Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Levi]

Yeah, see, I think that the soul is made by God and cannot be replicated.  That soul is what makes us human, what lets us think.

Eh, maybe god is smart enough to put the soul whereever it belongs or make copies.  If he created everything else, then copying souls when appropriate ought to be childsplay for him.  Or he'll give us a right good smiting.  Just don't be the first to be augmented to be sure. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

To be honest, the majority of the population, including those who want it, will back away on the off-chance of a kill-switch, ever so much with neural implants I'd rather not have my limbs disabled, let alone my mind hacked.

You can just keep a closed system. We think computers are really vulnerable, but they're kind of connected to the Internet when all that stuff happens.

Parents will get implants for newborns to try and stimulate them, even if the person wishes they remain pure when they get older.

Probably not, actually. Ethical issues aside (and there are a whole lot of them), it would be unwise to start adding cybernetics to a growing human.

Artificial Intelligence means the computer is capable of sentient thought.  We... we don't have that, and personally I think we never will.  That whole "soul" thing.  Y'know.

So, what do you plan to do in the event that we do make a hard AI?

[freeformschooler]

Parents will get implants for newborns to try and stimulate them, even if the person wishes they remain pure when they get older.

Probably not, actually. Ethical issues aside (and there are a whole lot of them), it would be unwise to start adding cybernetics to a growing human.

"Mommy, can *I* have a Visionairre Duplicator for my eye sockets?"

"No, sweetie. Not until you're Augmentation Legal."

[Cthulhu]

If we're gonna be touchy about AI, can we be touchy about sapient/sentient?

Sentient:  Capable of subjective experience.

Sapient:  Possessing intellectual abilities on par with those of humans

[Frumple]

I'm gonna say this to that: You cannot create or kill a soul.  You can't form several into one either.  Melding yourself with five other people is not to get you (assume x=you) x⁵ or 5x.  You'd just be a self-inflicted schizophrenic.  You're better off just... y'know, talking to five other people.

I don't care about any possible soul or whatever. I just want five (or three, or fifty, or whatever.) subtly-different mes to bounce ideas off of each other and pay attention to separate projects at the same time, able to communicate with each other many hundreds of times faster with many thousand times less misinterpretations than that inherent in "just talking to other people." The ability to genuinely dedicate 100% of my cognitive capability to multiple projects, in parallel and near-instantaneous? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!

Though other people could join in, too! If we manage working inter-mind translation software or whatever. Artificial creations for dealing with specific subjects would be fine, as well.

[Thecard]

Artificial Intelligence means the computer is capable of sentient thought.  We... we don't have that, and personally I think we never will.  That whole "soul" thing.  Y'know.

So, what do you plan to do in the event that we do make a hard AI?

We won't.  As I said, it is impossible to create a soul, and a soul is what makes us sentient.  You cannot make a program that thinks the way living things do, especially humans. 
I realize you think I'm being close-minded, but it's a matter of faith.  Which, probably makes you think me even more close-minded, but that's not something I need to handle.  That's just your views.  We all have views, I won't argue with yours, and you won't argue with mine.
So... I can't answer your question.  Sorry.

I don't care about any possible soul or whatever. I just want five (or three, or fifty, or whatever.) subtly-different mes to bounce ideas off of each other and pay attention to separate projects at the same time, able to communicate with each other many hundreds of times faster with many thousand times less misinterpretations than that inherent in "just talking to other people." The ability to genuinely dedicate 100% of my cognitive capability to multiple projects, in parallel and near-instantaneous? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!

Though other people could join in, too! If we manage working inter-mind translation software or whatever. Artificial creations for dealing with specific subjects would be fine, as well.

There's a problem.  What you're talking about, that's the internet.
Now, imagine the internet in you head.
Imagine fucking Fourchan in your head.
Now, do you see the problem?  Humans are weird little fuckers, and we don't have a hive mind for a damned good reason.

[i2amroy]

Parents will get implants for newborns to try and stimulate them, even if the person wishes they remain pure when they get older.

Probably not, actually. Ethical issues aside (and there are a whole lot of them), it would be unwise to start adding cybernetics to a growing human.

"Mommy, can *I* have a Visionairre Duplicator for my eye sockets?"

"No, sweetie. Not until you're Augmentation Legal."

Totally. Really I could see option 2 (genetic modification) potentially being allowed for children assuming parental consent at a much lower age. You really don't want any part of option 1 until your body stops growing unless there is no other choice though, as it would require you to go in either every couple years or every few months to get parts replaced depending on how fast you are growing in a given area. (For example if you have 1 prosthetic leg and 1 real one all sorts of things start to happen if your real one grows a little longer but the prosthetic stays the same. It becomes uncomfortable, you get tired/cramps due to the real leg holding more weight, and it becomes difficult to just walk. Your brain depends on your body being very similar/identical on both sides in a lot of aspects, and all sorts of trouble starts to pop up if it isn't.)

There's a problem.  What you're talking about, that's the internet.
Now, imagine the internet in you head.
Imagine fucking Fourchan in your head.
Now, do you see the problem?  Humans are weird little fuckers, and we don't have a hive mind for a damned good reason.

On the other hand the processes involved in an engineering team and the internet are virtually identical, the difference is that in one you are anonymous and in the other you aren't. And I don't know about you, but I would think that the very fact that we are talking about going directly from your mind would necessitate a large removal of anonymity, thus removing a large portion of the assholes from the internet (GIFT and all that). And yeah, some things will probably get worse, but personally I think the fact that we could now have 5 Einsteins working together to advance us would outweigh the fact that now you can send smells through instant messaging.

[Bdthemag]

We won't.  As I said, it is impossible to create a soul, and a soul is what makes us sentient.  You cannot make a program that thinks the way living things do, especially humans. 
I realize you think I'm being close-minded, but it's a matter of faith.  Which, probably makes you think me even more close-minded, but that's not something I need to handle.  That's just your views.  We all have views, I won't argue with yours, and you won't argue with mine.
So... I can't answer your question.  Sorry.

Yes, but you have to realize that you're basically basing it all on the concept that there is a soul. Which there isn't any proof of, and is only supported by peoples faith in the concept. Even if the concept of a soul is proven, it doesn't even rule out that the possibility of an artificial intelligence happening sometime in the future.

[Zrk2]

I caqn't see humans going obsolete simply because true AI is impossible.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We won't.  As I said, it is impossible to create a soul, and a soul is what makes us sentient.  You cannot make a program that thinks the way living things do, especially humans. 
I realize you think I'm being close-minded, but it's a matter of faith.  Which, probably makes you think me even more close-minded, but that's not something I need to handle.  That's just your views.  We all have views, I won't argue with yours, and you won't argue with mine.
So... I can't answer your question.  Sorry.

Given that you aren't even giving my query a hypothetical consideration, yes, I'd say you are being very close minded.

[Bdthemag]

I caqn't see humans going obsolete simply because true AI is impossible.

Impossible by today's standards, maybe. But the fun thing about the future is, you can basically say anything is possible due to the fact we can only estimate our technological advancement so far.

[Cthulhu]

I prefer to ground my speculation a bit.  Otherwise we're getting into say whatever the hell you want, none of it has any basis in reality territory.

[i2amroy]

Given how we have already been working on the simulation of mouse brains, complete with realistic neuron impulses (though the fact that it was only part of the brain limited things), I'd say that the technology will certainly be possible in the future. Of course how far in the future and how to solve the questions of the brain rewriting itself is still needed to be debated/considered.

[Thecard]

Spoiler: This is me not-rationalizing my views. (click to show/hide)

Yeah... maybe I'm assuming too much of you guys to understand faith.
It's... hard to explain, I guess.  But I know God, and I know we cannot possibly do what he has done.  I have absolutely no doubt that I am correct here.  That's faith.  That is belief.  And I know, some of you will surely think to yourself "You can't be sure, you can't possibly be sure of anything!"  But... I am.  I am completely sure.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the idea of artificial intelligence, I love reading books about it, I like talking about Asimov's stuff.  But I know it isn't possible. 
And yeah, I know that some of you are going to dismiss me as an idiot who can't see reason.  Maybe you're right.  I am an idiot.  I have no reasoning for what I believe.  An all-knowing God who still loves us seems impossible.  It makes no damned sense, I agree with you there.
But that doesn't change anything.  When I was little, my mother told me to not eat chocolate before bedtime.  I figured "Hey, I can eat chocolate other times, what's so different about night?"  So I did, and I got really sick.  Throw-up sick.  The chocolate isn't good for my stomach when I'm laid flat.  But hell, when I was that young, I thought my body was run by miniature versions of my schools janitor, Gilbert.  I reasoned that.  Sometimes, you have to have faith.

I admit it, I am not coming to this conclusion scientifically, I am coming to it from faith.  And if you don't agree with me about something, go ahead.
But do remember that I wasn't born like this.  Until two years ago, I prayed only at dinner, and then only to satisfy my parents.  I did not love others the way Jesus loves them.  I wasn't openly agnostic, but I sure as hell wasn't Christian.  And I examined everything.  And this is what I came to believe.
So, if you want to see me as close-minded, go ahead.  I suppose I am, in one sense of the word.  I am literally incapable of answering a hypothetical question that asks me the impossible though, so don't hold your breath for me to respond.

That's in a spoiler because it... well, it belongs here, but it is likely going to tangent.  I'm hoping keeping it here will discourage that.

[Lagslayer]

@ Thecard

Treating religion as fact doesn't work on those who don't believe.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with your position on the issue, but insisting on divinely created souls won't work on atheists.

P.S. I'm also an atheist/agnostic, and the cybernetic augmentation thing still worries the hell out of me.