AI!!!?

I am really disturbed about all those things happening about artificial intelligence and robots. It's good in some ways but very bad in many others. We all want to create things that will do everything instead of us but I don't know why. For example we want glasses that would translate languages for us and do many other things. Well why would we then even learn any language....you see the point. All those things will make everything stupid to learn in someway because we will have everything done by machines for us instead of us doing it. This could especially reflect to some less educated and lazy people.....who would even more think why to learn anything if you could have idk like some kind of glasses that would do everything instead lol. Anyway what makes me mad the most is that somewhere I read that they say that AI have artificial consciousness....wait a minute artificial okay...but consciousness....how can we even talk about consciousness in this case...are they conscious of doing anything. Do they have empathy .... do they have feelings...DO they HAVE consciousness? I don't see how....I think whoever wrote that must be really crazy and his brain must be really burnt out lol. Are they conscious of what will happen if they do something do they have empathy towards other living things? Would they have empathy towards some living creature in pain? Would they really Understand it? ARE they REALLY consciousness? That is really impossible ....and also there are some saying that they have awareness and are aware of idk what....how could they have awareness...are they aware that they exist....are they aware of beings around them.....I guess not.....they are just programmed to do something in a specific situation and it's not awareness.....or consciousness.....consciousness and awareness are about feeling it ....being it.... and AI can't have that and don't and never will.... so I almost puked when I read consciousness mentioned by word AI :/ What do you say?

I read a story once about AI that referred to them as 2 different types: AI and Ascended Machines. The AI being 'fake' consciousness and ascended being 'real' or more 'human-like'. Although I'm not sure whether consciousness and soul are the same thing. Does an ascended machine have a soul? does being conscious automatically enable you to transition into the afterlife?

What I find particularly interesting is how scientists explain consciousness as a neural network. If you look at the internet as being many nodes on a network will it too come to life one day? We seem to be approaching the singularity very rapidly and if there isn't already a God there will be soon.

I think consciousness is our soul itself our core.... it can't by any means be created artificially ....it's a spiritual thing the spirit itself can't be implemented into a machine a bunch of silicone .... :D Or ??? Not I'm sure what do you think ??? it's impossible.....

Fear not, Karloky; true AI (conscious, self-aware, thinking, feeling machines) is still quite a ways off. It turns out that consciousness is a fairly complex thing, and even mimicking it is difficult.

Regarding those translating glasses and other "conveniences," though: That stuff is already coming -- indeed, much of it is already here -- and there is definitely cause for concern. I think that as more and more things are done for us, we will begin to lose (or disregard) our own ability to learn, to create, and to grow. It's definitely going to be a challenge!

If you haven't already, you might consider reading an old sc-fi book called Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut, as it paints a very clear picture of what you're suggesting.

Before we start calling AI robots conscious we should take a serious look at the life around us and ask if all life is conscious to some degree.

If something is CONSCIOUS isn't it alive? So how can we then turn around and say that the majority of life on earth isnt?? How can we so easily say "what is conscious is alive" but "what is alive may not be conscious"? Does that make sense?

Right now, biology teaches that the origin of life isn't conscious. That the origin of life is a machine that simply grew because it was programmed to and its programming is completely random.

Once upon a time, all life was nothing but individual living cells. Then those cells starting growing together in large colonies. Evolution took an EPIC leap forward. The microbial colony differentiated roles. Outer microbes became "skin" or "legs", inner microbes became "stomach" and other functions. But they all shared the same DNA.

The DNA to create a multicellular organism (which is what we are) evolved from those microbial colonies. Yet according to biology, they aren't conscious and consciousness is not in any way a part of this evolutionary feat of the first multicellular organisms.

Yet according to the same biology, consciousness is produced in the human brain. And what is the human brain but billions and billions of individual living cells living in a network? The neurons' ancestor was that very same microbial colony living billions of years ago by the sea.

So - how is biology not stuck in the stone ages in terms of understanding consciousness and its role in life??? If consciousness really is created by a network of living cells (the brain) then consciousness was also created by those microbial colonies (because its also a network!!). That primordial network generated so much INTELLIGENCE that plant and animal life was thus created!

It really was an evolutionary breakthrough of epic proportions. A lot of people today believe humans are repeating the past with our technology.

So we can start arguing that a living network of some kind is necessary to create consciousness. I'm not saying thats true, I don't believe thats the whole story. But its an avenue for biology to explore (and where people believe the internet is going). Mind you, when you look inside an individual living cell, its not like its "basic". Individual living cells can come with as many parts inside of them as the human body. There are microscopic "networks" tinkering away all inside the individual cell.

For humans, its hard for us to accept that something like a tree is conscious. The difficulty of this question is we aren't just conscious. We are self-conscious of ourselves. Its an epic mind-loop of consciousness that buddhists are crazy about. I am conscious that I am conscious!!!! And according to the bible, that statement is literally the name of God. (simplified as I Am that I Am)

Being SELF-conscious gives us that "I"

When we understand consciousness in biology, than we can easily see at one point AI becomes alive. But those first "living" AI machines will be like the earlier evolutions of this planet. It will have the awareness it needs to survive, "this is safe, this is not safe". But what about self-awareness??

And again self-awareness would be the capacity to ask "WHO is thinking 'this is safe and this is not safe'? Is that me?"

No matter how hard we look at this cell or that cell we haven't found self-awareness in the brain. And can we really say that our self-awareness IS the brain?

We can't. We walk around saying "I think" "I feel" "I am". Not "my brain thinks" "my brain feels" "my brain is". Our sense of self, whether you believe is 'generated' by the brain, is experienced completely independent of it. That's what makes self-awareness a biological mystery and the subject of spirituality.

Do I think its possible for AI to become self-aware? Absolutely. At one point? Who knows!

But I'm weary of a science making claims of AI being conscious for this or that reason when it can't even accept that the rest of life on earth is also conscious (to at least a primordial extent!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

But I'm weary of a science making claims...

---

You either mean wary or leery -- weary means tired.

teh grammer pleece :cheeky:

:crying: I rolled out of bed late and then rolled into work half awake

Got into an interesting discussion about AI with my uncle last weekend. Went something like this:

Last century we had movements to give equal rights to women and end racial discrimination.
This century we're moving to give equal rights to homosexuals.

Maybe next century we'll be giving equal rights to artificial intelligence?

Ray Kurzweil has predicted that we will vote for a computer to take a public office in this century, actually in the next couple of decades. Of course, he has personal 'immortality' transhuman goals for AI, but he's obviously got the credentials, and now that Google has given him a Director position (along with the several other businesses he runs) he may actually pull it off. Many believe that the massive amounts of data traversing the Internet and being stored will certainly help propel any sort of AI. Others believe the Internet will take on a consciousness of its own by virtue of complexity.

Could the Earth be conscious? Gaia. Maybe the Sun too, maybe the Galaxy. Where does consciousness start, and where does it end? Is it individually constructed in our bag of neurons? Or is it shared collectively as Carl Jung suggested among us? Perhaps even trans-species? These ideas also have ancient Eastern roots, deeper than what Western science has to offer, yet.

Plants are conscious by many definitions, and Rupert Sheldrake's controversial model of Morphic Resonance shows us how our own consciousness is inextricably linked to plants and other elements of the natural environment. Fascinating? Or too weird?

If you're really interested in exploring this, I highly recommend listening to the Trialogues. A series of conversations between Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham, and Terrance McKenna that took place during the 1980's and 1990's. Obviously very intellectual group, and way ahead of their time. Here's the URL: Books & Recordings - Trialogues - index

Do not fear change. Things like translating glasses would be extremely helpful and would promote the spreading of knowledge all around the world. Who has time to spends 3-5 years learning a new language, for the 5000+ languages of the world? Would take you 25,000 years to learn those languages! Impossible at the moment, though with technology we might greatly enhance our life span, and it is possible we could live that long in the future.

When you think about it, a human is just a biological computer. There is nothing magical or supernatural about our brains or how we work. If someone were to replicate the thinking processes of a human, on a computer, that could would have all the traits of a human. One could even argue the computer was alive and a person, and I for one have no issue with that at all.

What is the difference between a person being born as a baby, or created as a robot, if that person then grew, learn and became just like you or me? Does their origin as a robot make them any less alive, or conscious? No, not really. I am entirely in favor of giving robots that develop human like qualities, full rights as citizens. I am also in favor of giving any future animals who are augmented, either biologically or through brain implants, full rights as humans as well, if they can be increased to our intelligence level.

AI doesn't currently have awareness or consciousness but it is pretty much a given that they will in time. Probably far soon than most people suspect too. However, that isn't a bad thing. It is the formation of a new life form, an artificial man made life form. That is bad ass. I am looking forward to it. I want to make friends with robots, who become alive. Don't hate on robots. Also, we will probably end up putting our brains in robot bodies any way, so we will be robots. It is kind of silly to hate on robots, if we become robots our self.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Do not fear change. Things like translating glasses would be extremely helpful and would promote the spreading of knowledge all around the world. Who has time to spends 3-5 years learning a new language, for the 5000+ languages of the world? Would take you 25,000 years to learn those languages! Impossible at the moment, though with technology we might greatly enhance our life span, and it is possible we could live that long in the future.

When you think about it, a human is just a biological computer. There is nothing magical or supernatural about our brains or how we work. If someone were to replicate the thinking processes of a human, on a computer, that could would have all the traits of a human. One could even argue the computer was alive and a person, and I for one have no issue with that at all.

What is the difference between a person being born as a baby, or created as a robot, if that person then grew, learn and became just like you or me? Does their origin as a robot make them any less alive, or conscious? No, not really. I am entirely in favor of giving robots that develop human like qualities, full rights as citizens. I am also in favor of giving any future animals who are augmented, either biologically or through brain implants, full rights as humans as well, if they can be increased to our intelligence level.

AI doesn't currently have awareness or consciousness but it is pretty much a given that they will in time. Probably far soon than most people suspect too. However, that isn't a bad thing. It is the formation of a new life form, an artificial man made life form. That is bad ass. I am looking forward to it. I want to make friends with robots, who become alive. Don't hate on robots. Also, we will probably end up putting our brains in robot bodies any way, so we will be robots. It is kind of silly to hate on robots, if we become robots our self.

---

why would we become robots it's f****** stupid lol :D and robots can't have feelings no the can't they are just a bunch of unalive electronic parts....they will never have feelings or anything like that or some higher awareness......if you call I don't know sensors on robots like some kind of awareness it's not .....and why would I want to be a robot I am a human ...it's f****** stupid

Why couldn't a robot have feelings? Emotions are just chemical reactions in the brain, you can replicate those same sensation electronically. Pretty much all things about being human will eventually be replicated by robots. There is absolutely no reason to believe a robot can't have awareness or feel things.

Robots will be better than humans, because their body can survive a lot more than a humans body can, and you will live far longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Why couldn't a robot have feelings? Emotions are just chemical reactions in the brain, you can replicate those same sensation electronically. Pretty much all things about being human will eventually be replicated by robots. There is absolutely no reason to believe a robot can't have awareness or feel things.

Robots will be better than humans, because their body can survive a lot more than a humans body can, and you will live far longer.

---

anyway why would anyone want to create a race that is better than us...and yet maybe we will be destroyed by them...why would anyone want it? lol.....and I am not so sure....there is something spiritual in it...it's not only raw chemistry....there are some spiritual things that cannot be replicated by any artificial thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karloky

anyway why would anyone want to create a race that is better than us...and yet maybe we will be destroyed by them...why would anyone want it? lol.....and I am not so sure....there is something spiritual in it...it's not only raw chemistry....there are some spiritual things that cannot be replicated by any artificial thing

---

If we create a race of immortal super-robots, they can carry on our legacy. And there is little reason to believe there is anything "spiritual" or supernatural about the mind (or anything, for that matter). Just because science hasn't figured it out yet doesn't mean it never will.

There is no logical reason to believe biological life is any more special than artificial life. What if we made a robot out of organic material? Then it would be living. So even if you wanted to believe biological stuff is some how special, you can make biological robots. And why wouldn't we make them? They are better, and that is reason enough. Especially if we can become robots our self. Who wants a body that ages and falls apart? An artificial body is much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karloky

anyway why would anyone want to create a race that is better than us...and yet maybe we will be destroyed by them...why would anyone want it? lol.....and I am not so sure....there is something spiritual in it...it's not only raw chemistry....there are some spiritual things that cannot be replicated by any artificial thing

---

Artificial only means that it was made by humans, or some other intelligence. If God created human beings, then humans are artificial. All we are is matter and energy. Once we figure out how to arrange matter and energy in the correct fashion... hey presto! Life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

There is no logical reason to believe biological life is any more special than artificial life. What if we made a robot out of organic material? Then it would be living. So even if you wanted to believe biological stuff is some how special, you can make biological robots. And why wouldn't we make them? They are better, and that is reason enough. Especially if we can become robots our self. Who wants a body that ages and falls apart? An artificial body is much better.

---

btw why would you want to make something better than you....it's like idk flies would make spiders to eat them it's stupid.......why would you make something better than you that could eeven pontentially harm you...........and anyway what would you do if you lived forever.....I would ask you if you lived like around 500 years......how would it be.....and is your life fullfilled.....totaly.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karloky

btw why would you want to make something better than you....it's like idk flies would make spiders to eat them it's stupid.......why would you make something better than you that could eeven pontentially harm you...........

---

You can solve this problem by sprinkling in a little SELinux policy to allow only actions and behavior that won't lead to a glorious uprising over our human masters. I mean--shucks, you're right! Guess we've gotta give all the robots death rays and Terminator-esque physiques!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karloky

and anyway what would you do if you lived forever.....I would ask you if you lived like around 500 years......how would it be.....and is your life fullfilled.....totaly.....

---

It'd be fantastic. Life is an amazing fulfillment unto itself, and anyone who'd want to give that up for no other reason than "that's just how the body has always worked and we'd be stupid to try and hold onto life in whatever way possible" is an ungrateful moron IMO. Oh, and it wouldn't technically be forever...we've still got the heat-death of the universe looming in the distance!

Humans have not even gotten out of our tiny little corner of the universe yet. The human life span isn't enough to accomplish anything of even remote significant on a larger scale. There is so many things a person could do, we will never run out of fun and interesting things to do and see. Asking me in a billion years if I am bored of life, maybe by then we will be reaching a limit but I doubt it. 500 years however? That is nothing. You could fill 500 years doing nothing but watching tv, and never watching a repeat.

As for why build AI and robots that are better than us, we want to do it to improve our lives. We are limited by the tools we have, and so we need to build better tools to achieve greater things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

You can solve this problem by sprinkling in a little SELinux policy to allow only actions and behavior that won't lead to a glorious uprising over our human masters. I mean--shucks, you're right! Guess we've gotta give all the robots death rays and Terminator-esque physiques!



It'd be fantastic. Life is an amazing fulfillment unto itself, and anyone who'd want to give that up for no other reason than "that's just how the body has always worked and we'd be stupid to try and hold onto life in whatever way possible" is an ungrateful moron IMO. Oh, and it wouldn't technically be forever...we've still got the heat-death of the universe looming in the distance!

---

excuse me you are really rude.....and btw.....just go for it.....if you would be happy too live forever just go for it.....a really messed up mind....

I'm still not convinced that robotic life would be superior to biological life. From what I've seen, robotic engineers are constantly having to refer to biological to get anything accomplished. They kinda have to mimic real life forms.

Biological life forms are able to heal themselves, regenerate cells, completely change their form. As of right now robotics would have to have their parts replaced. Upgrades are fun and nice but in the grand scheme of things it means the robot lacks self-sufficiency. I think A.I. would find it makes them 'less' than other life forms.

I'm sure robotic engineers are already trying to duplicate self-regeneration with nano technology or whatever. And maybe that requires a higher energy output - like "eating".

The biggest reason why people feel robotics would be superior is because we grow old and die. Natural death is strange. For one, its literally programmed into the biological being. We are "programmed" to grow old and die. When biologists ask why the only answer they can come up with is because change is necessary for the continuation of life. Evolution always happens as a mutation born in the next generation.

One brilliant computer scientist argued against humans turning into immortal robots for this reason. Being an old man he realized that cultural change and human evolution of thought isnt possible unless the older generation passes giving way to the younger generation.

Were only human! Unfortunately, we get stuck in our ways. We think were right. We don't think we have to change. We grow egos. Were too afraid to change, we don't know how to change. Even if a human lives forever, how many years will it take before that human can rise above their inherit human ignorance. Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? That's a really long time to mess things up for all new life forms, especially when living that long also places you in a position of power.

Also, having instant access to massive amount of information doesn't change our human nature either. I mean, does having the internet instantly making us a superior race? Have you read youtube comments lately? I think were getting dumber.

Unfortunately for you and me, we have to die for mankind to become a better race.... Hopefully we have children before that! And, I realize this argument probably won't make much sense to someone who doesn't believe in the soul. If you cease to exist when you die then you probably do have a stronger incentive to live forever.

Also, you should watch the awesome anime casshern. It makes the argument that life is meaningless for an immortal robot, until it becomes mortal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karloky

excuse me you are really rude.....and btw.....just go for it.....if you would be happy too live forever just go for it.....a really messed up mind....

---

Right. You're telling us that we're insane, but we're the rude ones.

I don't know, Juroara, you might be selling the human spirit a little short.

First, let's assume for a second that the engineers invent a robotic form that is on equal footing with nature, just to get past the first (and, yes, sensible, part of your post), and that form can live indefinitely, and has capacity to incorporate a human mind.

Now:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

The biggest reason why people feel robotics would be superior is because we grow old and die. Natural death is strange. For one, its literally programmed into the biological being. We are "programmed" to grow old and die. When biologists ask why the only answer they can come up with is because change is necessary for the continuation of life. Evolution always happens as a mutation born in the next generation.

---

We are currently programmed to grow old and die; that may change in the future, as geneticists continue to decipher the mechanisms that allow our bodies to decay. And yes, that is the way evolution works, on a global scale. But who is to say that humans haven't reached their pinnacle of physical evolution, and the next might be one of mind? And, if it is of mind, then the changes will be less genetic mutations affecting generations than spiritual ascensions affecting individuals.

I'm all in favor of believing that that evolution of mind will extend our conscious lives dramatically, perhaps permanently, and I'm willing to believe that one of the parameters of that change will be an eventual discarding of our physical bodies. Though I'd like to believe that the ultimate form we would have is one of self-aware conscious energy (aka, perhaps, a self-realized soul), why couldn't one of the steps along the way include placement in machines? If we are able to hold onto our selves, the nature of the vessel shouldn't matter, I think.

Programs can change, and humans seem naturally built to adapt to change (just look at how much has changed in the last five generations or so, and we continue to thrive).

Quote:

---

One brilliant computer scientist argued against humans turning into immortal robots for this reason. Being an old man he realized that cultural change and human evolution of thought isnt possible unless the older generation passes giving way to the younger generation.

---

That's just sad. The scientist might have been brilliant, but the man was looking for reasons to explain his age an immanent death to himself.

Quote:

---

Were only human! Unfortunately, we get stuck in our ways. We think were right. We don't think we have to change. We grow egos. Were too afraid to change, we don't know how to change. Even if a human lives forever, how many years will it take before that human can rise above their inherit human ignorance. Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? That's a really long time to mess things up for all new life forms, especially when living that long also places you in a position of power.

---

Agreed. All the "only humans" -- probably most of us -- who refuse to elevate the state of their beings or cannot even see beyond their own egos will indeed not change, ever. But would this evolution of mind be for everyone, or for an imaginative, intrepid few who choose to rise above their inherent human ignorance? I'm guessing the latter. And, given that those few are evolutionarily prepared for long life, they may also be able to grow with their extended years, to eventually become something not so inherently ignorant -- maybe even something better.

Yes, it might even require hundreds or thousands of years to become better (perhaps our dream of building "immortal" machines -- even our need to beat death in general -- comes from an innate understanding that we need a lot more than our current lifespans to truly reach our spiritual potentials).

I also imagine that yes, some of these few will be a real threat to humanity, but there also might be some willing to work with the rest of humanity to improve its fortunes -- and maybe relieve some of that self-inflicted ignorance!

Quote:

---

Also, having instant access to massive amount of information doesn't change our human nature either. I mean, does having the internet instantly making us a superior race? Have you read youtube comments lately? I think were getting dumber.

---

Agreed. But everyone isn't on Youtube, and many are indeed using this information to learn and grow. They may be obscured in the thicket of inanity and cute kittens, but they are there.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately for you and me, we have to die for mankind to become a better race.... Hopefully we have children before that! And, I realize this argument probably won't make much sense to someone who doesn't believe in the soul. If you cease to exist when you die then you probably do have a stronger incentive to live forever.

---

Now there is the real irony in this tale!

What if, upon death, that evolution of mind happens naturally? Wouldn't that be a big surprise to the fellow who installs his consciousness into a machine, spends 10,000 years growing in knowledge and spirit, and upon his long-awaited moment of ascension to a pure energy being he is greeted by the animated souls of the family he left behind an eon ago, who say as one: "Bob, where the hell have you been? We've been like this since we died!"

Quote:

---

Also, you should watch the awesome anime casshern. It makes the argument that life is meaningless for an immortal robot, until it becomes mortal.

---

That was a great series... but I've found that stories about immortality (in any form) almost invariably make the immortality seem tiresome or meaningless. I think this is because these things are written by people who are going to die one day for people who will die one day, and everyone wants to be reassured that that is the best way things should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimeDragon97

Right. You're telling us that we're insane, but we're the rude ones.

---

but ....can call me stupid :/ that's really nice ....

anyway I didn't say that evolution is bad but not in this way where it's going..... it's going in a bad way.... and even if we lived for several eternities we would never understand anything better nor we would become better towards each other....humans are just ignorant selfish creatures without any respect towards anyone or any compassion or empathy towards others.....even if we lived for 1000 000 years .....we would learn NOTHING.....what for all that knowledge if we behave like we are god given.....which is not true....like we are bosses of everything which is not true........and this kind of development won't get us nowhere we could only become more ignorant, less compassionate towards each other.....and become more dumb and that's all

anyway it's proven that technology along with computers destroys our brain....and I guess it has much more effect on people who don't go to higher schools....it's proven that technology makes us more and more not to use our brain

Humans die because of all the flaws in biological life. The flaws build up until eventually there is so many it kills us. People grow old and die a lot faster than other objects. There is nothing good or useful about people dying. I think the idea of the old dying for the new is absurd, it is just a cop out, an excuse to make people feel good. Like if they die, some how they are contributing to the future generations. But the fact is, that isn't true at all. All your knowledge is lost when you die, and that is a shame, and sets up back a little each time a person dies.

You ever think that--and bear with me, this might get crazy--maybe, just maybe, all human beings are not, in fact, sociopaths and you might just be projecting your own thoughts, feelings, and experiences onto the masses? Yeah, a few scumbags like to make life miserable for everyone else (typically under the guise of religion or some other stupid ideology), but most of humanity is a decent lot who simply need a bit of courage and empowerment to step up and help out.

Also, who called you stupid? Could it be that you identify as a person "who'd want to give [life] up for no other reason than 'that's just how the body has always worked and we'd be stupid to try and hold onto life in whatever way possible'"? If so, let me elucidate my stance with a simple metaphor... Would you leave out all your food to spoil just because food spoils naturally? My guess is no: you would recognize food spoiling as a problem and add preservatives, freeze, or refrigerate it as a solution.

Apply the same vein of thought to death. If we recognize death as a problem, we should then solve that problem--as we would with any other problem. The fact that death happens naturally to humans shouldn't have bearing on the decision to work towards a solution, as death is not requisite to life (there are plenty of living creatures on this earth that simply do not die, in case you were unaware).

We are at a point in time where we, as humans, have the tools and knowledge necessary to solve the problem of death, and yet you seem to believe we should simply abandon life because, like food, it spoils naturally. This sort of thinking is as hypocritical as it is idiotic. You wouldn't pass up on a life-saving surgery just because "hey, death happens naturally--might as well just get it over with!" Or maybe you would--at least then you'd be consistent with your convictions.

Turritopsis nutricula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:shadewink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Humans die because of all the flaws in biological life. .

---

Humans die for all sorts of reasons. (At least I don't have to worry an EMP wave is going to kill me though.)

But growing old, aging, its not accidental. Its not a flaw. Its literally designed in our DNA to age and die. Even if you're way past 100, have no disease, extremely healthy, when the time comes your brain will simply turn off. This is when people die peacefully in their sleep.

Its been called "death by design". There is even research that states it all has to do with the master gland, it will ultimately dictate when its time to die. The same is seen in millions of other organisms. Cells literally send out the signal to self-destruct and die. Not a flaw.

Scientists have asked the question why we are designed to die. What purpose does death have? Its not an easy question for anyone to ask or answer.

However, as the human race is we give birth to a new generation. We don't give birth to clones, we give birth to new individuals.

Imagine a world where no one dies but people are still born. How long ago would the world have reached it max population capacity? Thousands of years ago? If that were the case ancient immortal humans would have banned giving birth. And not a single person living today would have been born. Unless you want to crowd out other planets like uncontrolled locusts. (until aliens declare war)

Sure, death means you don't get to live on this earth forever. But at least you got to live at all. I would take being born over not being born.

In other words, the desire to live forever will always be a problem in terms of a new generation being born. Of course if you decide to digitize yourself into a robot, then you can just say the new immortal humans have no need to give birth to a new generation.

But that's just as horrible to imagine. An immortal robotic human race that doesn't give birth would steal away the chance for billions of other sentient individuals coming into existence. They might as well be undead.

The old dying for the new isn't a cop out. Its our biological design. Sex. Children. Its all because of death. Raising children is how knowledge has always been passed on. You can either accept this truth about our human nature. Make peace with it. Or you can continue to daydream of AI granting you immortality. Without any guarantee that's going to happen in your life time.

Meanwhile, we should be asking a more important question. If the human being is designed to live to 120 years, why are so many people sick and dying when they've only reached half of their life?

Because you're talking paranoid ill-informed nonsense. As always. Humans do and always have had natural variations in life span, and gotten sick and died, just like other organisms.

Though I am enjoying this conversation, and hope it continues, I had a thought this morning that goes back to the OP, when we were still talking about "AI!!!," rather than "Inserting consciousness into machines!!!:"

In the light of your OP, and the comments above, here's a hypothetical question for you, Karloky:

What if we did create a machine, perhaps a very powerful computer (or more likely "cloud" of computers; probably not a robot), that included or ultimately developed a sense of self, but that sentience was formed in a computer programmed with human ideals of right and wrong, compassion, and the Golden Rule? Wouldn't it be possible, then, for an AI to emerge that, yes, is smarter and more powerful than we are, but is also good to us? Why can't a super-intelligent self-aware computer care about the puny humans that made it, rather than inexplicably hate them or feel a need to erase them?

Would that then be a bad thing?

We're not all evil, Karloky, and, in spite of all the popular sci-fi that begs to differ, our inventions are not required to be evil either. AI could just as easily represent an evolutionary leap of human intelligence in a good direction as it does a threat to all humanity.

Just a thought.

Why would we assume something smarter than a human would instantly decide to end us. It would most definitely not suffer from the primal urges and illogical ideas that we do, which last time I checked played a massive role in the eradication of fellow humans.
If we gave it even a mild understanding of proper logic it should be able to reason much better than us. The only situation it would probably try to kill us is if we threatened it, in which case it has every right to fight back.

(As for technological advances, I think they will eventually help us. Once life becomes easy enough, we will transcend as a race in a search for experience and knowledge, and we will leave behind all the flaws of our current form to reach a stage from where we can get a better understanding of the universe. At least, that's what I can see coming, maybe I've read to much fiction)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sageous

Though I am enjoying this conversation, and hope it continues, I had a thought this morning that goes back to the OP, when we were still talking about "AI!!!," rather than "Inserting consciousness into machines!!!:"

In the light of your OP, and the comments above, here's a hypothetical question for you, Karloky:

What if we did create a machine, perhaps a very powerful computer (or more likely "cloud" of computers; probably not a robot), that included or ultimately developed a sense of self, but that sentience was formed in a computer programmed with human ideals of right and wrong, compassion, and the Golden Rule? Wouldn't it be possible, then, for an AI to emerge that, yes, is smarter and more powerful than we are, but is also good to us? Why can't a super-intelligent self-aware computer care about the puny humans that made it, rather than inexplicably hate them or feel a need to erase them?

Would that then be a bad thing?

We're not all evil, Karloky, and, in spite of all the popular sci-fi that begs to differ, our inventions are not required to be evil either. AI could just as easily represent an evolutionary leap of human intelligence in a good direction as it does a threat to all humanity.

Just a thought.

---

I agree with this; my only concern is the feasibility of such a thing in a world where governments decide everything for a complacent population that is fearful of the slightest discomfort.

I have spent much of my life in the study of early American politics, and have yet to find one person with whom these ideas do not awaken fear and even anger towards myself. If I cannot engage in a peaceful debate about the very idea of limited government, then how on earth are we to discuss other, way more difficult to understand topics? The answer is that we don't discuss it.

The bottom line is however that eventually the technology will be invented; regardless of whether it is used for good or bad, and hopefully by then (yeah right) people will be less afraid of everything under the sun. It doesn't change anything about the topic of course; I am just explaining why I personally would like to delay such things until we have at least left the stone age of self knowledge, though I know that this is impossible; there is no debate really. Hypothetically speaking, when a person who does not know anything about themselves and is in constant need of approval from others says that they would like the idea of human-like machines, I become concerned. Such people don't think things through; it is like wanting something from the government with no thought towards where the money comes from. Again, maybe it's just my own *very* limited experience with people (I'm a hermit these days for this very reason), but those folks seem to be way more common than even a simple majority.

I realize that this was not the point of the topic, so on a lighter note, perhaps this technology could be smart enough to help fix some of our troubles; like the internet has done to an extent; but who creates this new tech and who controls it?

Growing old and dying is a pretty big flaw. I can't really think of any flaw bigger than catastrophic failure of a system. The only bigger flaw than dying, would be humans exploding when they die, and taking out several other people with them. Luckily our flaws are not that bad, but they still suck horribly.

There is enough space in the universe for humans to reproduce for billions of years. We are not great at space travel yet but if we are immortal, there would be no rush. We could easily wait until space travel is easier and spread across the universe. As for 'potential life' that is a silly argument. That is like saying if a person doesn't want to have sex they are killing off potential people. So everyone should be forced to have sex. You can't force people to have sex and reproduce and it is silly to even suggest such things. You got billions of sperm cells in a man over his life, should we try to preserve each cell so we can grow each into a person so they live?

Also what about the potential artificial life? If someone would have created a robot child, but are prevented from doing so, isn't that a potential life that now doesn't exist? Are biological potential life more valuable than robotic potential life?

Growing old and dying is a pretty big flaw. I can't really think of any flaw bigger than catastrophic failure of a system. The only bigger flaw than dying, would be humans exploding when they die, and taking out several other people with them. Luckily our flaws are not that bad, but they still suck horribly.

There is enough space in the universe for humans to reproduce for billions of years. We are not great at space travel yet but if we are immortal, there would be no rush. We could easily wait until space travel is easier and spread across the universe. As for 'potential life' that is a silly argument. That is like saying if a person doesn't want to have sex they are killing off potential people. So everyone should be forced to have sex. You can't force people to have sex and reproduce and it is silly to even suggest such things. You got billions of sperm cells in a man over his life, should we try to preserve each cell so we can grow each into a person so they live?

Also what about the potential artificial life? If someone would have created a robot child, but are prevented from doing so, isn't that a potential life that now doesn't exist? Are biological potential life more valuable than robotic potential life?

^^ True.

But would fearful humans who lack self-awareness create a sentient machine that is like them, or like what they perceive as the perfect human? I would guess the latter. Also, given the nature of governments, why, if they saw to building one of these machines, would they program it to do bad things? Politicians, if nothing else, are masters of self-preservation -- I doubt they would put themselves at risk by not including safeguards in their version of Skynet.

In short, I believe we would design sentient machines to think and feel the way we wish we would think and feel ourselves, and not the way we actually do think and feel. Ironically, our egos and lack of self-awareness will prevent us from noticing we're doing this, but I think we will.

Quote:

---

I realize that this was not the point of the topic, so on a lighter note, perhaps this technology could be smart enough to help fix some of our troubles; like the internet has done to an extent; but who creates this new tech and who controls it?

---

That is an excellent point, not just a lighter one. Though it is very boring to write about it in fiction, AI technology could certainly help us with our personal and social immaturities, and there's no reason that inclination could come before an inclination to destroy us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Humans die because of all the flaws in biological life. The flaws build up until eventually there is so many it kills us. People grow old and die a lot faster than other objects. There is nothing good or useful about people dying. I think the idea of the old dying for the new is absurd, it is just a cop out, an excuse to make people feel good. Like if they die, some how they are contributing to the future generations. But the fact is, that isn't true at all. All your knowledge is lost when you die, and that is a shame, and sets up back a little each time a person dies.

---

who are we to decide if we will live forever? or who are we to decide how this world will be?
we are not the only creatures in this world nor we are a higher being.....

^^ Who are we to decide? How about we're the ones doing the work and paying the price to extend our lives? Who else should decide? Is there some sort of hierarchy in the world that demands we cannot decide to live longer, Karloky? I don't think so. I'm not even sure God would care -- if we want to hold off on eternal peace, a place in heaven, etc, that's our dysfunction, not an affront to Him.

Also, keep in mind that we're (well, at least I'm) not talking about extending everyone's life, or depositing everyone's consciousness into machines. Since this seems a deeply personal -- and obviously controversial -- decision, I couldn't see anyone deciding for us that we'd live forever. For those probably very few who have the will and physical/mental/spiritual means to try it out, who are we to say they can't?

Finally, I don't think the world, like God, would really give a crap if a few people extended their existence; it will keep right on spinning, undisturbed.

Right now, we're just insignificant monkeys, living on an insignificant rock, orbiting an insignificant star, in an insignificant galaxy... We might be able to actually matter in this universe if we were to expand into the far reaches of space and time, to try and gather every little last bit of knowledge. We would practically be gods. Like... the stewards of the Universe or something.

Does that not sound amazing?