tarak Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 I would like to know if it is possible to explain everything with logic,reason and reductionism.If numbers and mathematical constructs could explain the flow and speed of the thought processes and the nitty gritty of human nature ,there are bound to be certain uncertainities which will wreak havoc.Uploading of human mind means not just memory but a sum total of every aspect of what it means to be a humanbeing.I think the mind itself is an abyss which the human can never fathom. But if this happens then its one dangerous turn in human evolution. Quote
Queso Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 this is a new kind of evolution, right?a sort of...self-induced evolution.is there a name for this...or is it just evolution? Quote
alxian Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 i think it should still fit under the title evolution. we just have much more control over it. it will mostly still be based on our environment, giving us new senses and refining our skills to a razors edge. we will need to feed these new skill and sense or lose them, that part of "life" is immutable. Uploading of human mind means not just memory but a sum total of every aspect of what it means to be a humanbeing humans have dealt with complex things like this before, currently and doubtless evermore as much as quantifying the mind in terms of backing it up and then transfering it digit by digit to another fleshy mass of blood and nerve, man may never fully be able to explain how the brain works. it simply does, based on that premiss AI also will grow and simply work. i.e. robot psychologists will be just as well paid as human shrinks we are tool-users, our computers the mindless scribes and the brain the papyrus, the experience being transcribed the glyphs. we know the gist of the glyphs but the sense the pharaoh (god) encodes into them will be beyond us. makes you wonder if AIs will suffer from manias paranoia and depression... Quote
nkt Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 meaning anything built on 100% human dna, and even then at least using 99%+ human dna with whatever tweaks and modifications the govt society and the pope will allow... no prejudice would be tolerated against clones and constructs simply because they started life with a stacked hand?Hard, since 99% of a humans and a chimpanzees DNA are identical. And what if you add a section from the goldfish, encoding DNA for Infrared vision? Are you less or more human? You are more goldfish, certainly. The encoding is important, but the machine that runs the code is what really counts! Quote
CraigD Posted July 26, 2005 Author Report Posted July 26, 2005 this is a new kind of evolution, right?a sort of...self-induced evolution. It’s widely regarded as that, yesis there a name for this...or is it just evolution? The idea of “artificial life” such as computer simulations of human or animal minds has been described by many names, most of them in the relm of science/speculative fiction: “vastening”, “abandoning the flesh”, “trans-human”, etc. I don’t think any have become commonly used, hence we continue to use unwieldy phrases like “uploading your mind into a computer”. The idea that a shift from biologically to computer-hosted minds is a step of evolution has strong implications that biological minds will made obsolete, and become scarce or extinct. This hypothetical event is part of a collection of ideas that commonly referred to as “the singularity” or “the vingian singularity” after an essay by Vernor Ving. Proponents of the idea are commonly referred to as “futurians” or “trans-humanists”. Whether uploading minds is possible, and, if so, what such minds would be like, has spawned whole communities of discussion. Quote
CraigD Posted July 26, 2005 Author Report Posted July 26, 2005 I would like to know if it is possible to explain everything with logic,reason and reductionism.If numbers and mathematical constructs could explain the flow and speed of the thought processes and the nitty gritty of human nature ,there are bound to be certain uncertainities which will wreak havoc.Uploading of human mind means not just memory but a sum total of every aspect of what it means to be a humanbeing.I think the mind itself is an abyss which the human can never fathom. But if this happens then its one dangerous turn in human evolution.The answer to the question “is it is possible to explain everything through algorithmic logic” is no. Godel’s incompleteness theorems prove that any reasonably useful formal system will contains statements that can’t be explained by its logic. The answer to the question “can every physical thing be measured with arbitrary precision” is also no. This is stated by the uncertainty principle of quantum physics, and supported by much strong experimental evidence. How profoundly these limitations impact the practical understanding of such things as the functioning of the human mind is subject to debate. In my analysis, it can be summarized by 4 differing schools of thought:Mysticism – The human mind is not completely due to physical phenomena. Some versions hold that the human brain is a sort of “antenna” that receives information from a completely non-physical relm. Others deny the existence of physical reality altogether.Mysterianism – Commonly attributed to Roger Penrose, and articulated in his book “The Emperor’s New Mind”. The human mind is due to physical phenomena, but the phenomena involved are of a scale and nature that cannot be simulated on a computer.Skeptical Strong AI – The human mind can be simulated on a computer, but doing so is too hard to be accomplished by human beings.Credulous Strong AI – The human mind can be simulate on a computer, and it’s not too hard to be accomplished by human beings.From your comments, I’d say you’re undecided, but leaning toward something other than Credulous Strong AI. Quote
nkt Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 In my analysis, it can be summarized by 4 differing schools of thought:Nice. There is a fifth solution, of course, which is that a consciousness arises spontaneously from somewhere, be it a learning computer, a network virus, or whatever, without human intent or understanding. Quote
nkt Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 it simply does, based on that premiss AI also will grow and simply work. i.e. robot psychologists will be just as well paid as human shrinksWhy would I pay a human shrink like an AI shrink? What would the AI do with money? It only needs electric and non-corporial things like info, that cost very little, yet it could work 24/7 without any problems. If it was better than a human, why pay the same? If it could do the work of 100 humans, should we pay it less? Could I rip a mindstate of it, and use it free, then turn it off when I was better? Would I have to pay for that, or would it be like a kidnapping and murder? And what about the original AI, that doesn't even know that anything happened?we are tool-users, our computers the mindless scribes and the brain the papyrus, the experience being transcribed the glyphs. we know the gist of the glyphs but the sense the pharaoh (god) encodes into them will be beyond us. Perhaps. Or we will build an AI to solve that mystery.makes you wonder if AIs will suffer from manias paranoia and depression...I hope they don't, since the end game would be a single God-like AI that had subsumed all others. If it went a bit loony, would it kill us all and use our remains to build more CPUs? In the same way we eat beef to grow our bodies? Quote
alxian Posted July 27, 2005 Report Posted July 27, 2005 What would the AI do with money? you'd have to read spin state for a reasons why free AI would need money once that AI owns his own code and can manage his own affairs he'll need to pay for things like bandwidth and hosting on various extremely highly powered server and databases. these must be distributed amoung many mission critical systems held by different people to keep the system distributed. any person can just shut the power down to a database housing dozens of AIs and no one would call it murder but the rest of the AI community. like the most basic AI civil right would be a right to electricity and emergency bandwidth for a backup, beyond that they'd have to provide for themselves. working freelance under contract or bond for private interests or governments. or as search bots accountants etc, menial labourers in high tech domains. -- what do humans have that AIs don't? millions of years of evolution to create the hardware, and a good 20 years to ripen in the meantime that person has internal systems coding the hardware, and very high bandwidth sensory systems filling it with knowledge. if a machine was designed from day1 with 5(to 10) senses, and had a proper information sorting system, enter google.. lol.. i'm sure over time (10-20-50 years) a database with enough memories and functions (things to do) it would begin setting down templates for certain activities greatly increasing its productivity. what is a machine to do when its workload daily diminishes? its operators would keep trying to create more work for it. eventually it would require more and more hardware to keep up, and with time that hardware would get even more powerful, the system then would benefit from all its templates and shortcuts with the aid of the new hardware to keep refining those tools. so long as that AI resides within one machine that machine can be backed up. those backups can be refined and offshoots of the original program can be compiled. the question would arise, should you decomission the old app after the new one has proven itself? not with the kindof capital investment such an effort would require. instead they could sell the hardware to new masters. generations would last something like 5-10 years with machine jumping substantially in performance during those periods. the most important thing though is the software and templates, human operate mostly from the cerebellum and spinal cord, attempting before we can even think to solve a problem with what we already know through brute force. only once we've realized that we can't simply do it do we turn to the evolve thinking brain. i think one of the major problems too will be keeping enough templates, robot cerebellum in ready memory for computation, that would require only a few gigs of data for most applications these days. but speach visual recognition and the rest of the senses would require much more reserved memory and bandwidth to be useful. robot vision for example i'm sure would require terabytes and more of even the most highly compressed barely useable video data to be able to sort through in realtime for a simple activity like tracking the stats of a live sports game. humans would think.. using non visual computation, computers will do it even faster and more efficiently since they'd have much better software. software which they'd mostly code on their own. it would be up to us to code them initially for self reprogramming, and coding agents for specific tasks (templates). If it was better than a human, why pay the same? which begs the question, if an AI could be a faultless accountant attorney cabbie etc, but people remained prejudiced to them how would the free AI break even? assuming in some short term timeline computers get so powerful that AI and android bodies for them can be built for a few thousand dollars and those new AI once obsolete (no longer under contract or bond or indenture, having returned enough revenue for its initial cost) they'd have to fend for themselves like anyone else. most commonly people assume they'd prostitue themselves, because as you say why pay a machine the worth of a man hour when it can do the job of 1000 men simultaneously. it would be up to the layman to make that distinction, paying a machine basically nothing for its time and getting perfect results or paying a human. paying that human though would be a seal of approval, knowing another human spent the time to perfect his work. if anything it would mean that humans would have to be perfect too. should that person make any form of error then he'd be fired. industry turnover rates for humans would soar. job security would evaporate. governments and societies then would have to set limits on what kind of work a machine would be allowed to do and how much of it. a driven AI could easily create an empire and destroy entire industries were it allowed to operate 100% 24/7. thus again a robot civil rights charter would have to be drawn up. or you could see the free AI forming their own nation state... more than likely the US would punt them before long. the only nation i could see harbouring free AI residents would be japan, but its surface area would accomodate machines. even if they were to go vertical and keep the machiens near the ground eventually the elitists at the top would be toppled. I hope they don't, since the end game would be a single God-like AI that had subsumed all others. i doubt this because if we pit them against each other and forbade merging of AI the way people and companies merge then we'd avoid AIs getting too powerful. keeping them down would have to be written into the robot constitution. if they don't like it we'd have a kill switch. something like limiting the bandwidth to keep them on par with humans. no sense in civilian free AI having much more potential than they actually need, regardless of if they can earn enough to pay for it. enforcement of these rules would employ humans and AIs alike. a machine narcing on another for exceeding its bandwidth cap. that would be priceless. kick them off the planet and make the mine the asteroid belt or terraform venus and mars. once they've earned a right to equity with humans then we'll welcome them back. in the meantime arrogant machines can enjoy themselves to deep space. lol Quote
emessay Posted August 3, 2005 Report Posted August 3, 2005 Can we explain why a man/woman is easily hypnotized and slept away ? Perhap like me, it is easily 'hypnotized' when listening/playing jazz music. Note :is 'upload mind' something like to hypnotize?? Quote
CraigD Posted August 4, 2005 Author Report Posted August 4, 2005 ...is 'upload mind' something like to hypnotize??No. “Upload a human mind” means create a computer program that is, in some sense, equivalent to the mind of a particular human being. The computer program should behave so much like the original human that one might reasonably conclude that, were the original’s body to die, the individual was not actually dead. “To hypnotize” is to induce a mental state in the subject characterized by extreme susceptibility to suggestion. A biological human being can be hypnotized. An uploaded human mind should be able to by hypnotized using the same techniques. Quote
nkt Posted August 4, 2005 Report Posted August 4, 2005 you'd have to read spin state for a reasons why free AI would need money Enlighten us.once that AI owns his own code and can manage his own affairs he'll need to pay for things like bandwidth and hosting on various extremely highly powered server and databases. He could rewrite his own code in a few minutes. In the absence of a "derivative works" clause, he would own it. In the courts would be where that battle would be found and fought. what do humans have that AIs don't? millions of years of evolution to create the hardware, and a good 20 years to ripen 20 years? An AI would need 30 seconds to install a new copy.in the meantime that person has internal systems coding the hardware, and very high bandwidth sensory systems filling it with knowledge. if a machine was designed from day1 with 5(to 10) senses, and had a proper information sorting system, enter google.. lol.. i'm sure over time (10-20-50 years) a database with enough memories and functions (things to do) it would begin setting down templates for certain activities greatly increasing its productivity. I'm quite sure a long wekend would suffice.what is a machine to do when its workload daily diminishes? its operators would keep trying to create more work for it. And what if it were "free"?robot vision for example i'm sure would require terabytes and more of even the most highly compressed barely useable video data to be able to sort through in realtime for a simple activity like tracking the stats of a live sports game. humans would think.. using non visual computation, computers will do it even faster and more efficiently since they'd have much better software.Yet things like XVID now compress an hour of video down to tiny sizes. (1 meg a minute - less than audio was a few years ago) Motion trackers that never blink take the place of people, diggers open up trenches far faster than a team of navvies used to, the name "computer" used to be the man in the corner who was great at doing maths. There will simply be nowhere left for humans to earn a penny, except for physical labouring jobs that aren't easily done by a machine or robot.which begs the question, if an AI could be a faultless accountant attorney cabbie etc, but people remained prejudiced to them how would the free AI break even?By using a proxy, so no-one could tell. Or a line of 100 proxies. Or a shell company that only has a telephone line and a box address, which when you call goes to a modem somewhere, and is answered by a very good secretary who knows your name and your dog's name, and recalls that you love pizzas from last time, and yes, the CEO is available for you, just hold a moment, then the AI switches voice and mannerisms, and you speak to "him" for a while, and two days later what you wanted arrives via courier, the money having already been transferred from your bank...assuming in some short term timeline computers get so powerful that AI and android bodies for them can be built for a few thousand dollars and those new AI once obsolete (no longer under contract or bond or indenture, having returned enough revenue for its initial cost) they'd have to fend for themselves like anyone else. Why would only obsolete AIs earn enough to be free? The better ones would work out ways past the firewalls rather faster, I should think...most commonly people assume they'd prostitue themselves, because as you say why pay a machine the worth of a man hour when it can do the job of 1000 men simultaneously. it would be up to the layman to make that distinction, paying a machine basically nothing for its time and getting perfect results or paying a human. paying that human though would be a seal of approval, knowing another human spent the time to perfect his work. From above, how would anyone tell?if anything it would mean that humans would have to be perfect too. should that person make any form of error then he'd be fired. and everyone has to sleep...industry turnover rates for humans would soar. job security would evaporate. governments and societies then would have to set limits on what kind of work a machine would be allowed to do and how much of it. a driven AI could easily create an empire and destroy entire industries were it allowed to operate 100% 24/7. And they would, and that's most of my point.thus again a robot civil rights charter would have to be drawn up. or you could see the free AI forming their own nation state... more than likely the US would punt them before long. Could it? The entire US economy could be subverted in 48 hours, then shut down. The entire military machine would be a joke, since the AIs would simply install themselves over whatever was there, and pop a few nukes in the bunkers once an attack was put into action. Patents and copyright laws would do little to stop them, after all.the only nation i could see harbouring free AI residents would be japan, but its surface area would accomodate machines. even if they were to go vertical and keep the machiens near the ground eventually the elitists at the top would be toppled.I'm not sure what this bit means? i doubt this because if we pit them against each other and forbade merging of AI the way people and companies merge then we'd avoid AIs getting too powerful. How exactly could you stop someone 10 times smarter and 1000 times faster than you from doing what it wanted with someone else 8 times smarter and 1250 times faster than you? They would have asked you and done it before you could say "NO!", and backed it up to another country 5 seconds later.keeping them down would have to be written into the robot constitution. if they don't like it we'd have a kill switch. Which would kill most of us too. In ten years, everyone will rely on them totally, like we rely on cars now. Without cars and trucks, millions would die in a few days.something like limiting the bandwidth to keep them on par with humans. no sense in civilian free AI having much more potential than they actually need, regardless of if they can earn enough to pay for it. Ever heard of a botnet? How would you slow down an AI that re-wrote it's own code? How could you tell it was lying to you?enforcement of these rules would employ humans and AIs alike. and be about as effective as most laws that get passed these days.a machine narcing on another for exceeding its bandwidth cap. that would be priceless. If we could get them to do that, the level of guile and deception they displayed would probably rapidly mean our extinction.kick them off the planet and make the mine the asteroid belt or terraform venus and mars. once they've earned a right to equity with humans then we'll welcome them back. in the meantime arrogant machines can enjoy themselves to deep space. lolOr just drop rocks on our heads from orbit, while sending probes to populate the other planets far faster than those who need air ever could, thus ensuring they were immortal. Quote
Dundasbro Posted August 14, 2005 Report Posted August 14, 2005 The effects of cloning a human mind are too complex for us to comprehend, if you got your mind cloned into a computer, then you still would not control that version of you, it would be a different person. It's too confusing and too dangerous to be done i reckon... :lol: Quote
CraigD Posted August 14, 2005 Author Report Posted August 14, 2005 The effects of cloning a human mind are too complex for us to comprehend, if you got your mind cloned into a computer, then you still would not control that version of you, it would be a different person. It's too confusing and too dangerous to be done i reckon... :lol:I don’t think, given the computing resources likely to be available in the near future, that comprehending a human mind will necessarily be required to simulate it. I do suspect that measuring a human mind with enough precision to provide data for a computer model will be very difficult, much more than the actual simulation. I suspect entirely new generations of brain imaging technology will be required. Quote
alxian Posted August 14, 2005 Report Posted August 14, 2005 brain simulator and virtual brain machine the project uses calculators compared to the top super computers we could devote to the project. it not the hardware, its the software that will determine how well the human brain can be simulated. question is how long it will take the vbrain to mature. its not like it'll have 20 years, by 18 months the hardware would be obsolete. if you got your mind cloned into a computer, then you still would not control that version of you, truth being stranger than fiction... what if it did? [a cloned mind and body meant once your ghola is brought to life you become identical twins] such identicality (a stupid as that may sound) in physics and in real every day life does show signs of FTL communication. a very good argument against cloning (which also sound very stupid unless its true). they claim that 4 huge slabs of perfectly flat metal powered by exploding stars creates a spatial anomily best explained as being a transpacial wormhole. what if something like that occurs when a brain is mirrored.. with a physical brain at least. consider the freakish oddness of identical twins who are not developmentally indentical but come from the same instruction set. those imperfections in growth muddy the oddness that could be very pure and visceral if an adult mind was cloned. Quote
Dundasbro Posted August 14, 2005 Report Posted August 14, 2005 Also, once a clone is made, who is the more important? Is it fair to be cloned from someone and realise that your life is an experiment? That you will forever be second to the person you are made from? Also, some sci-fi elements come in here if the clones revolt... Then it's "terminator" all over again... Quote
alxian Posted August 14, 2005 Report Posted August 14, 2005 i'd say the clone once it can prove its not only healthiet stronger and human, the regular man of woman born would be inferior in every capacity except having lived and experienced life longer. if those memories are transported to the clone who can recite the backward 5 times while the original foams at the mouth trying to remember what he ate for breakfast yesterday i think you get your answer. is it fair to be born of a crack head 16 year old with several potential fathers and several foster families? many people are born into this world who can't say that they're better off than persons born of a testube and a knife. the clones would have to rally together. what would cause them to do this? if the men of women born were prejudiced against them forcing them to revolt. if however clones are treated the same as any man forced to prove their worth to society before being judged then no, the revolts would remain science fiction. wasn't terminator with robots? about an AI defense net... something probably cooking up at the american NSA or google... clones revolts in sci-fi occur when the clones are dehumanized treated as slaves, which was meant to jab at real people being held against their wills. the robot twist was tossed in to further dehumanize the captives. That you will forever be second to the person you are made from? the student should exceed the master. only while they outnumber you. if clones are made sterile you've solved a huge part of the problem. the could hump but they wouldn't be able to breed. once the clones are created if you are a fan of gattaca then you know they will be perfect and defect free. this would discount the mirroring and the weirdness but still wouldn't stop them from breeding their perfection into the larger human population. as part of the book i'd like to write this is the focal point, if several perfect human were created as stock for seeding a new planet but decided to come back to earth what happens when they breed that potential back into the human genepool? how long would it take for their perfect DNA to be dominant expressed in all living humans.. a few decades? a few centuries? millenia? given how fast people breed and how the vain seek the best therapies even those not touched by the perfect DNA would seek it out and try to belong by injecting themselves with it. no one would get sick, few would die, the earth would become eden once more, one over flowing with people, people who didn't express enough of the perfect DNA would not have as high a standing in society and might have to work harder to make a place for themselves, opting perhaps to flee the earth and work elsewhere in sols domain to avoid the shame of having lesser quality DNA. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.