understand why AI could never be at our level of being, since we don’t understand what that level of being is to begin with.
I pondered this question of whether AI would ever be at the human level during a class I had about computational theory. The lecture was about the P=NP problem, and was given at the University of Toronto by a student of Stephen Cook, who formulated this problem. A fascinating problem, that affects almost every aspect of computing, and mathematics in general. It could change our world if solved, and has a profound relationship with AI. Although solving this problem wouldn’t open the doors to human behaviour and the human mind, it is definitely a step that computation must reach for AI to continue to evolve. The basic principle is that if P = NP, then any reasonable length algorithm, or problem, can be solved in a reasonable (polynomial) amount of time. Thus, problems like SUBSET-SUM, which in small sizes can be solved quickly by a human, could be solved by a computer in polynomial, not exponential, time.
It was these minute limitations of computers that lead me to believe that AI had a limit. Even if P=NP were found true, and one smart mathematician was one million dollars richer, AI would still have a long way to go, and would have to be designed with concepts that we as humans have yet to understand well enough ourselves. It is for this reason that the only way for computers to ever become conscious, would be if humans themselves acted as a host. Just like the clam-like shellfish that first appeared half a billion years ago, humans could begin embedding their own technology as a part of their body.
As Chip Walter said, we already have brain implants, mechanical hearts, and other technology being used in our bodies. Is it so hard to believe that this will one day we done at the molecular level? Who knows, just as the clam made its shell a part of it body, we may make computers and cell phones a part of ours. For something we already feel naked without, would it not make sense for our own bodies to biologically carry out the digital forms of communication that we are already so used to. Would it not be the obvious next step in our evolution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Cyber Sapiens
|
|
|
|
I would like to begin by saying I do not believe that cyber-sapiens will replace homo-sapiens completely. Currently, technology is embedded in a majority of people across the globe. But this technology has always been there to enhance our lives, rather than to replace. It makes our lives easier, more convenient, and faster than previous generations. As technology advances, I foresee it will continue to enhance our existence; however, it will be impossible for them to overtake humans, and develop into their own entity. We have been, and will always, be in control of the tools that we create.
The current processing power of CPUs are doubling every year, an ongoing trend that is easily visible. Kurzweil estimates that by the year 2019, the modern day CPU will have the equivalent processing power of a human brain, and by 2029, the power of a thousand human brains. However, raw processing power does not equate to the cleverness and ingenuity that the human brain possesses. For example, emotions will be virtually impossible to program. If humans have trouble explaining what emotions they are feeling precisely, how can they create programs that feel the same way? There are just too many variables to consider before this becomes plausible. Though there have been extensive research into artificial intelligence, I do not believe it will advance far enough to surpass the human brain, even with vast computational power.
Though complex robots, and advanced supercomputers are emerging, they are still created by humans. They may be built in factories that have automated processes, but each of them were designed and implemented by humans. Humans will always be at the beginning and the ending of each process with use of machines. Being designed by a human means they follow strict algorithms, and do not tread from “typical behaviour” (minus bugs of course). Computers will never create their own programs, no matter how fast they can compute. This is great for menial computation, but upon complex decision-making, raw processing power collapses. There are virtually an infinite number of decisions that a human makes all the time, most of the time without even thinking about it, that a computer cannot find a solution to.
There is also the entire notion of whether or not it is ethically correct or possible for cyber-sapiens to even rise. Even with the current development of nano-technologies and genetic manipulation, there has been extremely strong opposition. There are some strong points in the science vs. religion argument, however, I will instead focus on the current market trend. Technology only expands as fast as the market demand pushes for it. Money moves the world, and only monetary advantages will push certain technologies ahead of another. Ethically unsound technologies will have a much lower demand, extending its development period, or even pushed out of existence by other cheaper, more accepted technologies. As well, almost all machine implants in the body today are driven through necessity rather than desire. People are suspicious of new technologies, and even more so when they are implanted within them. Coupled with the hardware, also comes software, which is also developed by humans. Humans are bound to make mistakes, and as such, bugs are impossible to eliminate completely. This creates an unstable, possibly life-threatening, and untested new technology. With a low demand, it becomes non-financially feasible to market and develop such a product.
I believe that human evolution will always remain biological. The market demand for technological needs will always be lower than technological wants. The poor feasible returns coupled with intensive, complex research required, will downfall all advances in the field. Though the fine line between biology and technology will continue to blur, they will only complement, and not merge. Technology will continue to be used only as a tool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Cyber Sapiens
|
|
|
|
i also agree w the two paths of ai and humanity, the one synthetic, the other biological.
if ai starts to get biological, vast ethical challenges await. u dont get those w synthetic, really, at all.
and humans getting all tech upgraded, there are problems there, even if it comes to pass soon (i think the steps will be far slower, each implant, treatment, whatever, each part of the body that is targeted will be like a new realm. i mean each implant/enhancement will be painstaking, and its general applicability limited.
but also, its optional, so that means health ins prob wont pick it up (anyone doubt there will be health ins companies in the future? i wouldnt if i were u), and it sounds quite expensive, at least initially. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Cyber Sapiens
|
|
|
|
'Kurzweil estimates that by the year 2019, the modern day CPU will have the equivalent processing power of a human brain, and by 2029, the power of a thousand human brains. However, raw processing power does not equate to the cleverness and ingenuity that the human brain possesses.'
This again? For some reason, ' raw processing power is not sufficient, Ray' is seen as a powerful refutation of Kurzweil. But in both 'Age Of Spritual Machines' and 'Singularity Is Near', Kurzweil clearly states (on more than one occasion) 'adequate computational power is a necessary but NOT SUFFICIENT condition to achieve human levels of intelligence'.
Improvements in raw processing power contributes only half of Kurzweil's argument for GAI. The other half (he devotes an entire chapter to it in 'Singularity Is Near') is that by examining brains in microscopic detail using sensors that can precisely track information being processed, we are learning how to model the software of human intelligence in our nonbiological information-processing platforms.
'Computers will never create their own programs, no matter how fast they can compute. This is great for menial computation, but upon complex decision-making, raw processing power collapses.'
No. What collapses is your argument that advocates of artificial general intelligence think that GAI will spontaneously arise once raw computing power reaches a certain level. A careful reading of Kurzweil's argument (and papers by Elizer Yudkowsky) show in no uncertain terms that researchers in GAI make NO SUCH ASSUMPTION.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Cyber Sapiens
|
|
|
|
In Chip Walter¡¯s article ¡°Cyber Sapiens¡±, it argued that with the development of technologies, although we can combine our biological bodies with machines, but eventually human race could be washed out of the evolution and be replaced by high-tech machines. However, from my point of view, technologies are just the higher level tools and methods to serve and help people with the affairs. They should not be able to take the charge of our society and evolution.
With the rapid development of technologies, people can enjoy their lives far better than before. The invention of computers made the human race see incredible computing and processing speed. The invention of internet opened people¡¯s eyes with all kinds of information and images from all corners of the world. The invention of industrial machines helped all kinds of companies to increase the productivity and stimulate the economies even faster than people can imagine. All these changes are due to the change and evolution of technologies that are tightly related to human race. With these highly developed technologies, we can contact whoever we want from anywhere of the world with the multi-featured cell phones. ¡°We can¡¯t live without laptops, palmtops, cell phones or iPods, which grow continually smaller and more powerful.¡± (Walter, 2006). Also, people can survive some severe diseases much easier with technology and biochemistry combined cure. Even flying to other planets, like the Moon or the Mars, is not just a dream at all.
However, technologies are not the salvation of human being. Through all of these years, with the development of the technologies, the disasters related to the technologies also happened a lot. The London Ambulance disaster killed tens of people because of the crash down of the system, and the Wall-Street financial crash also because of the overload and wrong setting of the system. There will always be some consequences for the system failure and other kind of disasters which happen onto human race. This is all because that first of all, it is human being who created and enhanced the technologies, and secondly, technologies do not have moral minds.
First of all, since we are the creator of the technologies, then we human being will still be the charge of our society and our destinies. In order to make better lives and better world for ourselves, we use technologies to help ourselves. Combining our biological DNA with technologies may help us to advance our functions and enhance our abilities. But these computer-based combinations of human and technology, or can be interpreted as ¡°half human half machine¡± are still based on the human body. It is our race who is changing the world and promoting the evolution. The enhancement of human being will help us to take better control of our evolution, but not being banished by the technical monsters we created.
Secondly, singular machines or technologies do not have moral minds as human do. Since human programmed and created these technologies, there are some ways for them to work to achieve the requirements. Machine itself will not think, even if some future artificial intelligence will be able to think, it does not have any emotions or moral thoughts like human do. In this case, although maybe they will follow some rules to operate, they are not able to judge and control with moral minds. Whereas, as we all know, the society we live in is regulated, not only by laws, but also rules based on human¡¯s ethics and morality. People argue and discuss their own future with their own minds. Without moral minds, machine cannot rule our society. Therefore, human beings have the responsibility and duty to rule the society by ourselves.
Ignoring the application of evolution rules on machines, or we may say we are in charge of the technologies to let them serve us to fit for the evolution rules. ¡°The technologically based transformation of this century - and surely deepening within the next - significantly undermines the potentials of both individualism and communalism to secure a morally viable society.¡± (Gergen, 2000). Although the technologies are under development, and maybe someday, human beings will combine ourselves with machines, however, it is our world and we are the necessary host to take control of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
