What does this have to do the fact that you deem this technology worthless? Or with your proposal as to how everyone "should" act?
Sure, these features may be worthless to you, because you have a defined procedure either obviates the problem and/or deals with it in a different manner.
So your statement:
It is also an absolute non-problem. The basic issue here is a human one, and is easily corrected.
Is not only wrong, it's horribly wrong.
Now, if everyone just did things the way you wanted them to, i might be able to see your point.
But they don't. And won't.
And so, this is a problem, and Google has some up with one solution.
The fact that you think "train the users" is acceptable means you haven't been paying much attention.
Indeed. If one thought about the parent comment, they were more lamenting the fact that it was labeled (science), "reason and critical thinking".
The fact that you missed the basis of the argument and instead focused on a mere detail tells me more about your critical thinking skills than his, indeed.
Little details like that.
Yup, you decided that lambasting him about the choice of his examples was more important than understanding what he was saying.
How about instead of those two examples, you tell me what is wrong with his basic statement when I substitute Bertrand Russel and Whitehead as examples?
Perhaps Google has found that many people don't do things the way you do, and are trying to provide them with a good user experience that facilitates the way they work instead of trying to get them to work the way you would like them to?
Of course, "managing the criminal population" would be inherently a lot easier if the "criminal population" only consisted of violent offenders.
That doesn't bring in the big bucks, though.
Expect higher "incarceration" rates - It is suddenly less costly for society to criminalize larger segments of the population, where prisons aren't scalable in this manner.
Expect more crimes on the books and more enforcement of non-violent crime laws - it's how they are going to fill their virtual prisons.
Nah, you create a standalone platform. Buy a few, maybe say, 12. And you set each one up with a nice 3 axis stepper motor and individual cameras.
Get some s/w for face & eye shape recognition and add in a targeting component that drives your steppers.
Have the beams scan back and forth across the eye area, maybe two per eye.
The system is then able to blind 3 people at a time.
Let's say that you get good lasers, so it only takes a few seconds or so.
That's ~100 people in a minute.
Take it and set it up in a major sporting event, in the rafters. Hell, hook it up to mains. There's so much stuff hanging from the ceiling at arenas that one more lighting looking piece of equipment isn't likely to be noticed.
AFAIK, you don't actually have to look at the laser to be blinded, although seeing a flash out of the corner of your eye may draw your attention anyway.
I wonder how many hundreds of people you could blind before anyone realized that anything was happening? Especially if you randomly target people around the entire seating area.
People do have memories which are most certainly false, and yet "certain", to the individual, to be real - things which you perceive as total deal-breakers, are already done by humans on some level.
Well, no. I don't see how you can say that.
I care not for false memories and certainty of memory. So what if I remember things that did not occur? I am still the one "remembering" them. WHat does this have to do with day to day continuity? In what way do you percieve that this is a "total deal-breaker" with my concepts? Please elaborate.
Furthermore, you basically say that continuity is when you're merely convinced that essentials of it have taken place - well, that's also an easy characteristic of the "cheating" scenario.
Not so. Even if the AI were "convinced" that they were "still" me, unless that was achieved by my consciousness taking over the AI substrate, the scenarios are not similar at all.
things is, perhaps you specifically(*) (and folk mythologies - certainly) tend to put too strong focus on absolute preservation (how could you think so anyway with my constant emphasis on constant transformations of ourselves?).
Good grief man! Haven't you read anything I wrote? Where ever do you get the idea that my focus is on absolute preservation? Do you mean to imply that continuity means absolute preservation? Do you really want me to go back and point out where I already said the self constantly changes?
The problem is, you aren't talking about the self changing or transforming.
You are talking about a new being that just happens to be similar.
(*)then why insistance on a long enough period which absolutely needs to maintain extremelly high / high enough (whatever it would be) level of similarity? Why do you need to limit you "posthuman self" so severely
I'm not. I'm merely stating that it by your mechanisms it wouldn't be my posthuman self, but some other being. And personally, I don't want this type of child. So yes, I am limiting my posthuman selves severely. Bummer for all the me's that will never exist, but if I continue to do so, I feel it would be worth it.
And it wouldn't be a model; more a hypothetical (meaning also - of a type unknown to us, that's unavoidable; look at history of major progress) transformation
Sorry, but everything that you have said leads me to the conclusion that it's not a transformation and that the resultant being is modeled after myself.
And since the current mechanims for "transformation" are insert magick here, why should I limit myself to a mere shadow copy?
It is not merely splitting hairs - there is an actual difference.
So, if you'll go along with the idea that the (magickal) transformation is literally and actually similar to the transformation from pre-pubescent to teen (say) then I have no problem.
Other than that, I understand your agruments and I reject the basis I percieve in them.
You will not be able to convince me that a copy of myself is me (and incidentally, that copy of me would also agree that I am not it!). You will not be able to convince me that continuity is not important to me or that continuity is not important to the process of transformation. You will not be able to convince me that focusing on this set of goals is either unworthy or impossible (at least not any more than the mechanism you are advocating).
I don't really know what else to say. Thanks for the dialogue!
Show me the continuity. No, really, demonstrate how a child -> adult has a continuity by similarly strict rules
Fine. And relatively easy. My strict rules aren't all that strict and I stated them from the beginning.
My similary strict rules are the slow evolution of child -> adult, unless you are stating that that happens in an instant. At any point in time on that transition the self is still the self. At no point in time is there a (self) and (self'). The self is constantly changing, constantly referencing past experiences and past states of being. Constantly losing pieces of that as well. Why shouldn't it? I recognise my past self as my self in the past.
At any point in my current biologic existence I am able to say that I am the being that had those emotions and did those things in the past. Those things make up my self as much as the current moment. I may have changed my mind about my behaviour (or even fail to understand why I took some action, based on my new experiences), but still, it's all me. At any point in my future biologic existence, I will be able to say the same.
QED
The same cannot be said if I am able to copy myself. There is a break in continuity in that case. The easiest way to see this is if there are ever can be two beings then continuity is clearly broken. So, an AI leaching on you until you are dead is also continuity break, since at any point they have the ability to break away to be "themself" and leave you as you.
However, I can see at least one possible path that achieves continuity.
"Enhanced" biologic entities may be a path to this continuity of consciousness, if one not only can add additional capabilities (memory, processing power, etc.) but can slowly replace the biologic machinery with functionally equivalent input/output sets on some other substrate (perhaps even located 'in situ'). After everything is replaced, with "me" still able to perform the above test), viola! This demonstrates continuity of consciousness, which is what I am after.
And I assure you, our consciousnesses won't notice that they're dead.
Well, I'm glad that you have such a firm grasp of the metaphysics of consciousness. I am unfortunately not privledge to such information.
Such similarities between what you (and many other) seem to wish for and for what mythologies wish for, makes me...extremelly cautious. BTW, it's a bit funny how "static" they are in the end - in a way, a true death
The fact that you seem to appear to equate the continuation of your consciousness after death both to a static existence as well as true death is tragic, but hardly uncommon. I am also sorry that you equate all religious ideas with "things that should be shunned". It seems a shame not to steal ideas from what was the height of creative thought at the time. Try to stand on ths shoulders of giants -- even if you think they smell bad or you'll find that you eventually have nothing to stand on.
BTW, just to be clear I do not consider "continuity of consciousness" to be a static thing, nor those states that would support this as static. Why do you think that it is static?
In addition, how would it not be exactly the same for an AI? How does continuing my journey as my consciousnes engender stasis but a "me" AI experiencing a similar journey NOT become static? You seem to be drawing an artificial distinction here.
I, meanwhile, am extremely cautious of any claim that I will be immortal through some sort of model of my consciousness operating in an AI substrate. As we both have stated - these would not be the same beings.
Please, address this point! I mean, I only mention it in every post I have made and you have danced around it, coming up with more and more words that fail to address this basic issue.
Generally, remember that for me it's a suspition of how things might work
Then you concede that you have died many times already...
No, I have changed. One can equate change with deaths, sure. One can even generate analogies between them. One could also equate death with loss of consciousness. However, there is still continuity in these cases. That is a big difference.
What you propose is missing this and you concede that is actually the case. There is no transition, or continuity. In fact you already have stated that the biologic and AI entities are not the same being. So why should I as a biologic entity somehow trust that "I" am also in the AI entity, when clearly I am not.
I see no case for you type of "immortality" using my criteria because it is not immortality of the consciousness. It is immortality of some construct modeled on my consciousness. Quite a difference!
different types of existence could easily be seen as an improvement, in some parts
Sure, they would be interesting and new. I fail to see how I as a biologic consciousness would see this as an improvement (apart from the other quality of life boosts one might expect from such tech). I'm still not going to be immortal, although others may not notice the difference, I bet my dying consciousness surely would.
And guess what - "I" won't be looking at that dying body from an AI substrate.
No, this all appears to be a game of smoke and mirrors.
Maybe such choice of word there was not appropriate,
What word choice are you referencing?
but it's hard for me to look much different at what seems to very much originate from most mythologies and their folk idea of eternal life...
What, now? Are you asserting that a religious view of immortality is equivalent to your version of technological immortality?
Hmm, sorry, I don't agree. The fundamental basis of religious viewpoints is that the person is still that person, transitioning through death to some other realm. Not that God xeroxes off a copy and puts it on his "Heaven" shelf.
Sorry, I think that you are simply wrong. I do not want the type of post-humanist future you are imagining.
Despite all the words you post, the simple hard fact is that I would not be immortal since my consciousness was not transferred to the AI substrate.
Nothing else really matters in the selfish context of me.
The other simple hard fact is that those other copies are not self. They may even behave in the exact same manner as I do, but they are not me.
Yes, perhaps it doesn't give undisturbed conciousness in quite the "desired" way (as imagined in, essentially, religious style) - but so what?
Because I am not interested in populating a future world with any types of clones of myself? That's what.
Look at it as a posthumanist approach without beeing terrified of death at the same time, without applying brakes of childish wishes.
If you believe it a childish wish to actually have your consciousness survive, and instead prefer to make some copies of some type of model of your behaviours that's all well and good. Go for it.
Just don't pretend that my view is somehow "childish" - it's not. It is simply a different goal state.
I must admit I don't understand your point, really.
continuity as hopef for by the present faithful - outside the context...
If I understand you, I don't think there can be continuity "outside the context" - that's the thing, and sticking point, I might add. One might as well believe in God if one expects it to just magically happen "outside the context".
And with no reuqirement of biological death during the process...
Well, yeah, that appears to be another problem. If I am conscious in my biological body and there is a model of "me" in silicon also claiming to be my consciousness I'm going to call bullshit. Because while that model may be in every way like me it is certainly not *my* consciousness which I currently am experiencing in my biologic body.
"Me" as a biological consciousness would heartily disbute that "I" am immortal, since I am still stuck in my body even with some AI on a speaker telling me that "I" am "really" there.
Would also help if people realised how, during typical lifetime, they essentially die many times
Thing is, you could say that we "die" every night when we lose consciousness, are "born" and "die" into a series of dreams and then are born again upon waking.
Now, until consciousness transfer can provide this type of experience, where I have the experiences of being being "born" into an AI substrate and "die" back into my biolobic body with the memories and experiences I had in the AI substrate I don't see anyone with a brain wanting to do it.
I currently see no way around such a requirement.
Transferring yourself into AI any other way is similar to having a baby and calling yourself immortal.
Let schools go to hell, because I can educate my child just fine.
Well, we let that happen once already.
Perhaps you don't remember the 'race riots' but I do.
They more clearly can be seen as 'economic riots'.
If and when large swaths of people in this country percieve that, yup, it is TOTALLY apparent that no one cares, and that there is almost no way to rise above your economic station, and that it's just getting worse every year...
what do YOU think is going to happen?
I already know what HAS happened in these circumstances.
50 years? Yup, that's plenty of time to see this.
It is simply the result of small minded policies and mean spirited people.
Let me know how that goes in 50 years time, when only the small percentage of children whose parents do this are running in fear from the mobs out for food.:You fail to understand just what will happen if we follow your plan.
If a game company exploits skinners box to psychologically addict someone, then they should be held liable.
Is as an optimistic statement as to how things should be, not how they are.
By your logic, every advertiser and company that has advertised should be sued. They all use psychology to manipulate someone to do mre than they would normally do through psychological pressure points.
If you seriously advocate this, then kudos, your position is consistent. However I can't see how practical this would be.
IT is absolutely possible to create an addictive video game.
No, it is possible to make a game that people succeptible to addiction will become addicted to (with some percentage chance). You may even be able to optimize a game such that certain subgroups of addictive personalities will be more statistically likely to get hooked than average.
However, it is pretty much agreed upon that people can get psychologically addicted to almost anything. Exercise, drugs, surfing, pain, killing, sex, gambling, video games, shoes...
Unfortunately for you, the line between massively entertaining and addicting is one that is defined and crossed by people with addiction issues and not the makers of the game itself. The difference between using psychology to maniuplate someone and using psychology to give them what they desire is minimal when they approach the same target outcome. Figuring out that "intent" is nearly impossible unless one simply assumes the worst.
Or should shoe designers be sued as well, since they produce the most nifty new shoes every season...
All your points may be valid, but it is already all happening
Why do you think marketers have linguists and psychologists on staff? What ever do you think focus groups are for (hint - it's a controlled experiment)?
Why do you think cigarette companies specifically add additional addictive chemicals?
Everyone already knows that MMOs hit the same psychological centers as gambling - they are designed to!
This is not illegal or cigarette companies and everyone who advertises, would be out of business. Why would it specifically be illegal for some small class of products like games?
I also question whether you can define a line between "malicious" addiction and just trying to make a game that is played over and over again.
To me, such a criteria would almost have to have a purely physical component. Say for example, that a "game" was able to directly stimulate the pleasure centers of the brain (like a wirehead). Legal? Illegal? Sure would be addictive as hell either way....
Regards
Re:All part of their core business
on
Intel Buys McAfee
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, we could certainly define "the McAfee" to be that... - the length of time of one standard universe. Not much good, probably but...
I asked because although someone is likely to know that you were joking about "the Mcafee" many people do indeed consider a planck-second to be a limit instead of just some number derived from a bunch of other constants, or simple (theortetical) measurement of the passage of time.
Slashdot Mirror
What? Perhaps you were replying to someone else?
What does this have to do the fact that you deem this technology worthless? Or with your proposal as to how everyone "should" act?
Sure, these features may be worthless to you, because you have a defined procedure either obviates the problem and/or deals with it in a different manner.
So your statement:
It is also an absolute non-problem. The basic issue here is a human one, and is easily corrected.
Is not only wrong, it's horribly wrong.
Now, if everyone just did things the way you wanted them to, i might be able to see your point.
But they don't. And won't.
And so, this is a problem, and Google has some up with one solution.
The fact that you think "train the users" is acceptable means you haven't been paying much attention.
Regards.
Critical thinking indeed.
Indeed. If one thought about the parent comment, they were more lamenting the fact that it was labeled (science), "reason and critical thinking".
The fact that you missed the basis of the argument and instead focused on a mere detail tells me more about your critical thinking skills than his, indeed.
Little details like that.
Yup, you decided that lambasting him about the choice of his examples was more important than understanding what he was saying.
How about instead of those two examples, you tell me what is wrong with his basic statement when I substitute Bertrand Russel and Whitehead as examples?
Regards.
For you.
For the way you do things.
Perhaps Google has found that many people don't do things the way you do, and are trying to provide them with a good user experience that facilitates the way they work instead of trying to get them to work the way you would like them to?
Sooo....
Your solution is to make everyone use the application the way you want them to?
I guess that the same solution should be used for malware.
However, back in the real world, what if people don't want to do things your way?
I would guess that Google's solution could be right for those people.
Regards
Oh, right.
So, where is the money to be made in these other endeavours?
Where are they going to get the money to buy their guns?
Just what crimes did you have in mind???
in all likelihood get even more violent as the demand for control of the few remaining criminal enterprises grows.
And be subsequently crushed. Armed resistance to a government is quite a different thing than trying to make money.
Secondly, maybe they will go into politics? That's what happened with the Kennedeys (in the US) for example.
Regards.
Of course, "managing the criminal population" would be inherently a lot easier if the "criminal population" only consisted of violent offenders.
That doesn't bring in the big bucks, though.
Expect higher "incarceration" rates - It is suddenly less costly for society to criminalize larger segments of the population, where prisons aren't scalable in this manner.
Expect more crimes on the books and more enforcement of non-violent crime laws - it's how they are going to fill their virtual prisons.
Regards.
Oh, I agree they don't appear to have any incentive to push Windows. Any manufacturer is going to make what sells.
But the quote I reposted could have certainly been read that way.
It is actually very nice to see someone not just attack in fear and anger after a bit of push back.
I just hope I can emulate your example.
Regards.
The fact that you are berating someone for an accurate reading (just not what you "meant" to say) of your statements just begs rebuke.
You said:
If the platform runs Windows, the manufacturers will be "encouraged" to ship with Windows to the exclusion of all else.
So, who is "encouraging" the manufacturers in your statement? Who could encourage them besides either MS or Intel?
How is this statement incompatible with reading it as "intel pushing windows"?
To pretend that you don't know this is to pretend to be ignorant, to borrow a phrase.
Regards.
Nah, you create a standalone platform. Buy a few, maybe say, 12. And you set each one up with a nice 3 axis stepper motor and individual cameras.
Get some s/w for face & eye shape recognition and add in a targeting component that drives your steppers.
Have the beams scan back and forth across the eye area, maybe two per eye.
The system is then able to blind 3 people at a time.
Let's say that you get good lasers, so it only takes a few seconds or so.
That's ~100 people in a minute.
Take it and set it up in a major sporting event, in the rafters. Hell, hook it up to mains. There's so much stuff hanging from the ceiling at arenas that one more lighting looking piece of equipment isn't likely to be noticed.
AFAIK, you don't actually have to look at the laser to be blinded, although seeing a flash out of the corner of your eye may draw your attention anyway.
I wonder how many hundreds of people you could blind before anyone realized that anything was happening? Especially if you randomly target people around the entire seating area.
Regards.
Eventually, either the economic conditions in the US will become so risky that it drives businesses elsewhere or there will be some sanity introduced.
Who want's to bet that the "sanity" further consolidated power and becomes worse that the current situation?
Regards.
Really? What are the predictable limitations on use of the force?
Thanks!
Sorry, but the ST species compatability was already explained in cannon.
Regards.
Yes, it would be blackmail.
Even before that, one may be able to call it inticement to commit the crime, if I understand the issue correctly.
So the follow on distributors would seem to be in the clear.
Trying to blackmail someone who isn't guilty of the crime you are trying to blackmail them for may have unfortunate consequences.
Regards.
People do have memories which are most certainly false, and yet "certain", to the individual, to be real - things which you perceive as total deal-breakers, are already done by humans on some level.
Well, no. I don't see how you can say that.
I care not for false memories and certainty of memory. So what if I remember things that did not occur? I am still the one "remembering" them. WHat does this have to do with day to day continuity? In what way do you percieve that this is a "total deal-breaker" with my concepts? Please elaborate.
Furthermore, you basically say that continuity is when you're merely convinced that essentials of it have taken place - well, that's also an easy characteristic of the "cheating" scenario.
Not so. Even if the AI were "convinced" that they were "still" me, unless that was achieved by my consciousness taking over the AI substrate, the scenarios are not similar at all.
things is, perhaps you specifically(*) (and folk mythologies - certainly) tend to put too strong focus on absolute preservation (how could you think so anyway with my constant emphasis on constant transformations of ourselves?).
Good grief man! Haven't you read anything I wrote? Where ever do you get the idea that my focus is on absolute preservation? Do you mean to imply that continuity means absolute preservation? Do you really want me to go back and point out where I already said the self constantly changes?
The problem is, you aren't talking about the self changing or transforming.
You are talking about a new being that just happens to be similar.
(*)then why insistance on a long enough period which absolutely needs to maintain extremelly high / high enough (whatever it would be) level of similarity? Why do you need to limit you "posthuman self" so severely
I'm not. I'm merely stating that it by your mechanisms it wouldn't be my posthuman self, but some other being. And personally, I don't want this type of child. So yes, I am limiting my posthuman selves severely. Bummer for all the me's that will never exist, but if I continue to do so, I feel it would be worth it.
And it wouldn't be a model; more a hypothetical (meaning also - of a type unknown to us, that's unavoidable; look at history of major progress) transformation
Sorry, but everything that you have said leads me to the conclusion that it's not a transformation and that the resultant being is modeled after myself.
And since the current mechanims for "transformation" are insert magick here, why should I limit myself to a mere shadow copy?
It is not merely splitting hairs - there is an actual difference.
So, if you'll go along with the idea that the (magickal) transformation is literally and actually similar to the transformation from pre-pubescent to teen (say) then I have no problem.
Other than that, I understand your agruments and I reject the basis I percieve in them.
You will not be able to convince me that a copy of myself is me (and incidentally, that copy of me would also agree that I am not it!). You will not be able to convince me that continuity is not important to me or that continuity is not important to the process of transformation. You will not be able to convince me that focusing on this set of goals is either unworthy or impossible (at least not any more than the mechanism you are advocating).
I don't really know what else to say. Thanks for the dialogue!
Regards.
Show me the continuity. No, really, demonstrate how a child -> adult has a continuity by similarly strict rules
Fine. And relatively easy. My strict rules aren't all that strict and I stated them from the beginning.
My similary strict rules are the slow evolution of child -> adult, unless you are stating that that happens in an instant. At any point in time on that transition the self is still the self. At no point in time is there a (self) and (self'). The self is constantly changing, constantly referencing past experiences and past states of being. Constantly losing pieces of that as well. Why shouldn't it? I recognise my past self as my self in the past.
At any point in my current biologic existence I am able to say that I am the being that had those emotions and did those things in the past. Those things make up my self as much as the current moment. I may have changed my mind about my behaviour (or even fail to understand why I took some action, based on my new experiences), but still, it's all me. At any point in my future biologic existence, I will be able to say the same.
QED
The same cannot be said if I am able to copy myself. There is a break in continuity in that case. The easiest way to see this is if there are ever can be two beings then continuity is clearly broken. So, an AI leaching on you until you are dead is also continuity break, since at any point they have the ability to break away to be "themself" and leave you as you.
However, I can see at least one possible path that achieves continuity.
"Enhanced" biologic entities may be a path to this continuity of consciousness, if one not only can add additional capabilities (memory, processing power, etc.) but can slowly replace the biologic machinery with functionally equivalent input/output sets on some other substrate (perhaps even located 'in situ'). After everything is replaced, with "me" still able to perform the above test), viola! This demonstrates continuity of consciousness, which is what I am after.
And I assure you, our consciousnesses won't notice that they're dead.
Well, I'm glad that you have such a firm grasp of the metaphysics of consciousness. I am unfortunately not privledge to such information.
Such similarities between what you (and many other) seem to wish for and for what mythologies wish for, makes me...extremelly cautious. BTW, it's a bit funny how "static" they are in the end - in a way, a true death
The fact that you seem to appear to equate the continuation of your consciousness after death both to a static existence as well as true death is tragic, but hardly uncommon. I am also sorry that you equate all religious ideas with "things that should be shunned". It seems a shame not to steal ideas from what was the height of creative thought at the time. Try to stand on ths shoulders of giants -- even if you think they smell bad or you'll find that you eventually have nothing to stand on.
BTW, just to be clear I do not consider "continuity of consciousness" to be a static thing, nor those states that would support this as static. Why do you think that it is static?
In addition, how would it not be exactly the same for an AI? How does continuing my journey as my consciousnes engender stasis but a "me" AI experiencing a similar journey NOT become static? You seem to be drawing an artificial distinction here.
I, meanwhile, am extremely cautious of any claim that I will be immortal through some sort of model of my consciousness operating in an AI substrate. As we both have stated - these would not be the same beings.
Please, address this point! I mean, I only mention it in every post I have made and you have danced around it, coming up with more and more words that fail to address this basic issue.
Generally, remember that for me it's a suspition of how things might work
I still don't see where you are going with this.
Then you concede that you have died many times already...
No, I have changed. One can equate change with deaths, sure. One can even generate analogies between them. One could also equate death with loss of consciousness. However, there is still continuity in these cases. That is a big difference.
What you propose is missing this and you concede that is actually the case. There is no transition, or continuity. In fact you already have stated that the biologic and AI entities are not the same being. So why should I as a biologic entity somehow trust that "I" am also in the AI entity, when clearly I am not.
I see no case for you type of "immortality" using my criteria because it is not immortality of the consciousness. It is immortality of some construct modeled on my consciousness. Quite a difference!
different types of existence could easily be seen as an improvement, in some parts
Sure, they would be interesting and new. I fail to see how I as a biologic consciousness would see this as an improvement (apart from the other quality of life boosts one might expect from such tech). I'm still not going to be immortal, although others may not notice the difference, I bet my dying consciousness surely would.
And guess what - "I" won't be looking at that dying body from an AI substrate.
No, this all appears to be a game of smoke and mirrors.
Maybe such choice of word there was not appropriate,
What word choice are you referencing?
but it's hard for me to look much different at what seems to very much originate from most mythologies and their folk idea of eternal life...
What, now? Are you asserting that a religious view of immortality is equivalent to your version of technological immortality?
Hmm, sorry, I don't agree. The fundamental basis of religious viewpoints is that the person is still that person, transitioning through death to some other realm. Not that God xeroxes off a copy and puts it on his "Heaven" shelf.
Regards.
Sorry, I think that you are simply wrong. I do not want the type of post-humanist future you are imagining.
Despite all the words you post, the simple hard fact is that I would not be immortal since my consciousness was not transferred to the AI substrate.
Nothing else really matters in the selfish context of me.
The other simple hard fact is that those other copies are not self. They may even behave in the exact same manner as I do, but they are not me.
Yes, perhaps it doesn't give undisturbed conciousness in quite the "desired" way (as imagined in, essentially, religious style) - but so what?
Because I am not interested in populating a future world with any types of clones of myself? That's what.
Look at it as a posthumanist approach without beeing terrified of death at the same time, without applying brakes of childish wishes.
If you believe it a childish wish to actually have your consciousness survive, and instead prefer to make some copies of some type of model of your behaviours that's all well and good. Go for it.
Just don't pretend that my view is somehow "childish" - it's not. It is simply a different goal state.
Regards.
I must admit I don't understand your point, really.
continuity as hopef for by the present faithful - outside the context...
If I understand you, I don't think there can be continuity "outside the context" - that's the thing, and sticking point, I might add. One might as well believe in God if one expects it to just magically happen "outside the context".
And with no reuqirement of biological death during the process...
Well, yeah, that appears to be another problem. If I am conscious in my biological body and there is a model of "me" in silicon also claiming to be my consciousness I'm going to call bullshit. Because while that model may be in every way like me it is certainly not *my* consciousness which I currently am experiencing in my biologic body.
"Me" as a biological consciousness would heartily disbute that "I" am immortal, since I am still stuck in my body even with some AI on a speaker telling me that "I" am "really" there.
Would also help if people realised how, during typical lifetime, they essentially die many times
Thing is, you could say that we "die" every night when we lose consciousness, are "born" and "die" into a series of dreams and then are born again upon waking.
Now, until consciousness transfer can provide this type of experience, where I have the experiences of being being "born" into an AI substrate and "die" back into my biolobic body with the memories and experiences I had in the AI substrate I don't see anyone with a brain wanting to do it.
I currently see no way around such a requirement.
Transferring yourself into AI any other way is similar to having a baby and calling yourself immortal.
Regards.
Umm, yes?
I believe that if this case was, say, Best Buy, the FBI would have prosecuted with the exact same set of facts.
IF you think that is tin-foil had, i really will feel sorry for you.
Did you actually read what was written?
Let schools go to hell, because I can educate my child just fine.
Well, we let that happen once already.
Perhaps you don't remember the 'race riots' but I do.
They more clearly can be seen as 'economic riots'.
If and when large swaths of people in this country percieve that, yup, it is TOTALLY apparent that no one cares, and that there is almost no way to rise above your economic station, and that it's just getting worse every year...
what do YOU think is going to happen?
I already know what HAS happened in these circumstances.
50 years? Yup, that's plenty of time to see this.
It is simply the result of small minded policies and mean spirited people.
Regards.
That's great and all.
Let me know how that goes in 50 years time, when only the small percentage of children whose parents do this are running in fear from the mobs out for food. :You fail to understand just what will happen if we follow your plan.
Regards.
If a game company exploits skinners box to psychologically addict someone, then they should be held liable.
Is as an optimistic statement as to how things should be, not how they are.
By your logic, every advertiser and company that has advertised should be sued. They all use psychology to manipulate someone to do mre than they would normally do through psychological pressure points.
If you seriously advocate this, then kudos, your position is consistent. However I can't see how practical this would be.
IT is absolutely possible to create an addictive video game.
No, it is possible to make a game that people succeptible to addiction will become addicted to (with some percentage chance). You may even be able to optimize a game such that certain subgroups of addictive personalities will be more statistically likely to get hooked than average.
However, it is pretty much agreed upon that people can get psychologically addicted to almost anything. Exercise, drugs, surfing, pain, killing, sex, gambling, video games, shoes...
Unfortunately for you, the line between massively entertaining and addicting is one that is defined and crossed by people with addiction issues and not the makers of the game itself. The difference between using psychology to maniuplate someone and using psychology to give them what they desire is minimal when they approach the same target outcome. Figuring out that "intent" is nearly impossible unless one simply assumes the worst.
Or should shoe designers be sued as well, since they produce the most nifty new shoes every season...
Regards.
All your points may be valid, but it is already all happening
Why do you think marketers have linguists and psychologists on staff? What ever do you think focus groups are for (hint - it's a controlled experiment)?
Why do you think cigarette companies specifically add additional addictive chemicals?
Everyone already knows that MMOs hit the same psychological centers as gambling - they are designed to!
This is not illegal or cigarette companies and everyone who advertises, would be out of business. Why would it specifically be illegal for some small class of products like games?
I also question whether you can define a line between "malicious" addiction and just trying to make a game that is played over and over again.
To me, such a criteria would almost have to have a purely physical component. Say for example, that a "game" was able to directly stimulate the pleasure centers of the brain (like a wirehead). Legal? Illegal? Sure would be addictive as hell either way....
Regards
Well, we could certainly define "the McAfee" to be that... - the length of time of one standard universe. Not much good, probably but...
I asked because although someone is likely to know that you were joking about "the Mcafee" many people do indeed consider a planck-second to be a limit instead of just some number derived from a bunch of other constants, or simple (theortetical) measurement of the passage of time.
Regards.
Correct. Obviously this candidate never did the right kind of drugs.
We really should screen for that.