- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 20,385
- Awards
- 10
And in a way it terrifies the very sanity in me.
Then you're just going to love the future.
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
And in a way it terrifies the very sanity in me.
One day we'll look back on this and run laugh.exe.
A question, if I may? As something made by humans, as a part of humans, wouldn't the very purpose of the processes discussed in this thread be to emulate the human state as closely as possible?
If we were to create a next stage, it would be based on the assumptions of this stage. An imitation or an improvement, depending on your perspective.
We would no longer be human. Or would we?
Umm, I know I want to remain human for as long as I can ^^. It's true though as technology excels so do the crazy ideas of scientists and such. The more we push technology and progress it to it's limits the more dangerous we become as a people. If I was from a distant planet eons away from here and I came to Earth I would be disgusted with all the war and violence that we have produced.
If you're talking about having prosthetic bodies like in G.I.T.S then that is totally possible. We already have technology like that but as we all know people are trying to push machines to be as human as me and you. That's sort of a scary thought. Look what happened to Dr. Gero in Dragon Ball Z, I know bad example but totally relevant.
Of course this thread wouldn't be complete without the requisite Frankenstein Complex. Transhumanism isn't about making machines act like humans. It's about a fusion of man and machine. Even if we did have sentient AI beings, how could they tell the difference between what is human and what is not human at that point?
Like I said, technology is growing to fantastic heights of intelligence. Take a look at Project Natal, something the people at XBOX have been working. It allows you to have intelligent conversations with a computerized person that will give you unbelievably accurate answers to your questions and can even play games with you, pretty cool stuff.
There's a world of difference between a machine that feeds you programmed answers and a machine that actually "thinks."
There's a world of difference between a machine that feeds you programmed answers and a machine that actually "thinks."
Then that draws the question of, do we want technology to be that advanced? Or more so, should we give machines control, if so how much of it?
kek
Perhaps initially, but I think in the future we will begin to add non-human functionality to our own bodies. Scientists are already striving to do this with things like contact lenses that serves as a screen for web browsers. That's not very far removed from modifying our bodies themselves.
If the issue is with modifying the body itself, I still don't believe it will be a big psychological hurdle for mankind. We are already working on growing prosthetic tissue and body parts. A freshly grown arm being grafted onto your shoulder is no less alien to your body than a machine.
Well, granted, but that's not my point.
An artificial arm grafted to your shoulder will still be a human arm. It's still got the same funtion and basic design as the original arm.
So, say we create an artifical neural network based off the human brain? A computer so advanced it copies the exact form and funtion of our organic brains.
How is that brain not a human brain? It may not be made in the same way, but it has the exact same functions and processes because it's designed to copy human brains. The only thing that changes is the material it's made out of.
In this vein, we could replace our entire body and still be human, because our new body would be made entire of componants designed to copy their analogues in our old body.
Klomp’s primary argument rests on what he calls the ‘Quickening,’ an imagined point somewhere in the future when the advancement of ‘culture’ occurs so rapidly that its pace will far exceed that of biological evolution.
This is precisely the point--that we cannot use the assumptions of this stage to craft a transcendant one. That transhumanism is viewed as a way to improve the human condition shows how fundamentally we still misunderstand what the term trans-human really means.A question, if I may? As something made by humans, as a part of humans, wouldn't the very purpose of the processes discussed in this thread be to emulate the human state as closely as possible?
If we were to create a next stage, it would be based on the assumptions of this stage. An imitation or an improvement, depending on your perspective.
As you say--this is not a question of transcending humanity, but modifying humanity. There is a difference, I think.Perhaps initially, but I think in the future we will begin to add non-human functionality to our own bodies. Scientists are already striving to do this with things like contact lenses that serves as a screen for web browsers. That's not very far removed from modifying our bodies themselves.
If the issue is with modifying the body itself, I still don't believe it will be a big psychological hurdle for mankind. We are already working on growing prosthetic tissue and body parts. A freshly grown arm being grafted onto your shoulder is no less alien to your body than a machine.
Is fear a viable argument in face of the unknown?Umm, I know I want to remain human for as long as I can ^^. It's true though as technology excels so do the crazy ideas of scientists and such. The more we push technology and progress it to it's limits the more dangerous we become as a people. If I was from a distant planet eons away from here and I came to Earth I would be disgusted with all the war and violence that we have produced.
This cuts more to the heart of the matter, I think. How far are we, as humans, willing to relinquish our god-given dominion over our world?Then that draws the question of, do we want technology to be that advanced? Or more so, should we give machines control, if so how much of it?
I imagine it is similar to how every revolution can throw off a ruling government to replace it with another rule they imagine as somehow more sympathetic to them. As a species, we can still feel ourselves attached to political structures staffed by human bodies; we can still imagine ourselves as an extended part of that power structure, even if we as individuals are wholly subjugated to it. This association may only exist in the imagination (I suspect it does), but at least it is there.What's the difference between giving machines control over decision making and a political structure made for decision making? We already put our faith and futures in the proverbial hands of our social contracts. Shit, people believe that governments are inhuman entities that seek to control our lives right now. What then is the difference between a figurative machine and a literal one?
Here you define human parts by their purpose and function; can you do the same with the human being?I don't think that's the point he's trying to make.
An artificial arm grafted to your shoulder will still be a human arm. It's still got the same funtion and basic design as the original arm.
So, say we create an artifical neural network based off the human brain? A computer so advanced it copies the exact form and funtion of our organic brains.
How is that brain not a human brain? It may not be made in the same way, but it has the exact same functions and processes because it's designed to copy human brains. The only thing that changes is the material it's made out of.
In this vein, we could replace our entire body and still be human, because our new body would be made entire of componants designed to copy their analogues in our old body.
Does this year's me not have to pay last year's me's debts then? Surely there must be some continuation.To further this point, you are not the same person you were a year ago. The cells that make up your bodies have died and been replaced within a year's time (with a few minor exceptions).
Does this year's me not have to pay last year's me's debts then?
I would assume not; we have denied humanity to others before based on much smaller differences (race, class, religion, et cetera), but our justifications still tend to revolve around this idea that they cannot experience the world on the same level that we do. Going back to our fascination with artificial intelligence--most thought on the matter, both in fiction and reality, denies such artificial intelligence "humanity" even without being able to proffer a logical or clearly defined definition of what humanity is that it would exclude such intelligence. I believe it is simply this--our definition of humanity is by experience, which is perhaps impossible to articulate but cannot be arrived at purely by an 'equivalent' level of intelligence or even self-awareness.
Have you given any more thought to Escher's Drawing Hands?
Yes. But what would we be?It is speculative, but it is within our (hypothetical) ability to remove natural death, sickness and all that. And so it is possible to build ourselves up to a point where, according to our generation, we are no longer human.
Not really, I don't think. What I see described in this article is the watered-down 'humanity' we afford to household pets--there is an emotional connection, to be sure, but the only people who seriously take it to the point of being 'human' are those who become vegetarians because they can't bear to eat anything with a face.Phoenix said:In regards to the AI bit, Learning to love to hate robots - tech - 14 December 2009 - New Scientist
I daresay it's the other way around. Apparently, we're personifying robots and expecting them to follow social norms. We think they see the world the same way we do.
Absolutely--that's the only way they could have gotten so far in the first place. But which hand directs that progress is the question we're asking.Phoenix said:If one hand could draw the other hand at least a little better than the first hand, and then the finished hand improves the first hand a little bit more, and so on and so forth, can these hands not eventually become much, much greater?
Yes. But what would we be?
Not really, I don't think. What I see described in this article is the watered-down 'humanity' we afford to household pets--there is an emotional connection, to be sure, but the only people who seriously take it to the point of being 'human' are those who become vegetarians because they can't bear to eat anything with a face.
Absolutely--that's the only way they could have gotten so far in the first place. But which hand directs that progress is the question we're asking.
This pleases me.