Narz
keeping it real
Poor mouse.
By the way, what's with the kids in the forest bit?
By the way, what's with the kids in the forest bit?
Human v2
- Thread starter ArneHD
- Start date
Gogf
Indescribable
My worry is that we'll "lose" control of our thoughts if we beyond partially machine. Sure, the machine may have the same thoughts as us, but that surgery could be the end of OUR experience. A version of which you cannot control will live on but "you" will not; is that better or worse than death?
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Cyborgization is fine, but I draw the line at roboticization. As Perfection notes, the architecture of the brain is quite different from that of computers - and I expect it to stay that way long after computers become more powerful than brains at making complex subtle intelligent judgments. I share Gogf's worry in post #22.
Yuri2356
Test Screening
Upgrades will be mandatory for all citizens.
Technocactus
Lurker
I wondered how long it would be until Cybermen were mentioned.
DBear
unbeliever
Did I wander into a SMAC thread by mistake? 
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I didn't really like the film itself; it spent too much time wasting my time. Creepy music while watching children stand around was ... useless.
I do. I think that it's technically feasible, and what's mostly lacking is the will and resources. In the end, immortality is going to occur, and so it's mostly a matter of taking steps to help it occur earlier rather than later.
There are many ways for a common person to contribute to the process. Mainly through consumer dollars. There are supply-side ways of adding to the progress, and demand-side ways. One can directly help fund the supply of these innovations (whether through charity-dollars, political support, or contributing to the field) or one can fund the demand for these innovations (by being a customer of new products, new companies, or by helping create a demand for new innovations).
Of course, I think it's more efficient to be on the supply-side, but it's not always more attractive as an option. For example, more people seem to want to place themselves on the demand-side of lung cancer treatments than on the supply-side (buying smokes instead of donating to the cancer charities).
Then again, my contribution to computer innovation will likely continue to be as a customer for some times yet.
Exactly. Purchasing innovations leads to feedback loops which improve those innovations. And using one's consumer dollar to help create these feedback loops will lead to faster progress. In general, the human v2.0 will occur more quickly if we spend our money supporting technologies which will lead to the human v2.0.
Firstly, get your friends to donate cord blood to the Alberta Cord Blood Bank. The more raw material scientists have to work with, the cheaper the research is.
I see that you're already folding. Computer innovations will continue to add to the progress in this field. In general, there are other grid computing projects that your friends might want to contribute to.
Your local university is likely looking for volunteers for experiments, many of those will be harmless and thus a good way to contribute.
Finally, my signature has some information regarding a conference coming up in Edmonton. I'm sure more people attending would be better.
Exactly. People can realise that there is a multi-tier demand and supply for all of these types of progress. If there's a paradigm that appeals to someone, then they can push for progress in that paradigm.
I do. I think that it's technically feasible, and what's mostly lacking is the will and resources. In the end, immortality is going to occur, and so it's mostly a matter of taking steps to help it occur earlier rather than later.
There are many ways for a common person to contribute to the process. Mainly through consumer dollars. There are supply-side ways of adding to the progress, and demand-side ways. One can directly help fund the supply of these innovations (whether through charity-dollars, political support, or contributing to the field) or one can fund the demand for these innovations (by being a customer of new products, new companies, or by helping create a demand for new innovations).
Of course, I think it's more efficient to be on the supply-side, but it's not always more attractive as an option. For example, more people seem to want to place themselves on the demand-side of lung cancer treatments than on the supply-side (buying smokes instead of donating to the cancer charities).
Then again, my contribution to computer innovation will likely continue to be as a customer for some times yet.
Exactly. Purchasing innovations leads to feedback loops which improve those innovations. And using one's consumer dollar to help create these feedback loops will lead to faster progress. In general, the human v2.0 will occur more quickly if we spend our money supporting technologies which will lead to the human v2.0.
Ideally, you'll want to be a customer for a finished product. The best way to get these types of products is to help them arrive more quickly.
Firstly, get your friends to donate cord blood to the Alberta Cord Blood Bank. The more raw material scientists have to work with, the cheaper the research is.
I see that you're already folding. Computer innovations will continue to add to the progress in this field. In general, there are other grid computing projects that your friends might want to contribute to.
Your local university is likely looking for volunteers for experiments, many of those will be harmless and thus a good way to contribute.
Finally, my signature has some information regarding a conference coming up in Edmonton. I'm sure more people attending would be better.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Well, acknowledging the difficulties shouldn't make you object to it philosophically. Sure it can't be done anytime soon, but I see no theoretical objection to it.
Masquerouge
Deity
I'm all in favor of genetic and mechanical improvements. I will let the doomsday plots to cheap sci-fi novels where they will sometimes entertain me.
"Oh Noes the robots are evil because they're machines and do not have feelings! They can't love they're machines! They can't imagine! And thus they turn against us because they hate us! Wait I said they do not have feelings!"
"Oh Noes we've been playing God with ADN and now I have 5 arms and I'm a monster!"
Pffffff.
"Oh Noes the robots are evil because they're machines and do not have feelings! They can't love they're machines! They can't imagine! And thus they turn against us because they hate us! Wait I said they do not have feelings!"
"Oh Noes we've been playing God with ADN and now I have 5 arms and I'm a monster!"
Pffffff.
Narz
keeping it real
So you deny things can go wrong?
Without biotech, things can go wrong anyway.
The advantage of biotech is that (a) we know it can go wrong, and try to watch out for problems and (b) it has the potential to go very, very right.
The advantage of biotech is that (a) we know it can go wrong, and try to watch out for problems and (b) it has the potential to go very, very right.
Masquerouge
Deity
Well what invention, what technical progress in the past has gone so terribly wrong that it actually jeopardized our species? I mean, we have the means to blow our planet more than a thousand times over, and yet we didn't do it, right?
We should give more credit to common sense. Just because something can be abused does not mean it will.
But yeah, I was maybe a bit too sarcastic. I do not deny that things can go wrong, I just think they won't.
Narz
keeping it real
Things our going wrong though. We may yet destory our planet (or at least it's ability to support the human species).
Not saying we should all become technophobes, just that a bit more care is necessary, more than we're even excersising right now with present technoglogy.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
There comes a point where "mere practicalities" plus philosophical subtlety mount into a philosophical objection. When the "merely practical difficulties" threaten to marginalize, or even obsolete, sentience-as-we-know-it, we have a problem. As I wrote in the "computers and human rights" thread:
If we emphasize the fact that robotic emotion and sensation are possible in principle (even if that is a fact) we're emphasizing the wrong fact. We should emphasize that in practice, what will be possible will (for a long time at least) only be the illusion of emotion and sensation.
Swedishguy
Deity
Yep, hindering scientific progress and Human V2.Masquerouge said:
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
Consider this, if I connected my brain to an artifical nural-like network and allowed chemical and eletrical signals to travel between them, then waited two days, and stoped my heart so that my organic brain died. Would my concisousness still be "alive"?
It very well could be. We've seen time and again that memories can migrate from dying brain tissue to healthy (implanted) tissue. While most of these experiments are in animals, neuroscience tends to care less about the animal/human divide than people do.
Yuri2356
Test Screening
This is more or less exactly how I responded to Aya-So's statement from the other thread.
Masquerouge
Deity
That's true, but that's not because of the latest scientific advances, but because we're stupidly sticking to the most pollutive and lucrative ones.
I definitely agree.
I would nitpick and say "more than we're even exercising right now with obsolete technologies".
