Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Transhumanism

Author
Message
NanoBrain
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posted: 28th Jul 2005 23:07
1.) What is your take on transhumanism? In definition, it means more than human;superhuman. In what ways do you believe a hightened step in this era will most likely occur first.

2.) Is it possible to make ourselves smarter than we are?

3.) Is it possible to transport our conscious into a computer?

4.) Will we ever be able to live forever?

5.) Is it healthy to be a tranhuman extremist?

6.) (Off-topic)Will a.i. ever become smarter than human?

7.) (Off-Topic)Are nano assemblers possible to create?


+NanoBrain+
Megaton Cat
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Aug 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 00:15
Quote: "Will a.i. ever become smarter than human?"


This one's for sure. No.


Need a team? No noob bullshit, visit http://www.teamrequest.com
Kain
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 00:59
"(Off-topic)Will a.i. ever become smarter than human?"

Well that depends on your definition of intelligence. But I think the answer is a resounding YES. But only if we put a large effort into it. As far as the ability to do math computers are already "smarter" than us. They don't have very advanced logical thought or self awareness but these things could be created with time. The human mind is just like complicated wiring, logic gates and electricity (neurons, neural gaps and neurotransmitters).

soapyfish
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Oct 2003
Location: Yorkshire, England
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 01:31
Might wanna read "The Men Who Stare at Goats" lots of stuff in their about people walking through walls and killing goats just by staring at them. Absolutely nothing to do with the subject but that's what I'd class as a superhuman.

When the power of love overcomes the love of the power... the world will know peace. - Jimi Hendrix

Bo**ocks to Blair
JoelJ
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Sep 2003
Location: UTAH
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 03:37
Quote: "that's what I'd class as a superhuman."

i wouldn't, my definition of superhuman would be someone like teh jimmy

Jimmy wannabe
UnderLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 2nd Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 03:41
A superhuman to me is.....me.........watch me distroy you all BUWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

When we talk to god, we're praying. When god talks to us, we're schizophrenic.
NanoBrain
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 03:42 Edited at: 29th Jul 2005 03:48
Thank you all for your responses. I was quite bored last night, and figured that I might as well get a forum-public opinion from those who wish to discuss the subject. When I first heard of the subject and its "possiblity", sometime back, I became quite interested in the topic.

I even bought a book from amazon.com, which I don't have around and do not remember the title or author, which spoke about future theoretical future times. The main theme of the book was technology, and how it is changing our lives, and what may come about it. Speaking on subjects as the technolocial sigularity, which is a high technological point in time, that if graphed, would rise to a point. Thus, showing visually the exponential increase that technology is running at.

I would like to say that my signature is not fully a hand-out to bring others into the thought of a transhumanic future. However, it is mainly a way I wish to help people I cross paths with, to think about thinking smarter, and trying harder in life. A simple philosophy of mine is, since we're here with no purpose, let us use our potential to the fullest extent. Whatever that potential may be. This is not a world changing sentence, but just a philosophy I use to try to motivate those around me. It is also a personal motivater.

As far as a.i. becoming "smarter" than human, I would have to sway my belief towards that of Kain. In agreeing, that our mind technically calculates everything, to make us who we are. If it is missing parts, due to an accident or labor problems, then it cannot calculate everything correctly. If computers are to increase in technicality and speed exponentially, then eventually they might surpass slow slow human evolution of change. If so-be we walk this path. Therefore, I believe that our mind can be surpassed, maybe even within the next 100 years, by better logic computers, or more complex and accurate a.i. programming.

We'll see.


+NanoBrain+
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 03:42
superhumans... kill people. people that wish them harm

they are part human and part supernatural

they are born out of a childhood trauma, or a disaster... that must be avenged

NanoBrain
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 03:51
Jimmy,

Yes, of course. The comic book heroes. However, I mainly speak of superhuman, as them who would be "smarter", by some extreme noticable amount.


+NanoBrain+
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 04:08
we all have a superhuman in our hearts

NanoBrain
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 06:07
Jimmy,

Agreed. I like that attitude.


+NanoBrain+
Megaton Cat
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Aug 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 06:22
He's just messing with you.


Need a team? No noob bullshit, visit http://www.teamrequest.com
RiiDii
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Inatincan
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 07:38 Edited at: 29th Jul 2005 07:38
Let's start from a different perspective: Are we more than what we are?

I'd say yes. We have false teeth, laser eye surgery with optical implants, we have other types of implants , eyeglesses, false limbs, wheelchairs, wigs, dyed hair, and a whole lot more. While most of these items listed are to "repair" damage, some are cosmetic or otherwise enhancing. For example, eyeglesses repair vision, but we use microscopes and telescopes and infrared camera to see things we cannot normally see as humans. So, we have enhanced vision. We take vitamans and herbs to extend our lives.

So, let's take this to the next level. What do we use on an everyday basis that extends us beyond our capabilities? The internet allows me to communicate around the world: Something I guarentee you I could not do on my own. My cell phone allows me to hear people that could be 100's or 1000's of miles away. My TV allows me to know what's happening almost anywhere the world nearly instantly (okay-in a relatively short period of time, a valuable power for a superhuman).

Now, one last step. I can't remember Jack! Actually, I have a great memory, it's just my ability to recall those memories that is lacking; "I know the name of that actor, I just can't think of his name right now. Roger Moore? Yeah! That's him!". So, naturally. I forget appointments all the time. So I carry my PDA and cell phone with me and plug in reminders to beep me when I need to recall something. I could also have a dictionary in my PDA - I don't, but I could - so I could spell almost any word. I can do incredible calculations in seconds (it's called the calculator function). I can even carry around a personal translator device with me (though, imo, they suc right now). Anyway, my point is that I can do all this incredible stuff, but it seems everyday and ordinary. But that doesn't mean it's not well beyond what I am capable of without these enhancements.

Give me Star Trek NG technology, and I can rule the universe.

So NanoBrain, you already are an enhanced superhuman. You just didn't know it. Now you do.

Quote: "3.) Is it possible to transport our conscious into a computer?"


The real trick is to transport the computer into our consciousness.
But no. Not with today's technology. And my question back at you is; how would you know? If you copied your consciousness into a computer, that "consciousness" wouldn't be you the moment it left you. It might think it's you, but since you would not share thoughts, it would not be you.

Quote: "4.) Will we ever be able to live forever?"

If we could, we'd never be able to prove it.

5) As healthy as any other extremist.
6) Yes.
7) Yes. They have actually developed molecular gears already. I also saw a machine that was powered by (just) muscle tissue. While this isn't nano tech, it does show we are creative in looking for power sources to drive such things.

"Droids don't rip your arms off when they lose." -H. Solo
REALITY II
Louiz ofRohr
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Nov 2004
Location:
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 08:48 Edited at: 30th Jul 2005 19:32
Let me try:

1.) Transhumanism can narrow itself to something that someone is known as normal can do but no one could explain..

2.) Of course.. Individual growing is of the business of each one.. Not talking about get a bigger brain, but get skills from the depths of it..

3.) Not yet.. remember that all feelings, thoughts and actions are gotten starting from brain's eletrical impetuses.. It is already possible to control a mechanic arm via brain's eletrical impetuses.. why not, hereafter (maybe thousands of milleniums ), could be done a complex algorithm that compares stored combinations of sequential eletrical impetuses? Of course that each people who wants that crazy thing would must to live years with a computer connected to it's brain 'till all the comparisions are finished.. I mean.. NEVER Maybe possible.. but useless..


4.) Impossible.. Because at sometime the person would must to change all old cells into cells that can make mitosis..
Stop action of 'free radical' (radicais livres in portuguese) could be reduced by changing drastically the alimentation.. But there is gravity, illness, blah blah

5.) It is sickly.. Takes the person only to self-destruction..
Everything that the people need to live very well the people is already able to do: eat good food, sleep well, kiss its girlfriend etc etc etc.. the important is to be happy

6.) Of course, when you talk about likelihoods review.. about accurate responses.. But AI isn't intelligence.. AI is pure Math and cases' reviews.. Thus far

7.) Yep.. I think I did alredy hear something about that..
[edit]off-topic: Parasite Eve movie's mitochondrion maked me think over.. crazy movie and game..
but damn.. I love those

The worst foe lies within the self...
MicroMan
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Aug 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 12:20
Quote: "1.) What is your take on transhumanism? In definition, it means more than human;superhuman. In what ways do you believe a hightened step in this era will most likely occur first."
[/quote]

First one needs to define what a human is. Philosophers have been doing that for thousands of years, and the're still debating. I don't expect an answer soon.

Quote: "2.) Is it possible to make ourselves smarter than we are?"


What is intelligence then? Logic? Arithmetic? Human beings are pattern-seekers. We're great at identifying patterns. How do you translate that into a machine? Counting things is easy. Counting things is no gauge of intelligence.

Quote: "3.) Is it possible to transport our conscious into a computer?"


See point 1 and 2. What is to be transferred? What if you could transfer memories into a computer. What good would that do without the brain wired exclusively to interpret the memories. Every human brain is unique and has unique wiring depending on the life it has lived.

Quote: "4.) Will we ever be able to live forever?"


No, we will never be able to live forever. Simply because the universe will end one day, and even if people live at that time that are born in our time, they'll be destroyed. Besides, do you want to live that long?

Quote: "6.) (Off-topic)Will a.i. ever become smarter than human?"


Define "smarter".

Quote: "7.) (Off-Topic)Are nano assemblers possible to create?"


Why not?

-----
They SAID that given enough time a million monkeys with typewriters could recreate the collected works of William Shakespeare... Internet sure proved them wrong.
-----
eat much pie
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Apr 2004
Location: Within the mind of a lowly mortal...
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 13:14
I went to an open day at a university, and they were talking about being able to trap molecules in beams of light, and move them about into structures (called holographic tweasers). They also said that, seeing how computers will need to control them, why not make an electronic glove where each digit contorls a beam of light. You could just 'grab' atoms and move them around. Sounds fun!

Although I don't think that has been developed yet. However, there is a molecular 'scanner' than runs a needle of a surface and, using lasers and whatnot, will show you the surface in nano-scale. You can also move around the molecules using the needle, by simply 'dragging' it across the surface, although it isn't as good as the beams of light thing.

My AI Routing Program
Sam Wright
Megaton Cat
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Aug 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 17:24
Who would want to live forever???


Need a team? No noob bullshit, visit http://www.teamrequest.com
Me!
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Jul 2005
Location:
Posted: 29th Jul 2005 20:05
me!
NanoBrain
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posted: 30th Jul 2005 14:28 Edited at: 30th Jul 2005 14:38
Louiz ofRohr,

About a.i., might we be able to state that our thoughts and actions are the results of complex patterns and algorithms, though created through an evolutionary process? If we create a.i. through algorithms, of course, do we not think also by algorithms?

I agree with your statement, that the important thing is to be happy. I would like to say that I am a "fanatic" about the human race improving itself. It would be nice, however fantasy-like, for our race to all be "wise" creatures.

RiiDii,

You have a very nice conservative view, much respected by me. All of the questions I am asking, I am not necessarily a fanatic about. I am usually very conservative in life, with people, and in conversation. However, I wished for open opinions with this topic, and that I am recieving. Thank you.

MicroMan,

I would suppose that the shortest way to define human is to say, we are a more evolved species(in general), able to solve more complex problems than other general classes of species on earth. Though, this would be a current summary. Go back some thousand, maybe even millions of years, and it would come out differently.

Maybe once we figure how a brain functions, then we will be able to accurately define intelligence. I do not know when, but I do know that one day we will understand what it is, and will be able to accurately create, or mimic it.

About transferring the conscious, a main topic has been about uploading. A now thought of process of slowly replacing brain cells and stems(and any other gizmos within the brain), one by one, after each is simulated by a machine, and then replaced where it is at. Eventually, each gizmo in the brain would be replaced, overtime, purely by machine. However, the defining question...though the being still talks and walks and figures like the unchanged being, is he still the same being, with the same conscious as before the uploading process? This is a hot topic at any point it is brought up. Which leads me to another question, what is consciousness, and how is it that we are each individual persons, that we are who we are, and are consciously in the mind we are? How come we do not all see from eachother's perspective, simutaneously? Do we have a "spirit", some spiritual force living inside of us, that make us conscious? Or, is it some other hard-to-explain physical phenomenon?

How can one say the universe will end one day? Do you know its inner-workings? Do you know exactly how it started, and where its headed? What do you mean when you say "even if people live at that time that are born in our time, they'll be destroyed."? Why will they die? About living that long, I have thought about it over and over. Sometimes, when "my head is on straight", I can really say that I want to live forever. Why? Because, life never happens again, as far as I can figure. If I die, is it all over? Is the adventure gone forever more? I do not like this.

"Smart" is definitely a hard view to describe. It is like asking, what is a genius. What makes people to call one a genius? Albert Einstien was called a genius because of his few excellent theories in physics. However, he himself stated that he was an emotional failure, seeing how he became divorced twice, not being able to hold a good emotional relationship. Let us say that Albert was a genius in some number of feilds. Then, we could say that he is a genius in those fields. Now, let us replace the word smart, with genius. Then, let us give the word smart, a general veiw, "smart in everything". So, to define smarter, would be to compare two people, and derive from that, who knows more than the other. So, to define a.i. as being smarter, would be to test them against humans, in some detailed test about many matters. These matters would include memory skills, speed(of the mind and body), agility, wisdom, etc. The list goes on.

About nano-assemblers. One man once stated "Its not that it is impossible. It is that we have not figured it out, yet.". Therefore, I completely agree to "Why not?".

eat much pie,

Very interesting subject about the light beam. But, about nano-assemblers, I am more so talking about nano-scale assembly lines. Automatic, programmable factories. Something along those lines.

To all,

Thank you for your great replies.


+NanoBrain+
Kain
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Posted: 30th Jul 2005 15:54
Well a motor has already been built on the molecular scale so I don't see why a factory wouldn't eventually be possible. As long as we don't make it self-replicating, we're ok

NanoBrain
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posted: 30th Jul 2005 16:22
Kain,

I agree about the self-replication. Could be completely disasterous, due to an ever-growing blob.

What is your take on the possibility that anything can be made from anything? To clarify, that as long as there are the atoms to do so, anything can be made from those atoms, so be it that they are put in a correct pattern.


+NanoBrain+
Kain
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Posted: 30th Jul 2005 18:31
You can't make anything from anything because atoms have very unique properties. Some simply won't "stick together" to put it simply. It is technically possible to change materials though, such as converting different metals into gold. But the process is so expensive its not practical. Its a lot easier to knock electrons off than it is to remove or add protons/neutrons (the things that really define what a substance is).

You really don't need to use every kind of atom to build something though. Carbon is exceedingly abundant on our planet and when configured correctly is the strongest and most light weight solid known to man. (google "carbon nanotubes")


I might be working on some of this stuff when I head off to grad school in another year. I'll be sure and keep you up to date if you're interested. I'm specializing in biochemistry so I can tell you more about geneticaly engineered humans than molecular machinary

NanoBrain
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posted: 30th Jul 2005 20:37
Kain,

Thank you for the knowledge. Even if the protons and neutrons, etc were given and taken away, and arranged in specific ways on some atom, as to create a totaly different element than its original type, it would not do? Are the atoms themselves, without respect to the protons, netrons ets, different from other atoms. This is quite interesting.


+NanoBrain+
Kain
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Sep 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Posted: 30th Jul 2005 21:03
Oh yeah nothing defines an atom but the number protons and neutrons (really just protons, because you can have "heavy" elements that have additional neutrons but still the same properties) Change the # of protons and you go from copper to gold, or even oxygen.

The problem is that a machine on the molecular scale would be too small to mess with them (I know it sounds counter-intuitive). Atomic forces are not strong enough to screw with subatomic particles. We need very large machines capable of generating either high velocities or powerfull subatomic rays to do that kind of thing.

So you can change substances but not using a molecular scale machine, that can just use the "building blocks" its given, it can't carve new ones or change old ones.

But honestly there's no need to do something like that. We have all the building block necessary to create anything. New atoms can and have been made but they are so large that they're entirely unstable, radioactive, and generally useless.

I'd expect to see molecular machines in our lifetime for sure. There's a lot of talk of creating mechanically based white blood cells. They could be programmed to hunt and kill specific viruses and in the distant future even repair our own cells. There's near immortality for you.

NanoBrain
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posted: 30th Jul 2005 22:08
Kain,

Wow. That's good stuff. I have read articles somewhere, about the mechanically based white blood cells. Life-longevity, here we come...hehe.


+NanoBrain+
MicroMan
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Aug 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posted: 30th Jul 2005 22:52
Quote: "I would suppose that the shortest way to define human is to say, we are a more evolved species(in general), able to solve more complex problems than other general classes of species on earth. Though, this would be a current summary. Go back some thousand, maybe even millions of years, and it would come out differently."


But that's not a definition, but a description of an object that is a human being. To define it, you need to understand the human organism.

If a robot is developed that is completely artificial, but looks like a human, talks like a human, thinks like a human, and acts like a human - even though the robot is based on an entirely different construction - is that a human being?

Quote: "About transferring the conscious, a main topic has been about uploading. A now thought of process of slowly replacing brain cells and stems(and any other gizmos within the brain), one by one, after each is simulated by a machine, and then replaced where it is at. Eventually, each gizmo in the brain would be replaced, overtime, purely by machine. However, the defining question...though the being still talks and walks and figures like the unchanged being, is he still the same being, with the same conscious as before the uploading process? This is a hot topic at any point it is brought up. Which leads me to another question, what is consciousness, and how is it that we are each individual persons, that we are who we are, and are consciously in the mind we are? How come we do not all see from eachother's perspective, simutaneously? Do we have a "spirit", some spiritual force living inside of us, that make us conscious? Or, is it some other hard-to-explain physical phenomenon?"


What happens to the original then?

You're assuming that the copy is the same object as the original. Of course it is not. It is a sort of a clone, a twin. It is not the original. The original will die, just like every other human being.

In fact, when the "upload" is complete and nothing more can be added to the copy, then the copy will gradually become different than the original. So, it will be a new individual. The original will not be the copy.

So, that line to immortality is a dead end.

Quote: "How can one say the universe will end one day? Do you know its inner-workings? Do you know exactly how it started, and where its headed? What do you mean when you say "even if people live at that time that are born in our time, they'll be destroyed."? Why will they die? About living that long, I have thought about it over and over. Sometimes, when "my head is on straight", I can really say that I want to live forever. Why? Because, life never happens again, as far as I can figure. If I die, is it all over? Is the adventure gone forever more? I do not like this."


Big bang. It's a fairly accepted theory these days. There will possibly be a big crunch too - the opposite of the big bang. Everything will shrink into a singularity, and all will end. Or everything will keep expanding, and one by one the stars will all die. In the end all the simple matter in the universe will have been converted into heavy matter, and fusion will be impossible. It is a moot point whether things will shrink or expand because the end result is the same. Everything in the universe will end.

-----
They SAID that given enough time a million monkeys with typewriters could recreate the collected works of William Shakespeare... Internet sure proved them wrong.
-----
Megaton Cat
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Aug 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posted: 30th Jul 2005 23:33
Doesn exeptional strength count as being a super-human?


Need a team? No noob bullshit, visit http://www.teamrequest.com
B1azer
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location:
Posted: 30th Jul 2005 23:38
Quote: "6.) (Off-topic)Will a.i. ever become smarter than human?"

If computers will be fast enough to simulate a neural network(NN) with 100++ billion neurons then yes I think A.I. can become smarter than humans.

However, if we have a fast enough computer to simulate this NN then there are still (at least) two problems:
- What structure should the NN have? There are quite some different structures possible, maybe the right structure will be crucial.
- What should the initial 'state' of the neurons be? Maybe it doesn't matter and will it eventually converge to something smart, maybe not?

If you don't know what NNs are read this (just googled): http://www.cs.stir.ac.uk/~lss/NNIntro/InvSlides.html
According to this site a human brain contains ~100 billion neurons (also just googled): http://www.univ.trieste.it/~brain/NeuroBiol/Neuroscienze%20per%20tutti/tt.html
NanoBrain
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posted: 31st Jul 2005 01:45 Edited at: 31st Jul 2005 01:54
MicroMan,

I completely agree with your first argument in your last post. You are correct in saying that I did not define us, but simply characterized, instead.

About conscious uploading, I truly did not assume either side. I questioned, is the upload truly the original, or just a mimic. However, now I will assume, that if we are not us by some driving spritiual being inside(spritual possibly just being a way to exaplain the unexplained), then would not a gizmo-by-gizmo replacement procedure of the brain, technically transfer the conscious? Let us picture this assumption on a quite small scale. I like to visualize the very first neuron being replaced by a machine. If it were the only neuron replaced at that instant, keeping in mind that this machine functions technically just like the natural neuron(if possible), at this very moment, is the person undergoing the procedure still living the exact same conscious he was before the neuron was replaced? If so be he is, would it not be accurate to say, that if every single neuron(and gizmo) were to be replaced one by one, not simutaneously, in the end would the machined brain be using the same conscious that the original brain was using from before the procedure? In metaphor, or analogy, if a building is held up by beam poles, and one is replaced, is it still the same house in the same dimension. When you asked "What happens to the original?", this was my very question, and still is, and is why we are having this exciting conversation.

Yes, Big Bang is a widely accepted theory. However, its just a theory isnt it? I will say that I accept its theory more than others, though. I would say that a theory should not be used to answer questions based off of the theory. However, even the laws of physics are still considered theory. The difference between the big bang and physics, is that physics can be demonstrated to be accurate with experimentation. I know that scientists have been trying to prove the universe as either expanding or contracting, but with no real proof. This is at least from the last I have heard of the subject. If we prove the universe is expanding or contracting, we might ultimately be able to prove the big bang theory. For now, do not be so sure that the universe will end, though its seems to be quite feasible.

Thank you for your replies.

B1azer,

Thank you for responding with more knowledge to add to this. About NN, structure, I am sure, is extremely important. If only we knew now. However, I am sure the problem can be solved. Once again, it is not this it is impossible. We just have not figured it out, yet. About their initial state, very difficult to imagine an answer. It would take some experimentation. However, as a growing being, did our minds ever truly have an initial state, from birth?

Megaton Cat,

I would suppose that anything exceptional, coming from a human, could be dubbed superhuman. Therefore, we can say, what is common, is common. What is greater than common, is superhuman.


+NanoBrain+
Merranvo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th May 2005
Location: That ^ is a Orange
Posted: 31st Jul 2005 02:46 Edited at: 31st Jul 2005 02:47
Immortality... wasn't there that article about "zombie dogs" and all this bring you back to life stuff?

First off, computers have the POTENTIAL to be smarter then us... but we're too stupid to understand how to make them smart. What we really need to do is create a child, and have the 'child' edit it's own code by it's own means. Then you can have AI's smarter then us. And then it will caculate that we are irrelivant and end up throwing a temper tantrum and delete it self because there arn't any machiens hooked up to it that it can 'destroy all humans' with.

Until we understand logic, and how logic works. We will just have number crunchers. Stupid Number Crunchers.

Blasting, Shooting, and Maiming. Aspects of Modern Gamming.
NanoBrain
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posted: 31st Jul 2005 02:50
Merranvo,

CPU's contain more than just number crunchers. They also have integreated logic boards. We know a great deal about logic, due to many years of research in the field. However, as anything, there is much more to be learnt.


+NanoBrain+
Merranvo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th May 2005
Location: That ^ is a Orange
Posted: 31st Jul 2005 03:07
no, that is boolean logic. I mean something like this.

Sally crossed the road. She died. How did she die?

You instantly infer that she got hit by a car, this was just a simple example, but it is something we can't explain. You can tell a computer "if road=1 and death=1 then caracident=1" but how do you give a computer the facts:

Cars kill
cars are on roads

and not have it come up with diffrent results. It might believe that anyone who crosses a road will die.

Well cars can kill, and cars are on roads, so why don't people die when they cross the road. (Logic of the computer)

you would then need to add in 'other factors' to clarify it.

Cars Kill
Cars are on Roads

Cars Stop at Red Lights
Cars Move at Green Lights
Cars Stop at Stop Signs
Cars Stop at Yield Signs

Cars are driven by people

as you can see, it gets quite extensive. We KNOW that we will have the right of way, as a fact, not a statement. How do you program that into a computer?

Blasting, Shooting, and Maiming. Aspects of Modern Gamming.
NanoBrain
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posted: 31st Jul 2005 04:56
Merranvo,

I understand. If I knew how to program that, I would. However, that would take some extensive studies. Thank you for the redirection.


+NanoBrain+
MicroMan
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Aug 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posted: 31st Jul 2005 23:04
Quote: "Yes, Big Bang is a widely accepted theory. However, its just a theory isnt it? I will say that I accept its theory more than others, though. I would say that a theory should not be used to answer questions based off of the theory. However, even the laws of physics are still considered theory. The difference between the big bang and physics, is that physics can be demonstrated to be accurate with experimentation. I know that scientists have been trying to prove the universe as either expanding or contracting, but with no real proof. This is at least from the last I have heard of the subject. If we prove the universe is expanding or contracting, we might ultimately be able to prove the big bang theory. For now, do not be so sure that the universe will end, though its seems to be quite feasible.
"


You prove the expansion of the universe by looking at the doppler effect of the light of stars and galaxies. We've been doing that for nearly a hundred years, and the consistant evidence is of an expansion of the universe.

You take a star, have a look at its spectrum, and having defined the place of the material signatures in a neutral spectrum you look at how the material signatures are distributed in the spectrum of the star. If the materials shift toward the blue part of the spectrum the star is moving toward us, and if the materials shift toward the red part of the spectrum then it is moving away from us.

Most galaxies are moving away from us.

-----
They SAID that given enough time a million monkeys with typewriters could recreate the collected works of William Shakespeare... Internet sure proved them wrong.
-----
NanoBrain
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posted: 31st Jul 2005 23:52
MicroMan,

Thank you for clarifying that. However, why should this stop one from wanting to live until and end? I still hold the desire. I could look at the world, and the way it is currently, and say, this is just as bad as so. However, I do not want to die now.

By the way, I just noticed your signature and had quite a good laugh from it.


+NanoBrain+
RiiDii
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Inatincan
Posted: 1st Aug 2005 20:03 Edited at: 1st Aug 2005 20:09
Re: Merranvo's post.

I've wanted to write for some time, and am sure I could, a code that combines and translates equations to help derive other equations. Sure, this can be done by hand, but a computer would do millions by the time we could do one. Here's the basics of how it would work:

Take:

a=b & b=c

the code would combine these two and return that

a=c

now take it further...

e=mc^2 and w=m*a

convert

m=w/a

and substitute

e=((w/a)c)^2

So, speaking metaphoricly, the computer could know that a car hit the person - quite easily. Granted, these are simple formulae, but take multiple complex equations, and let the code have at it. What interesting results could it spit out? The only problem is telling the code when to stop. Given enough base formulae, the code is as likely to tell you that a car hit the girl as it is to tell you that bananas cost $1.35/lb at the local mart.

Edit: I suppose one could enter perameters such as: solve for e as a function of w, a, and c. That wouldn't be impossible - and would be similar to saying; based on "the girl crossed the road", "cars travel on roads", and "cars kill people". Solve for "Girl Died".

"Droids don't rip your arms off when they lose." -H. Solo
REALITY II
Merranvo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th May 2005
Location: That ^ is a Orange
Posted: 1st Aug 2005 20:34
Based on the given proofs
Quote: ""cars travel on roads", and "cars kill people"."


The digital computer says:
If cars travel on roads and they kill people then people should not be on roads.

The more advanced digital computer says:
If cars travel on roads, and cars kill people, then roads and cars serve no function except to aid in the destruction of the human race.

The issue is explaining to a computer how things work, not just filling it with IF THEN statments. You need to have a way to explain the logic of doing something, only then can you have an actuall AI. We might be told as children that fire is dangerous, but until we touch it we don't understand why.

P.S.
e=mc^2 is the total quota of energy a object contains.
You only want the Kinetic Force, k=MV^2/2 (I think, I forget)

But really, this is all inertia, so... sally is moving 0mph tword the car, and the car is moving 60mph tword sally, lets say sally weighs 100lb and the car 2500lb

2500lb*60mph-100lb*0mph=Force Applied to sally.

Blasting, Shooting, and Maiming. Aspects of Modern Gamming.
MicroMan
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Aug 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posted: 1st Aug 2005 22:03
Quote: "Thank you for clarifying that. However, why should this stop one from wanting to live until and end? I still hold the desire. I could look at the world, and the way it is currently, and say, this is just as bad as so. However, I do not want to die now."


But you're still young (I presume). Ask yourself again when you are seventyfive. It is highly likely that medical advances will double our lifetimes, yours and mine. In a decade or so the genome will be sufficiently analysed (not just mapped) for doctors to know what each genes or clusters of genes does.

If so, ask yourself that question again when you are a hundred and thirty... and also, consider history. Where were we a hundred years ago, historically? In Europe we were still living in a feudal age with rigid social casts. In the US the west was just about tamed, and if I remember correctly the two halves of the north american continent weren't joined together by train. We couldn't fly. There were no cars, or phones, or even electricity in most places.

The times move quicker now...

-----
They SAID that given enough time a million monkeys with typewriters could recreate the collected works of William Shakespeare... Internet sure proved them wrong.
-----
RiiDii
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jan 2005
Location: Inatincan
Posted: 1st Aug 2005 22:36
Quote: "Ask yourself again when you are seventyfive. "

Quote: "ask yourself that question again when you are a hundred and thirty"


I suspect NB doesn't want to grow old either and be a living 7000 year old pile of ashes.

@Merranvo: Yep. I came up with the first half. Someone else will have to come up with the second half.
But that was my point about knowing when to stop. The pc can come up with the formulas, but they are meaningless to the computer. Therefore it doesn't know when to "stop". And even coding in a stopping point, the results are as meaningless to the pc as fjkhasdfhsdjfhfsdjk.

However, now apply the same principles to code (instead of equations). What happens when the pc can take segments of code and combine them in millions of different ways?

"Droids don't rip your arms off when they lose." -H. Solo
REALITY II
Merranvo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th May 2005
Location: That ^ is a Orange
Posted: 1st Aug 2005 22:39
Judgment Day

Blasting, Shooting, and Maiming. Aspects of Modern Gamming.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-27 21:30:15
Your offset time is: 2024-11-27 21:30:15