First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Digital immortality revisited
3090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 8/2/16 , edited 8/2/16

Ravenstein wrote:

You state "Energy would be free". How?


Lockheed Martin thinks it can do it, I'm just rephrasing, https://www.engadget.com/2014/10/17/lockheed-martin-fusion-chamber/
27265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 8/2/16 , edited 8/2/16

fredreload wrote:


Then you live until one day the technology advanced so you can build your own flesh and blood in the real world again. What do you guys think?



It's a bad piece of science fiction. I've explained why.

http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-946493/how-do-you-feel-about-transhumanism#53540935

I've also stated near the end of that trainwreck of a thread why the "moving" of consciousness is impossible, due to what "moving" of anything entails.



Yes, you've made a copy and when it comes time to switch off your continuity, you still die. All you did was make another mechanized continuity, of which you wouldn't be experiencing because one, you'd be dead on your side and two, there is no consciousness in an AI on the other. The entanglement doesn't place your consciousness on both ends- It constructs what is a simulated consciousness on the other end i.e. an artificial system that shows all the signs of consciousness yet contains NONE. Reference the term "philosophical zombie".

The trickery still doesn't stand. Transhumanists are seeking to make a dead world out of p-zombies.
5813 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/2/16

nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:


Then you live until one day the technology advanced so you can build your own flesh and blood in the real world again. What do you guys think?



It's a bad piece of science fiction. I've explained why.

http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-946493/how-do-you-feel-about-transhumanism#53540935

I've also stated near the end of that trainwreck of a thread why the "moving" of consciousness is impossible, due to what "moving" of anything entails.



Yes, you've made a copy and when it comes time to switch off your continuity, you still die. All you did was make another mechanized continuity, of which you wouldn't be experiencing because one, you'd be dead on your side and two, there is no consciousness in an AI on the other. The entanglement doesn't place your consciousness on both ends- It constructs what is a simulated consciousness on the other end i.e. an artificial system that shows all the signs of consciousness yet contains NONE. Reference the term "philosophical zombie".

The trickery still doesn't stand. Transhumanists are seeking to make a dead world out of p-zombies.


i agree that this is idea is very unlikely that i could ever work. plus as ive stated in the other thread talking about immortality. immortality is a impossible dream and a curse no matter what form it takes
3090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 8/2/16 , edited 8/2/16

nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:


Then you live until one day the technology advanced so you can build your own flesh and blood in the real world again. What do you guys think?



It's a bad piece of science fiction. I've explained why.

http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-946493/how-do-you-feel-about-transhumanism#53540935

I've also stated near the end of that trainwreck of a thread why the "moving" of consciousness is impossible, due to what "moving" of anything entails.



Yes, you've made a copy and when it comes time to switch off your continuity, you still die. All you did was make another mechanized continuity, of which you wouldn't be experiencing because one, you'd be dead on your side and two, there is no consciousness in an AI on the other. The entanglement doesn't place your consciousness on both ends- It constructs what is a simulated consciousness on the other end i.e. an artificial system that shows all the signs of consciousness yet contains NONE. Reference the term "philosophical zombie".

The trickery still doesn't stand. Transhumanists are seeking to make a dead world out of p-zombies.


Well perhaps you should look at the explanation of what my method of moving the consciousness is. Again I've never tested, it might not work, but it seems possible. Let's see, imagine your brain split in 2 halves, one inside the computer, the other outside of the computer, what connects this half of the brain from the one inside the computer are a series of currents and you can recreate that current 150m/s at either end to create a working memory. And I do think it is possible to simulate consciousness inside a computer, what makes you think it is not possible?
27265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 8/2/16

fredreload wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:

Yes, you've made a copy and when it comes time to switch off your continuity, you still die. All you did was make another mechanized continuity, of which you wouldn't be experiencing because one, you'd be dead on your side and two, there is no consciousness in an AI on the other. The entanglement doesn't place your consciousness on both ends- It constructs what is a simulated consciousness on the other end i.e. an artificial system that shows all the signs of consciousness yet contains NONE. Reference the term "philosophical zombie".

The trickery still doesn't stand. Transhumanists are seeking to make a dead world out of p-zombies.


Well perhaps you should look at the explanation of what my method of moving the consciousness is. Again I've never tested, it might not work, but it seems possible. Let's see, imagine your brain split in 2 halves, one inside the computer, the other outside of the computer, what connects this half of the brain from the one inside the computer are a series of currents and you can recreate that current 150m/s at either end to create a working memory. And I do think it is possible to simulate consciousness inside a computer, what makes you think it is not possible?


Read my previous reply carefully. The point is not whether a simulation is possible (of course it is), but whether a simulation means anything at all. Is a simulation of an airplane an actual flying airplane?

You simulate signs of consciousness, but you don't have anything that's conscious. It is not possible to have a conscious machine. I had given my proof right here on this forum. http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-954793/artificial-consciousness-is-impossible
3090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 8/2/16 , edited 8/2/16

nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:

Yes, you've made a copy and when it comes time to switch off your continuity, you still die. All you did was make another mechanized continuity, of which you wouldn't be experiencing because one, you'd be dead on your side and two, there is no consciousness in an AI on the other. The entanglement doesn't place your consciousness on both ends- It constructs what is a simulated consciousness on the other end i.e. an artificial system that shows all the signs of consciousness yet contains NONE. Reference the term "philosophical zombie".

The trickery still doesn't stand. Transhumanists are seeking to make a dead world out of p-zombies.


Well perhaps you should look at the explanation of what my method of moving the consciousness is. Again I've never tested, it might not work, but it seems possible. Let's see, imagine your brain split in 2 halves, one inside the computer, the other outside of the computer, what connects this half of the brain from the one inside the computer are a series of currents and you can recreate that current 150m/s at either end to create a working memory. And I do think it is possible to simulate consciousness inside a computer, what makes you think it is not possible?


Read my previous reply carefully. The point is not whether a simulation is possible (of course it is), but whether a simulation means anything at all. Is a simulation of an airplane an actual flying airplane?

You simulate signs of consciousness, but you don't have anything that's conscious. It is not possible to have a conscious machine. I had given my proof right here on this forum. http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-954793/artificial-consciousness-is-impossible


Well, you are not creating a machine, you are simulating an identical 3D brain inside the computer with graphics. This brain would have all the electrical synapses simulated contrary to just having a database and look up table. And take a look at this http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weve-put-worms-mind-lego-robot-body-180953399/?no-ist example. That I think is a robot with a connectome making decisions on its own
27265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 8/2/16

fredreload wrote:

Well, you are not creating a machine, you are simulating an identical 3D brain inside the computer with graphics. This brain would have all the electrical synapses simulated contrary to just having a database and look up table. And take a look at this http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weve-put-worms-mind-lego-robot-body-180953399/?no-ist example. That I think is a robot with a connectome making decisions on its own


What's a computer? A machine.

The article talked about behavior. See my proof that I have linked to. What does it say about appearance of comprehension (i.e. behavior)?
3090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 8/2/16

nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:

Well, you are not creating a machine, you are simulating an identical 3D brain inside the computer with graphics. This brain would have all the electrical synapses simulated contrary to just having a database and look up table. And take a look at this http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weve-put-worms-mind-lego-robot-body-180953399/?no-ist example. That I think is a robot with a connectome making decisions on its own


What's a computer? A machine.

The article talked about behavior. See my proof that I have linked to. What does it say about appearance of comprehension (i.e. behavior)?


Well I have doubts about the article too but what it says is that "But the behavior is impressive considering that no instructions were programmed into this robot". That means it has to be making decisions on its own.
27265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 8/2/16

fredreload wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:

Well, you are not creating a machine, you are simulating an identical 3D brain inside the computer with graphics. This brain would have all the electrical synapses simulated contrary to just having a database and look up table. And take a look at this http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weve-put-worms-mind-lego-robot-body-180953399/?no-ist example. That I think is a robot with a connectome making decisions on its own


What's a computer? A machine.

The article talked about behavior. See my proof that I have linked to. What does it say about appearance of comprehension (i.e. behavior)?


Well I have doubts about the article too but what it says is that "But the behavior is impressive considering that no instructions were programmed into this robot". That means it has to be making decisions on its own.


It's the illusion of autonomy. I program a robot, and make people think that "oh wow it's doing things on its own! Amazing!"
5813 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/2/16 , edited 8/2/16

nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:

Well, you are not creating a machine, you are simulating an identical 3D brain inside the computer with graphics. This brain would have all the electrical synapses simulated contrary to just having a database and look up table. And take a look at this http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weve-put-worms-mind-lego-robot-body-180953399/?no-ist example. That I think is a robot with a connectome making decisions on its own


What's a computer? A machine.

The article talked about behavior. See my proof that I have linked to. What does it say about appearance of comprehension (i.e. behavior)?


Well I have doubts about the article too but what it says is that "But the behavior is impressive considering that no instructions were programmed into this robot". That means it has to be making decisions on its own.


It's the illusion of autonomy. I program a robot, and make people think that "oh wow it's doing things on its own! Amazing!"


ya it would be hard to make a true AI wit the ability to make decsions on thier own and really i personally think shouldn't in the first place too many ethical problems and such related to it
27265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 8/2/16

dragonlord1234 wrote:

ya it would be hard to make a true AI wit the ability to make decsions on thier own and really i personally think shouldn't in the first place too many ethical problems and such related to it


Actually, I would be fine with "near p-zombies" that nearly resembles humans in every shape and form EXCEPT some kind of extremely obvious marking that unmistakably mark them as AI with no bona fide consciousness. Like glowing eyes maybe. Of course then we'd have to enforce law to prevent some idiot jokers from wearing glowing contact lenses just "for vogue".
6638 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 8/2/16

fredreload wrote:


Ravenstein wrote:

You state "Energy would be free". How?


Lockheed Martin thinks it can do it, I'm just rephrasing, https://www.engadget.com/2014/10/17/lockheed-martin-fusion-chamber/


Unlimited does not equal free. Corn for example is theoretically unlimited but you still have to pay for it because it costs resources and labor to grow, harvest, store, and transport it.

Even with this fusion system there would still me a cost of materials, fuel, upkeep of the system, and construction, upkeep, and expansion of the electrical grid to just name a few costs. And with the low prices of coal and gas I doubt the cost of electricity of this fusion power system would be much less than what we pay now for fossil fuel sourced energy. The only advantage it would have is fewer net greenhouse gas emissions.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 8/2/16

nanikore2 wrote:


dragonlord1234 wrote:

ya it would be hard to make a true AI wit the ability to make decsions on thier own and really i personally think shouldn't in the first place too many ethical problems and such related to it


AI with no bona fide consciousness. .


Mate of all the legitimate concerns with artificial life ya go with the joke one. Most human beings don't have an actual consciousness, and if they do they sure do a damn fine job of not using it.

I mean does the race that came up with this have an actual brain?

3090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 8/2/16 , edited 8/2/16

nanikore2 wrote:


fredreload wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:

Yes, you've made a copy and when it comes time to switch off your continuity, you still die. All you did was make another mechanized continuity, of which you wouldn't be experiencing because one, you'd be dead on your side and two, there is no consciousness in an AI on the other. The entanglement doesn't place your consciousness on both ends- It constructs what is a simulated consciousness on the other end i.e. an artificial system that shows all the signs of consciousness yet contains NONE. Reference the term "philosophical zombie".

The trickery still doesn't stand. Transhumanists are seeking to make a dead world out of p-zombies.


Well perhaps you should look at the explanation of what my method of moving the consciousness is. Again I've never tested, it might not work, but it seems possible. Let's see, imagine your brain split in 2 halves, one inside the computer, the other outside of the computer, what connects this half of the brain from the one inside the computer are a series of currents and you can recreate that current 150m/s at either end to create a working memory. And I do think it is possible to simulate consciousness inside a computer, what makes you think it is not possible?


Read my previous reply carefully. The point is not whether a simulation is possible (of course it is), but whether a simulation means anything at all. Is a simulation of an airplane an actual flying airplane?

You simulate signs of consciousness, but you don't have anything that's conscious. It is not possible to have a conscious machine. I had given my proof right here on this forum. http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-954793/artificial-consciousness-is-impossible


Based on the Chinese room experiment, the infants would be incapable of learning anything. How do you think infants learn?

3090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 8/2/16

Ravenstein wrote:


fredreload wrote:


Ravenstein wrote:

You state "Energy would be free". How?


Lockheed Martin thinks it can do it, I'm just rephrasing, https://www.engadget.com/2014/10/17/lockheed-martin-fusion-chamber/


Unlimited does not equal free. Corn for example is theoretically unlimited but you still have to pay for it because it costs resources and labor to grow, harvest, store, and transport it.

Even with this fusion system there would still me a cost of materials, fuel, upkeep of the system, and construction, upkeep, and expansion of the electrical grid to just name a few costs. And with the low prices of coal and gas I doubt the cost of electricity of this fusion power system would be much less than what we pay now for fossil fuel sourced energy. The only advantage it would have is fewer net greenhouse gas emissions.


Well you build the fusion reactor, it runs for like 100 years generating free power without breaking down or replacing the parts. The price of the energy would be quite low and fossil fuel is running out
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.