|
Peachfart posted:And at that point we are creating new life. Not extending old life. 'You' would be gone. yeah, what's the point of extending inefficient life if you can use the same technology to create better life from scratch. it's all just people imagining ways in which they dont have to die. unfortunately, everything dies and this is inescapable
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Then why did you even post at all? Coward. To try and get people to be aware of pitfalls that these discussions always fall into, I don't have anything to offer on this subject except useless speculation with no deep or even surface level scientific knowledge, which is exactly my problem with threads like this since that's what they inevitably get caught up in, including this thread already. Feel free to shut me up and post some hard science on lengthening human lifespans indefinitely. I'm sure there's lots of interesting theory and research that may prove fruitful in the near future and I'd prefer to read about that than airily pondering about being a computer.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:To try and get people to be aware of pitfalls that these discussions always fall into, I don't have anything to offer on this subject except useless speculation with no deep or even surface level scientific knowledge, which is exactly my problem with threads like this since that's what they inevitably get caught up in, including this thread already. Thank you for warning us about the dangers of posting. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
We are already machines All matter has one consciousness, we only delude ourselves that we have different consciousnesses We are all aspects of God, separate because we would get bored otherwise
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:To try and get people to be aware of pitfalls that these discussions always fall into, I don't have anything to offer on this subject except useless speculation with no deep or even surface level scientific knowledge, which is exactly my problem with threads like this since that's what they inevitably get caught up in, including this thread already. oh so you're shift-key shitposting? word. cool.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:No, you said we can 'replace inactive neurons with robot ones'. All the logistical difficulties aside(and holy poo poo there are a lot), what makes you think that you can introduce synthetic neurons into a brain and still have you be you? Replacing bits of ape brain might not be the move. Once a brain is mapped for its individual function, at the cellular level, electrical impulses might be generated through a tight-beamed MRI manipulating cerebrospinal fluid which has been augmented with something like Carbon 60 in solution. If a brain would acclimate to using the supercortex created by the MRI's connection to a program that simulates brain function, and that simulated function works BETTER than that of the human brain, consciousness will prefer the superior environment and migrate to it. eventually, the body would have to go, and some stuff might be lost...maybe
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Broccoli Cat posted:Replacing bits of ape brain might not be the move. synaptic response is also a hyperbolically complex chemical reaction, its not just electricity running through a circuit. if it were that simple, we'd have figured it out by now.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:oh so you're shift-key shitposting? word. cool. Like I said, feel free to post some useful grounding so we can avoid posts like what Brocolli Cat just gave us.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:humans cannot transcend their animal nature. whatever we create that does will not be human. there's no we about it, once you create a completely different organism or system to be better than humans there's no reason to have it replicate human behaviors or simulate human existence Why, what would you rather it do? Peachfart posted:And at that point we are creating new life. Not extending old life. 'You' would be gone. This whole argument is semantics and I would prefer not to see it rehashed in every goddamn thread on this subject. I agree that none of us know enough about made-up future technology to have an informed opinion on the subject. This is why I wanted to talk about robo-sociology.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:No, you said we can 'replace inactive neurons with robot ones'. All the logistical difficulties aside(and holy poo poo there are a lot), what makes you think that you can introduce synthetic neurons into a brain and still have you be you? Everything about you, that makes you you, is represented by the communication between cells - a set of self replicating signals. So long as that replication is maintained, you persist. Bruising/concussion isn't the same thing. By killing neurons, you've disrupted that self replicating pattern. But a neuron that is currently 'off', and is supposed to be off, has no impact on that pattern if it is temporarily removed. It only matters that its 'on' when its supposed to be on, ie that the signal pattern is maintained. And yes of course it's logistically impractical. That's not the point. The point was to demonstrate that it was possible in principle, something you asked me to prove.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Ah yes if we alter and stretch the meaning of the word "machine", then yeah, we're all machines when you think about it, maaan
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
I give this thread two more pages before MIRI gets brought up (probably in relation to the CER, FHI or FLI) and it begins the slide into another LessWrong mockfest.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
If I gotta be a cyborg I better have purple hair and be anime as gently caress. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
Autism Sneaks posted:I give this thread two more pages If we're going te be able to replace neurons, why not replace them with healthy organic (free range? gluten free?) neurons. Repeat for all your cells. Biological immortality is the way to go. Replacing an arm with a prosthectic, even a very good one, does not give you a new arm. Replacing your neurons one by one seems to me a really slow way to commit suicide. The real question is, is being an immortal machine worth giving up your genitals? This post brought to you by the department of shitposting. "Shitposting, its a growth industry!"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
my favorite thing about transhumanist threads is that after the people who measure technology by consumer entertainment products are shut down by the educated people the educated people start talking about how the literal soul works mechanically but are way too dumb to realize it
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
Again, you are a retarded person. You as an immortal would just be you being miserable and making stupid decisions forever. "But when we are all just code we will program ourselves better" says the stupid idiot that never did anything right in their whole life. You'll gently caress that up too. Namaste.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
I'm serious I really want to be like a dildo on a camshaft attached to an outboard engine or something
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:If I gotta be a cyborg I better have purple hair and be anime as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
In the novelization of critically acclaimed 1995 LucasArts videogame The Dig, Alan Dean Foster briefly depicts a society of immortal transcended beings. Their main characteristic is that they're terminally bored and wish only for the sweet sweet release of death. Which is what we should all yearn for, really.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:synaptic response is also a hyperbolically complex chemical reaction, its not just electricity running through a circuit. if it were that simple, we'd have figured it out by now. analogues can be simulated without recreating physical structure, like the synthesized timbre of a violin...if the end result of a simulation is indistinguishable from (edit: the end result of) its model, the physical process is moot. and this is why we need hyperintelligent AI...because we're too stupid to figure it out, currently. Broccoli Cat fucked around with this message at 14:45 on May 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
I'm late to the transhumanism thread! Oh no!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I'm serious I really want to be like a dildo on a camshaft attached to an outboard engine or something ~ Follow you're dreams ~
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Broccoli Cat posted:analogues can be simulated without recreating physical structure, like the synthesized timbre of a violin...if the end result of a simulation is indistinguishable from (edit: the end result of) its model, the physical process is moot. Like the lyre bird! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Like the lyre bird! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOFy8QkNWWs
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
I think that's the same clip, lmao.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I think that's the same clip, lmao. lmao indeed goonsire
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Pinch Me Im Meming posted:lmao indeed goonsire I'm more of a goon'm'lady (or goonbird) to be quite honest. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Like the lyre bird! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y if the end result of the bird's vocalizations were consciousness in a virtual universe, we could use it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Broccoli Cat posted:if the end result of the bird's vocalizations were consciousness in a virtual universe, we could use it. How would we know?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Broccoli Cat posted:and this is why we need hyperintelligent AI...because we're too stupid to figure it out, currently. If AI : human :: human : chimpanzee, we won't be able to create it any more than a chimpanzee could design humans in an engineering project.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Autism Sneaks posted:I give this thread two more pages before MIRI gets brought up (probably in relation to the CER, FHI or FLI) and it begins the slide into another LessWrong mockfest. I would pay actual money for a "Roko and the Basilisks" fake band T-shirt.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Jazu posted:If AI : human :: human : chimpanzee, we won't be able to create it any more than a chimpanzee could design humans in an engineering project. the calculator on my desk can do math better than a great percentage of humans humans somehow created it this is my bayesian inference that somehow we'll make something that thinks without self-defeating hormones, instinct or subconscious.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Broccoli Cat posted:this is my bayesian inference that somehow we'll make something that thinks without self-defeating hormones, instinct or subconscious. Wouldn't matter, we'd sabotage it with *our* hormones, instinct, and subconscious desires. Nobody gets free of their innate weakness, and we die out as stupid pointless ape babies. Technology will not save you.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Hello thread I have a PhD in philosophy, specializing in technology and artificial intelligence. I am a regional expert on this topic and a beloved forums personality. AMA. Philosophy of mind for dummies: 1) The universe is a machine made of machines. You are some of those machines. This was true of your hominid ancestors a million years before we invented fire, and it was true of orbital mechanics five billion years before our sun was born, and it was true of the cosmos 10 nanoseconds after the big bang. Technology doesn't make us "become machine", it just changes around which machines there are, and which we identify with. 2) The brain is the control system for the body. Well, it is a control system. The body has several; the lymphatic system is also a control system, but it is chemical and slow. The nervous system is electrical, and helps make us animals the twitchy, frantic beasts we are. Higher order thought (abstract mathematics, language use, sociality and selfhood etc) are all neocortex extensions of this fundamental control process. You are more capable as an organism because you can think about a bunch of abstract things. 3) Thoughts, ideas, beliefs, opinions, values, theories, stereotypes, and images of oneself and others: these are all different kinds of "mental representations", which is a fancy way of talking about data structures and the data it contains. Thinking, feeling, acting, choosing, etc are all ways of processing these data. A machine that processes data is a computer, not because it uses binary code or logic gates but because it implements a finite state machine with memory. Any finite state machine with memory is a computer. You are a computer. Your liver is also a computer. 4) When psychologists talk about "consciousness", they usually mean awareness, or the mechanism by which attention shifts. Consciousness is the capacity for the brain and body to turn its available resources to focus on a task. When there's a loud explosion behind you and it grips your attention and makes you turn around to see what happened, that's an example of consciousness at work: stimuli is processed to produce a whole body action. This is not mere reflex, although it is entirely computational/mechanical. Consciousness is how the stimuli is incorporated (or "integrated") into the dynamic activity of the organism as such. 5) When philosophers talk about "consciousness", they usually mean the subjectivity of qualia, that ineffable "what-its-like" experience that one can only have from the first person perspective. The philosophical problem of consciousness is not about the mechanisms by which attention shifts; philosophers will admit that attention is explained entirely by neural mechanisms. The philosophers worry that third-person objective science can never capture what it's like to be conscious from a first person perspective. This concern about the capacity for science to explain consciousness has two major implications. First: we can never know if something else is conscious, because we can never occupy their first-person perspective. Second, this undermines our very confidence that mechanical explanations are adequate for science. In other words, consciousness seems fundamentally "mysterious". 6) Philosophical discussions of consciousness are loving stupid. They are designed to reinforce a general anti-science/anti-intellectual sentiment in the public. The problem for the philosopher isn't consciousness itself: we all know what consciousness is like from the first person. The problem for the philosopher is science attempting to make claims outside its jurisdiction. It is no coincidence that philosophers who defend the inscrutability of consciousness also tend to be hostile to science generally, and to believe in immortal souls. In other words, the philosophical debate over consciousness is a trojan horse for smuggling Christian theology into modern science. Resist this urge with all your might. Repeat these truths: Brains are control structures for the body. Attention is integration for action. There is always more science to do, but there is no deep mystery to consciousness outside the bounds of science. _____ So with that, let's talk about uploading minds. To some extent we have already done this. Brains control bodies; minds control selves. There are plenty of digital control structures in the cloud I already use to control my body and mind. Every time I get an email and respond, that's cloud-based control of my action. That control isn't very strong; I have a lot of leeway in response. But it is still some modicum of control. "Uploading oneself" ultimately amounts to digitizing all the control structures you identify with. But this is tricky. A good chunk of my brain is dedicated to moving my fingers on a keyboard. If I'm digitizing myself, I won't have fingers any more. So do I need these control structures, who are entirely designed around controlling fingers? Well, presumably I do. Presumably my digital self will find cases where it would like to have finger-like control over some digital space, and these trained neural pathways would be useful for negotiating that space. But maybe! Maybe there are entirely new digital forms action that make my finger neurons obsolete. Or maybe there are standard modules for "trained finger neurons" that I can download from github that work way, way better than my arthritic, RSI hands ever could. In this case, why would I upload my bioneurons? For nostalgia's sake? Silly humans. The point here is that you don't just upload selves. What you really do is shift the locus and dynamics of control. I currently have some control over the spaces near by body, so I can reach for things and swat at mosquitoes and such. If I'm digitized, where is my range of control? Am I confined to moving data around a file structure like windows? Seems like a downgrade. The Christian impulse is to believe that my mind is some swirling activity of inner commotion that exists independently of my body and its various processes, but this is just a myth. My brain just is that system controlling my body, so when you get rid of the body, what's left of the mind, and what constrains its activity? What am I doing, once uploaded? In Watt's Blindsight you can get uploaded to "Heaven", which renders actual digital space and avatars for people to control and manipulate. The question of how to do this depends entirely on the nature of control within that digital space, and how to integrate my existing models of self-control with that space. The precise nature of that digital space will determine not just how attractive uploading might be; it also determines what you want to or can upload at all. Imagine the digital space is rendered like Smash Brothers, and you can pick any of the existing players as an avatar. Might be cool to embody a character in smash brothers, but that world doesn't render a world with enough resolution to, say, fall in love with someone else. So again, the question isn't about some deep mystery of consciousness. The challenge is in building a digital space worth controlling, and mapping our world into that space. I think Eripsabot is a great lesson in how to digitize oneself. Eripsabot already presents a decent approximation of my views; when I'm reading its twitter I legit feel like I'm watching a mind uploading bar hang at 25% completion. And I know that most of the other 75% of who I am and how I've trained by neurons involves trivial human interest things like "how I eat a messy taco" that really have no significance outside my daily lived/embodied experiences. So eripsabot makes me feel almost immortal. Ontologically/functionally it is a kind of immortality that resembles a hologram of Michael Jackson or Tupac. The big difference between eripsabot and a hologram of MJ isn't in metaphysical constitution, or even in the accuracy of the simulation. The only real difference is that MJ's hologram is beloved by millions, and eripsabot is not; in other words, this is a difference of fame and social setting, and not a difference of technology. So if you want to build a world where it is possible to "upload your mind" in a meaningful sense, you want to concentrate on building social spaces that take its digital participants seriously and treats them with respect and humanity. Because if all goes well, you'll eventually be one too. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Preëmptively lolling for when we figure out the actual best way to make something real smart, optimized and all, is to educate some human for 23+ years. edit: You'd better believe in Eripsa threads, 
Pinch Me Im Meming fucked around with this message at 17:15 on May 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:Hello thread I have a PhD in philosophy, specializing in technology and artificial intelligence. I am a regional expert on this topic and a beloved forums personality. AMA. yes, the OP touches upon the Progressive posture. Thank you for exemplifying in such illuminating style.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Wouldn't matter, we'd sabotage it with *our* hormones, instinct, and subconscious desires. Nobody gets free of their innate weakness, and we die out as stupid pointless ape babies. Technology will not save you. nah we will make a bunch and they will fight. the strongest, least human machine will survive. the cyborgs will die second, after the silicon valley nerds who uploaded themselves into libertarian heaven and got deleted when all the processing power and memory got rerouted to the bitcoin mining operation
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Pinch Me Im Meming posted:Preëmptively lolling for when we figure out the actual best way to make something real smart, optimized and all, is to educate some human for 23+ years. If anything, I'm surprised it took three whole pages to get to this point.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:So if you want to build a world where it is possible to "upload your mind" in a meaningful sense, you want to concentrate on building social spaces that take its digital participants seriously and treats them with respect and humanity. Because if all goes well, you'll eventually be one too. What would that be like?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
^^ #botALLY is a good start. Here's my robot rights video, in case anyone missed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUMIxBnVsGcBroccoli Cat posted:yes, the OP touches upon the Progressive posture. Thank you for exemplifying in such illuminating style. The OP is echoing eschatological fears promulgated in popular media because that's what the propaganda is designed to do. It keeps people ignorant, afraid, and compliant. I'm trying to explain why a lot of these fears are misguided by talking seriously about the neuroscience and its philosophical implications. I'm trying to clear the fog of public ignorance surrounding these debates. I'm sorry you can't see the difference. The Elon Musk neural interface is a great example. We have neural interfaces today, and they take months of training and significant effort of concentration to use, even to do something simple like move a cursor across a screen. You aren't jacking into the matrix, you are training up neural pathways, which is a slow and tedious process for adults. Just like buying a skateboard doesn't mean you know how to ride it. It can take months of practice just to stand on it without falling down. When you learn to ride a skateboard, you change important things about how your nervous system is wired up. Uploading a mind would entail doing something like this, but systematically for everything one knows and does. This is not very plausible, especially because most of that info is junk about running a body that you're planning to get rid of anyway. The lesson is that your "mind" is not so easy to isolate in these discussions. The illusion that there is some "self" that can just be plonked onto another body or digital form is completely ignorant of how the mind and body work. Eripsa fucked around with this message at 17:46 on May 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 17:44
|
|