Thread: Bull? or reality, what do you think

Originally Posted by oniman7

But anyways, I see a lot of problems with nanobots. Like the fact that they could possibly short-circuit or break, clogging up your arteries. And I also question how they would indeed be able to repair anything. They'd need materials for that, right?

No. They work by assebling molecule by molecule. So they got all the material they need.

I kinda hope that it doesn't happen. I wouldn't want to live forever. I want to grow old with someone. I want to experience what my life has to offer to me. I don't want to be some mindless robot living in a world where everyone is the same. That isn't how I want to live me life.

Originally Posted by Muggler

I kinda hope that it doesn't happen. I wouldn't want to live forever. I want to grow old with someone. I want to experience what my life has to offer to me. I don't want to be some mindless robot living in a world where everyone is the same. That isn't how I want to live me life.

How did you make the leap from eternal youth to mindless drone?

http://www.huxley.net/

This article (yes, I know it is long) outlines the problems traditionally encountered when one tries to create a utopia, and how they can be fixed or avoided. Interesting read...

We are the Borg.
Lower your shields and surrender your ships.
We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.
Your culture will adapt to service us.
Resistance is futile.

(I couldn't resist.)

Immortality where your body and mind don't fail on you, or at least not for very long, and provides you with the ability to do just about anything your heart so desires? That would be cool, if they would also be able to rid us of negative things like guilt, regret, trauma, bad memories, etc.

But I don't know how long I would be able to stand it. We'd be immortal, but not perfect. Corruption, greed, etc would still exist.

yay now I'll be immortal, with the chance to always Lucid dream
this seems very possible, in my own POV.

Originally Posted by Creation X

yay now I'll be immortal, with the chance to always Lucid dream
this seems very possible, in my own POV.

Wishful thinking

I didn't read much of the previous posts but I believe only a select few will be able to acquire immortality. Money will obviously become a deciding factor that will not only boost the respecting company's income but also eliminate the problem of billions of people that just won't die.

If this becomes a possibility anytime soon and if it becomes available to all, no doubt there will be many problems.

I think this may lead to many powerful familys gaining immortality and possibly leaving a great many unsuccessful to die. In a way it will be like evolution. The only question is does money correlate with other notable factors such as intelligence, good looks, skills and the like?

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

I didn't read much of the previous posts but I believe only a select few will be able to acquire immortality. Money will obviously become a deciding factor that will not only boost the respecting company's income but also eliminate the problem of billions of people that just won't die.

If this becomes a possibility anytime soon and if it becomes available to all, no doubt there will be many problems.

I think this may lead to many powerful familys gaining immortality and possibly leaving a great many unsuccessful to die. In a way it will be like evolution. The only question is does money correlate with other notable factors such as intelligence, good looks, skills and the like?

I'd say money oftentimes correlates with pure dumb luck. Really...you come up with one clever invention, and you're on easy street. You get born into the right family, and you're suddenly worth $10 billion. Sure, some people climb to the top, but these are the exceptions. The smart people who go off and become doctors, etc. aren't likely to make billions, unless they have some serious investing secrets or something.

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

I didn't read much of the previous posts but I believe only a select few will be able to acquire immortality. Money will obviously become a deciding factor that will not only boost the respecting company's income but also eliminate the problem of billions of people that just won't die.

If this becomes a possibility anytime soon and if it becomes available to all, no doubt there will be many problems.

I think this may lead to many powerful families gaining immortality and possibly leaving a great many unsuccessful to die. In a way it will be like evolution. The only question is does money correlate with other notable factors such as intelligence, good looks, skills and the like?

At the beginning money may be important for some, but the method by which this technology will arise means quite a few things that should hopefully dispel your worries. The first thing it means is that by the time this type of technology becomes available the costs for the tech will be lowering at a fairly quick pace. Essentially once the technology becomes feasible for use it will become cheaper at a quicker pace than before it was feasible. If the technology for health becomes available for all then it shouldn't be a problem because technologies in other fields will help make resources much easier to manage. Population will pose problems, but there are ways around these problems and we'll just have to find them.

As for the question about notable factors and money; these factors will become largely irrelevant as the technology in question can augment these traits. Intelligence in particular will become essentially equal for all people as the majority of human intelligence will come from computers that are created to become a part of us. There are methods of RNA interference that allow us to modify genes today in already grown human beings. There used to be a vision of designer babies that made it into popular culture, but people will soon be able to alter their own genetics and physical appearances. As with intelligence I would imagine talents could be added in as well. Although new talents, things that aren't already a part of at least some animal on Earth, may be difficult to create, but I doubt it is impossible. They could just buy them.

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

I didn't read much of the previous posts but I believe only a select few will be able to acquire immortality. Money will obviously become a deciding factor that will not only boost the respecting company's income but also eliminate the problem of billions of people that just won't die.

If this becomes a possibility anytime soon and if it becomes available to all, no doubt there will be many problems.

I think this may lead to many powerful familys gaining immortality and possibly leaving a great many unsuccessful to die. In a way it will be like evolution. The only question is does money correlate with other notable factors such as intelligence, good looks, skills and the like?

The ones most afraid of death and losing all of their material possessions.

Originally Posted by Sandform

At the beginning money may be important for some, but the method by which this technology will arise means quite a few things that should hopefully dispel your worries. The first thing it means is that by the time this type of technology becomes available the costs for the tech will be lowering at a fairly quick pace. Essentially once the technology becomes feasible for use it will become cheaper at a quicker pace than before it was feasible. If the technology for health becomes available for all then it shouldn't be a problem because technologies in other fields will help make resources much easier to manage. Population will pose problems, but there are ways around these problems and we'll just have to find them.

As for the question about notable factors and money; these factors will become largely irrelevant as the technology in question can augment these traits. Intelligence in particular will become essentially equal for all people as the majority of human intelligence will come from computers that are created to become a part of us. There are methods of RNA interference that allow us to modify genes today in already grown human beings. There used to be a vision of designer babies that made it into popular culture, but people will soon be able to alter their own genetics and physical appearances. As with intelligence I would imagine talents could be added in as well. Although new talents, things that aren't already a part of at least some animal on Earth, may be difficult to create, but I doubt it is impossible. They could just buy them.

surely, intelligence will never be equal. At least, as cruel as it sounds I would rather some people be stupid. That is what creates diversification. You also must consider the fact that calculations are not intelligence. Intelligence will (at least in the near future) ever be a quality of a machine.

You would have to look at the other end though. In my case, I would be just as fit as the people who focus on that of fitness. I accept the immortality, but not the everyone being the same.

Plus the fact that i would never want an organization to have control over my thoughts. Can you say advertising?

Originally Posted by sheogorath

surely, intelligence will never be equal. At least, as cruel as it sounds I would rather some people be stupid. That is what creates diversification. You also must consider the fact that calculations are not intelligence. Intelligence will (at least in the near future) ever be a quality of a machine.

You would have to look at the other end though. In my case, I would be just as fit as the people who focus on that of fitness. I accept the immortality, but not the everyone being the same.

Plus the fact that i would never want an organization to have control over my thoughts. Can you say advertising?

Everyone won't be the same, mate. Experience is what really helps diversification. Genetics add to diversification. Nanobots would allow people to shift their features about, serving to partially override genetics, but experiences are unique.

And what kind of conspiracy-based bandwagon are you jumping on with an organization controlling your thoughts? These are nanobots, not ad-machines.

As for intelligence, obviously we cannot have a society composed entirely of doctors and lawyers...we still need sewer workers and such. But, if we had the technology to create nanobots that prolong life indefinitely, don't you think we could also build robots to do all the dirty work? I view massive general IQ rates as a very good thing...what's wrong with a society of extremely intelligent beings on a roughly level intellectual playing field? I don't see a down side to this one....

bump

I wonder... could these nanobots theoretically implant knowledge into your brain? I don't think so but maybe one of you may think otherwise. That would be awesome for teaching people quicker and letting them get hands-on experience sooner.

Hmm...they would have to form very specific neural pathways, taking into account variations among human brains and existing neural pathways. It'd be a very ginger, very delicate process...I don't see that sort of technology emerging in the next hundred years. But then again, if you have immortality, a hundred years is a drop in the bucket compared to how long you'll be around.

In theory perfectly possible, but at the moment we simply don't know enough about how knowledge is stored, retrieved and rearranged.

There's also the alternative option of using modern storage systems in conjunction with a brain-machine interface of some kind, which would probably be far more reliable once the technology is mastered.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Hmm...they would have to form very specific neural pathways, taking into account variations among human brains and existing neural pathways. It'd be a very ginger, very delicate process...I don't see that sort of technology emerging in the next hundred years. But then again, if you have immortality, a hundred years is a drop in the bucket compared to how long you'll be around.

Building neurological pathways may not be enough, in any case. Is it even rational to suggest that building a physical structure in the brain will result in new knowledge? Is there an "alphabet" of neuronal configurations, such that a given structure or range of structures will convey a vision of the ragged stuffed dog in your childhood toybox to anyone whose brain is arranged that way?

It's a fundamental fallacy of many Materialist worldviews that the brain 'causes' consciousness. That assertion is a bias, not a rational observation. The truth is that consciousness 'causes' the structure of the brain to the same degree; it's a feedback system, not a one-way relationship. There's no way to get information into that brain/mind system without going through a learning process.

Speed-teaching technology may still be possible, but it's not a matter of physically implanting the knowledge. We need to work the whole equation: find faster ways to input the sensory data (or simulated sensory data) on one end, while stimulating the brain/mind's capacity to process and store it on the other.

Is it even rational to suggest that building a physical structure in the brain will result in new knowledge?

It is perfectly rational because we know information can be encoded in physical properties. The 0s and 1s making up this message on the DV server are simply the physical orientations of magnetic grains. And it's perfectly possible to store knowledge in such a way.

Futhermore, current evidence suggests the configuration of nervous pathways is what we use to store information. Maybe this will turn out to be incorrect in time, who knows? But if this is correct then certainly physical structures can store knowledge. What would be irrational is assuming at this early stage that copy-pasting a pathway from one person to another would have the same effect.

It's a fundamental fallacy of many Materialist worldviews that the brain 'causes' consciousness.

This is not fallacious at all. It's an observation. Conversely, it's fallacious to assume there is some other external cause when there is no evidence to that effect.

That assertion is a bias, not a rational observation

That is incorrect, it is the current conclusion from what has already been observed. Your claim is the assertion.

The truth is that consciousness 'causes' the structure of the brain to the same degree; it's a feedback system, not a one-way relationship.

Yet another assertion on no basis, and also irrelevant in any case. A system might be self-modifying but it certainly doesn't follow that the part of the system is non-physical, nor that the properties can't be due to the system because it can react with itself.

To translate it in to more basic concepts you are asserting "a purely physical system cannot be self-modifying". A truly absurd notion.

There's no way to get information into that brain/mind system without going through a learning process.

Blind assertion on no rational basis.

There's no way to get information into that brain/mind system without going through a learning process.

There's no way to completely regenerate tissues in the human body. Therefore because it cannot be currently done I will assert it can never be done on no basis whatsoever. Therefore, it cannot be done, QED.

So the human body has limitations to its ability to regenerate? Therefore it follows that improving upon this is impossible? That's what you've stated here in effect.

"Because there's no way to gain information currently without learning it, it is impossible to implant information directly".

Yes, I did present a series of assertions just to get the ideas out there, both due to time constraints and because I'm not feeling 100% today (my own damn fault). I'm really just giving you the opportunity to question whether your approach to consciousness might be overly simplistic, emphasizing only one side of the equation without empirical basis. I agree with you that there is no need for something other than or outside of the physical to explain consciousness, but too often Materialists make the leap that consciousness in some sense isn't real, or is less real than the physical structures associated with it. There is an immaterial aspect to consciousness that interpenetrates and is synonymous with the structures of the brain, sense organs, and endocrine and nervous systems, and operates in feedback both among these systems and with the environment. I can only present it as a hypothesis, but my hypothesis is that neuronal pathways only convey meaning or data in the presence of that activity and those relationships. Therefor, any structure assembled without being simultaneously associated with content (i.e. without a learning process) will be gibberish. The neuronal pathways are necessary but not sufficient to convey knowledge or meaning; that meaning must be integrated into the holistic process of consciousness.

There is an immaterial aspect to consciousness

Ah, this is a far more interesting discussion then.

too often Materialists make the leap that consciousness in some sense isn't real, or is less real than the physical structures associated with it.

Perhaps, but equally consciousness could just an extremely convincing illusion. That doesn't of course explain why the (possibly illusionary) sensation exists in the first place admittedly.

my hypothesis is that neuronal pathways only convey meaning or data in the presence of that activity and those relationships. Therefor, any structure assembled without being simultaneously associated with content (i.e. without a learning process) will be gibberish. The neuronal pathways are necessary but not sufficient to convey knowledge or meaning; that meaning must be integrated into the holistic process of consciousness.

I disagree that it's necessary to learn something to associate it with content. Whilst this might indeed be the most practical way of achieving it if the brain does actually store information in the way you suggest, it's also possible that even if this is the case, with sufficient knowledge it would be possible to work out how to program the associations, and even if this programming varies dramatically from person to person. After all, in theory it could be done.

But is it also so far fetched that there might be a "neuronal alphabet" as you termed it? After all, our brains all share many more things in common than they do not.

A philosophical question often asked is "what if colour X to me looks like colour Y to you"*. Whilst there's no way of knowing what this answer is for definite, I would speculate that red to me looks red to you simply because our brain works on the same basic principles. Given the massive complexity of the system and how many things must remain the same for them to have identical performance, I find it difficult to believe that the internal labels we call colours are assigned somewhat arbitrarily.

*assuming no form of colour blindness here, and otherwise a healthy mind
**same assumption that you are not colour blind (I myself am not)

consciousness could just an extremely convincing illusion

I don't understand this statement. What is there to fool, if consciousness is an illusion? What exactly is experiencing this illusion? Consciousness is the one and only thing an individual can be sure of. See here for an indepth discussion of my position.

But is it also so far fetched that there might be a "neuronal alphabet" as you termed it? After all, our brains all share many more things in common than they do not.

There is evidence against this claim. You need to read the article to get the context (I don't feel like summarizing) but the applicable bit is next to the picture of the chip.

I don't understand this statement. What is there to fool, if consciousness is an illusion? What exactly is experiencing this illusion?

If consciousness is an illusion, it would be more akin to finding a bug in some AI, of having a program break down because it's trying to be used for something it cannot do (such as trying to use windows calculator to produce movies).

And this "program" would be the thing experiencing the illusion, but I readily admit that doesn't explain why it would be experiencing anything.

Interestingly, insects and suchlike behave very much like computer programs. You can even reset certain behaviours and have them continue in an endless loop - the example I am aware of is interfering with the building of a certain type of wasp's nest. As you get higher up then you get more complex and less predictable behaviours, but it doesn't necessarily follow that this is due to something special called consciousness.

Consciousness is the one and only thing an individual can be sure of. See here for an indepth discussion of my position.

More correctly, one's own existence is the only thing we can be sure of. Though that might require a certain level of self-awareness that requires a consciousness of some form.

You need to read the article to get the context (I don't feel like summarizing) but the applicable bit is next to the picture of the chip.

I'm on the fence either way; I still don't believe that the idea is so far fetched at this early stage, but that was a very interesting article, thanks!

I would want to go naturally, to join my mum and dad, grandmothers and grandads

++

The world will just become too populated

__

In my opinion, DIE NATURALLY

Why would this be a good thing? People are ment to die, its nature. And the world will be too populated and there will be no room for all of us.