Point taken. As is common with these issues an exact definition is not possible. But let us suppose this: We alter ourselves in such a way as to replace our entire brain with an AI capable component. Our genes are the same, but at birth we replace the brain with a computer. This is of course, ridiculous, but for the sake of argument I will continue. We have a society of computer controlled bodies. Will there be much commonality between what is experienced by a human today, and what is experienced by this society of chip-heads?
Yes and No. If we consider only the human part that is left (the body), then the experience for the body, i admit, will be much the same. However, the experience of the AI component will not be similar to that of a human brain. Furthermore, since I am supposing that all humans undergo this operation, there will be no human brains left to experience the world. Thus, the things that humans have in common like emotions of love and hate , will cease to exist.
Let me end this. I cannot define what humanity is. It is a fuzzy concept. Nevertheless, if we were to fundamentally alter the way we experience the world, we will have separated ourselves from...............LOGIC ERROR
Of course we already enhance ourselves. Eye glasses, mp3 players etc, clothing.
The thread was assuming that a super AI was formed, and that they would rule over us. Maybe silly, maybe not.
The point of my post was simply this. We may someday be capable of artificially modifying ourselves post-conception in ways that would make that person alien to the un-modded humans. Meaning such modifications as computers working intimately with our brains. Genetic modifications for suer intelligence, and extra digits. Things like, steel reinforced limbs, motor enhanced muscles..three breasts for porno flicks. Things like adding new sensory capacities in the brain.
If such things are possible, then their lives..the human experience may no longer have anything remotely human about it.
I understand what you mean. We are evolving now. Change is the norm, and thus anything that changes within us is still human. Fine. But that human may be vastly different than in the past. Your argument is merely taxonomic. Human is merely a label to you? No doubt we came from hominids and from rodent before that, but that does not mean that the previous rodent experience is comparable to that of our current human experience? The experience is different. If we change ourselves radically, and QUICKLY then our experience will be different.
Yeah, I'm aware of these issues. Thanks for the summary.
I was responding to a 'what if?' presumed major break through of a massively intelligent AI. I know that AI has a long way to go, and may well be impossible. I am student of cognitive psychology.
Of course I do. I just didn't write clearly, because what I meant was fairly difficult to communicate. I'll rephrase.
Humans are proud of their abilities. They fashion themselves to be the most capable species on earth. If, in the future we are outclassed by artificial intelligence, it seems likely that the we will feel ashamed of ourselves, in a sense. When first-class athletes go past their prime, they are likely to retire out of the game. They do not want to compete as a second-class athlete. Advanced AI could really hurt our feelings, and spawn a desire to give up. I mean, what's the point of life if we aren't on top?
My reply to this was simply: Die fighting for those that you love.
Of course, in such a scenario we might be faced with the choice of enhancing ourselves through biology and cybernetics, so as to compete with our "AI over-lords." But such a choice may really alter what it means and feels to be human. I am not saying whether this is good or bad, but I am saying that if we do decide to take that course we will be sacrificing the human experience for the sake of preservation of the species.
So, I wasn't truly talking about natural selction, and I should have left it out of my previous post. Evolution, however, is WHAT I am talking about. Evolution simply means: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. (from dictionary.com) Of course, biology uses that term within the framework of genetic change over time.
No. I loved Transformers as a child. I have a tape of myself singing the theme song as a CHILD. I did not own any transformers. They were too expensive for my parents. I just got the stupid knock-off Go-bots.
I don't care much now, even though I loved them then. Sure, if I saw it on TV I'd watch it--if my wife could take it. However, I am NOT excited about this movie. I am too busy studying and doing research for a Transformers movie.
You see, there is more "More Than Meets the Eye" in psychological research, than in Transformers.
Look, from a social psychology perspective, this is just an example how is being punished for voicing opposition to the party-line. The CIA is shocked by this opposing voice, since they have not heard within-group opposition lately. This is because they have a culture of cohesive groupthink.
Incredible. Science does not ever prove things. Science talks in probabilities. No scientist worth their salt would say that para-psychological events do not happen. They would instead say that there is a lack of evidence to support para-psychological explanations, therefore I will choose to follow other lines of research that have a greater likelihood of yielding scientific progress.
What this Nobel Prize winner argues is not that para-normal phenomenon exists per say, rather that a)There is at least some empirical evidence from paranormal research that is resistant to normal physical explanations or confounds. b)That science should objectively look at this data, and c)The vast majority of scientists reject the research out of hand, without even reading the research papers.
Perhaps Josephson is wrong, perhaps most likely wrong. However, he may have some valid critiques of existing biases in science as practiced, and that such biases do not serve scientific principles.
damn it. Accidentally typed your for you're. In any case, Josephson proposes several possible mechanisms for esp, if esp actually existed. Remember, theoretical physics reveals a strange world..Many things might be possible when looked at critically.
No complaints really. I have two Gigs of Ram on my box. Also, I mistakenly reported the problem. The current use of Firefox was quite small. However, a previous instance which had crashed was staying on in memory.
When will people realize that wanting no one to tell you what you should and shouldn't do is the same as telling others what they should or shouldn't do?
Besides where are all the Tivo people. How is skipping the commercials any different than skipping the sex scenes via an automated service?
What it comes down to is this: Slashdotters want their Tivo and will defend it. Slashdotters, on the other hand hate christians or any other person who preaches against what Slashdotters do, and will attack them.
Do we all agree that it is fair use to rip an audio cd that we own into mp3 format? But hey, that is loss of information! That is like editing a movie..except for where you slice and dice. OK sure.. this is a business we are talking about.. yeah yeah yeah. I know what you will say. But get some damn consistancy. I get tired of the bashing against anyone who even hints that there should be legislated morality. Shit, cold blooded murder is wrong. Its ok to create laws that will remove those murderers from causing more hurt. Slashdotters concede this, but won't go a step further when it talks about what they do with their left hands, porn, etc.
Alot of slashdotters talk about acceptance, but many of those are just haters. They hate anyyone else who dares suggest that they are not doing the right thing. Its all, "Fuck you, you Christian moron!" or its, "I don't do anything wrong. You're just imbred." or "Hey, Don't step on my Tivo, fuckin fascist....that is, unless its cuts anything but commercials."
Sure Slashdotters are generally smart and educated. But that doesn't mean they know why they say or do things. Most people don't of course.
I am talking about associations between group markers and implicit attitudes. In countries where its not white and black, it can be tribe markers vs other tribe markers. The research is valid, in that it shows that explicit and implicit attitudes are disassociated.
How simplistic is your viewpoint. Racist thoughts are both explicit and implicit.
On psychological tests, people who explicitly deny racist attitudes will still implicitly associate words like evil, danger, and thief with pictures of black males more quickly than with pictures of white males.
Humans are built to recognize group markers that signify inclusion or exclusion. We use representative heuristics to efficiently make implicit judgements about our world.
While explicit racism has declined, implicit racism is the harder foe. Also, it may be likely that implicit racism cannot be truly conquered..It may tranform though..into using other sets of group markers to segregate socio-economic groups.
Slashdot Mirror
This is great. Mind the comma.
Yes and No. If we consider only the human part that is left (the body), then the experience for the body, i admit, will be much the same. However, the experience of the AI component will not be similar to that of a human brain. Furthermore, since I am supposing that all humans undergo this operation, there will be no human brains left to experience the world. Thus, the things that humans have in common like emotions of love and hate , will cease to exist.
Let me end this. I cannot define what humanity is. It is a fuzzy concept. Nevertheless, if we were to fundamentally alter the way we experience the world, we will have separated ourselves from ... ... ... ... ...LOGIC ERROR
The thread was assuming that a super AI was formed, and that they would rule over us. Maybe silly, maybe not.
The point of my post was simply this. We may someday be capable of artificially modifying ourselves post-conception in ways that would make that person alien to the un-modded humans. Meaning such modifications as computers working intimately with our brains. Genetic modifications for suer intelligence, and extra digits. Things like, steel reinforced limbs, motor enhanced muscles..three breasts for porno flicks. Things like adding new sensory capacities in the brain.
If such things are possible, then their lives..the human experience may no longer have anything remotely human about it.
I understand what you mean. We are evolving now. Change is the norm, and thus anything that changes within us is still human. Fine. But that human may be vastly different than in the past. Your argument is merely taxonomic. Human is merely a label to you? No doubt we came from hominids and from rodent before that, but that does not mean that the previous rodent experience is comparable to that of our current human experience? The experience is different. If we change ourselves radically, and QUICKLY then our experience will be different.
I was responding to a 'what if?' presumed major break through of a massively intelligent AI. I know that AI has a long way to go, and may well be impossible. I am student of cognitive psychology.
Humans are proud of their abilities. They fashion themselves to be the most capable species on earth. If, in the future we are outclassed by artificial intelligence, it seems likely that the we will feel ashamed of ourselves, in a sense. When first-class athletes go past their prime, they are likely to retire out of the game. They do not want to compete as a second-class athlete. Advanced AI could really hurt our feelings, and spawn a desire to give up. I mean, what's the point of life if we aren't on top?
My reply to this was simply: Die fighting for those that you love.
Of course, in such a scenario we might be faced with the choice of enhancing ourselves through biology and cybernetics, so as to compete with our "AI over-lords." But such a choice may really alter what it means and feels to be human. I am not saying whether this is good or bad, but I am saying that if we do decide to take that course we will be sacrificing the human experience for the sake of preservation of the species.
So, I wasn't truly talking about natural selction, and I should have left it out of my previous post. Evolution, however, is WHAT I am talking about. Evolution simply means: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. (from dictionary.com) Of course, biology uses that term within the framework of genetic change over time.
No.. But they will have finally created a cure for the common cold.
It might be survival of the fittest.. but it sure as hell doesn't mean that the losers believe in evolution's logic. lol.
Robotix --the cool construction play set--not the stupid cartoon. But robotech is the bomb. Forget the transformers.
Do you realize that it is 113 degrees Fahrenheit here? My mind is degenerated to Slashdot level. So Fuck you.
I'm just not interested in the movie.
I liked transformers, but I liked Robotix better.
I don't care much now, even though I loved them then. Sure, if I saw it on TV I'd watch it--if my wife could take it. However, I am NOT excited about this movie. I am too busy studying and doing research for a Transformers movie.
You see, there is more "More Than Meets the Eye" in psychological research, than in Transformers.
I'm not a kid anymore.
Look, from a social psychology perspective, this is just an example how is being punished for voicing opposition to the party-line. The CIA is shocked by this opposing voice, since they have not heard within-group opposition lately. This is because they have a culture of cohesive groupthink.
What this Nobel Prize winner argues is not that para-normal phenomenon exists per say, rather that a)There is at least some empirical evidence from paranormal research that is resistant to normal physical explanations or confounds. b)That science should objectively look at this data, and c)The vast majority of scientists reject the research out of hand, without even reading the research papers.
Perhaps Josephson is wrong, perhaps most likely wrong. However, he may have some valid critiques of existing biases in science as practiced, and that such biases do not serve scientific principles.
damn it. Accidentally typed your for you're. In any case, Josephson proposes several possible mechanisms for esp, if esp actually existed. Remember, theoretical physics reveals a strange world..Many things might be possible when looked at critically.
Professor Brian Josephson.
Here is an unformatted link to his webpage at the University of Cambridge. http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/
Not to mention that google will just return the wikipedia page more often than not. Ha!
No complaints really. I have two Gigs of Ram on my box. Also, I mistakenly reported the problem. The current use of Firefox was quite small. However, a previous instance which had crashed was staying on in memory.
Mosaic's mom was hot! We made lot's of children.
Damn.... How come Firefox doesn't have a grammar checker?
really my firfox 2.0 beta is at 123,632 K .. and I'm only have one tab open.
Besides where are all the Tivo people. How is skipping the commercials any different than skipping the sex scenes via an automated service?
What it comes down to is this: Slashdotters want their Tivo and will defend it. Slashdotters, on the other hand hate christians or any other person who preaches against what Slashdotters do, and will attack them.
Do we all agree that it is fair use to rip an audio cd that we own into mp3 format? But hey, that is loss of information! That is like editing a movie..except for where you slice and dice. OK sure.. this is a business we are talking about.. yeah yeah yeah. I know what you will say. But get some damn consistancy. I get tired of the bashing against anyone who even hints that there should be legislated morality. Shit, cold blooded murder is wrong. Its ok to create laws that will remove those murderers from causing more hurt. Slashdotters concede this, but won't go a step further when it talks about what they do with their left hands, porn, etc.
Alot of slashdotters talk about acceptance, but many of those are just haters. They hate anyyone else who dares suggest that they are not doing the right thing. Its all, "Fuck you, you Christian moron!" or its, "I don't do anything wrong. You're just imbred." or "Hey, Don't step on my Tivo, fuckin fascist....that is, unless its cuts anything but commercials."
Sure Slashdotters are generally smart and educated. But that doesn't mean they know why they say or do things. Most people don't of course.
I am talking about associations between group markers and implicit attitudes. In countries where its not white and black, it can be tribe markers vs other tribe markers. The research is valid, in that it shows that explicit and implicit attitudes are disassociated.
On psychological tests, people who explicitly deny racist attitudes will still implicitly associate words like evil, danger, and thief with pictures of black males more quickly than with pictures of white males.
Humans are built to recognize group markers that signify inclusion or exclusion. We use representative heuristics to efficiently make implicit judgements about our world.
While explicit racism has declined, implicit racism is the harder foe. Also, it may be likely that implicit racism cannot be truly conquered..It may tranform though..into using other sets of group markers to segregate socio-economic groups.