Erk Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 How do you feel about the increasing role of technology in our daily life? I'm not talking smartphones here, although they're the start. I mean the potential eventuality of further connection to our technology. Robotics is developing at an unprecedented pace, as is cybernetics. How do you feel about things like the hybrid assistive limb, an exoskeleton that enhances its wearer's lifting capacity? What about the possibility of reconnecting severed neurons using digital cybernetics? How about preventing seizures with microchips? Where do we draw the line? Should we even try? Can we even do it? If you could access wikipedia just by thinking about it, would you? If we learn to convert the human consciousness to software and achieve digital immortality, should we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ace of Spades Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 As long as we don't give artificial intelligence the ability to self-propagate, we're fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erk Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 As long as we don't give artificial intelligence the ability to self-propagate, we're fine. If anything is truly artificial intelligent, I don't see how we could prevent it from propagation. I do, however, think it's really unlikely that our eventual AIs will develop as contemptuous and hateful of humanity. It just doesn't seem logical to me, even though it makes for great stories. EDIT: Based on something I was listening to on CBC last week, what if our first artificial intelligences are in fact human minds that have been uploaded into digital construct bodies? Mental simulation, in other words. Do you see that as a dangerous direction, philosophically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychoswim Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 We are the Borg Honestly I think it's a little scary not knowing where/if we can draw limits. How far do we want to go? I also think there's a difference in say a microchip to stop seizures, vs being able to access wikipedia directly, to use your examples. I'm not sure I'm too big on "enhancing" humans, be it strength or thought connectivity with the outside world. But if some new technologies can help heal/cure/prevent some diseases well it might just have to be considered. Again, where are the limits drawn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp.mylittlepwny Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 EDIT: Based on something I was listening to on CBC last week, what if our first artificial intelligences are in fact human minds that have been uploaded into digital construct bodies? Mental simulation, in other words. Do you see that as a dangerous direction, philosophically? You should watch the anime 'Ghost in the shell'. Or at least youtube it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychoswim Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 You should watch the anime 'Ghost in the shell'. Or at least youtube it. Or possibly read the earliest prequels to the Dune novels, the trilogy including the Butlerian Jihad. Compelling stuff about human minds in machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erk Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 We are the Borg Honestly I think it's a little scary not knowing where/if we can draw limits. How far do we want to go? I also think there's a difference in say a microchip to stop seizures, vs being able to access wikipedia directly, to use your examples. I'm not sure I'm too big on "enhancing" humans, be it strength or thought connectivity with the outside world. But if some new technologies can help heal/cure/prevent some diseases well it might just have to be considered. Again, where are the limits drawn? In my opinion, it's pretty much impossible to draw limits on technology. That's what makes it horrible and wonderful. If someone develops a chip that can prevent seizures (work is well underway), someone else will figure out how to adapt that into a phone book in your skull. I think, philosophically, instead of drawing limits we'd be better of thinking about how we will adapt to the inevitable march. Things we don't want to happen will happen, and I doubt we can prevent it. So then, how are we going to respond when they do? If people want to pop out their eyes and replace them with digital eyes that can see a much wider spectrum of light and have zoom lenses, what does that mean for us as people? Personally I think the body replacement cybernetic idea is interesting, but I think a lot of people won't want to do it. Things that can be tacked on externally (eg robotic exosuits) are far more likely to catch on. So are things that can be added without removing anything (eg chips in the brain) For me where it really gets crazy is the idea of digital intelligences, which is why I keep coming back to them. If you upload your brain to a computer, is the copy of you still you (assuming accurate simulation technology)? I kinda think so. If it is, then is it still human? Because if it's you, and you're human, then it should be as well, no? Is it immoral to delete a fully thinking, fully functional copy of a human mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erk Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 You should watch the anime 'Ghost in the shell'. Or at least youtube it. I'm pretty familiar with it. The body of fiction on these topics is huge and awesome. What I'm interested in right now, though, is that a lot of these concepts are looming as actual potential realities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychoswim Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 For me where it really gets crazy is the idea of digital intelligences, which is why I keep coming back to them. If you upload your brain to a computer, is the copy of you still you (assuming accurate simulation technology)? I kinda think so. If it is, then is it still human? Because if it's you, and you're human, then it should be as well, no? Is it immoral to delete a fully thinking, fully functional copy of a human mind? I see what you mean. I think it does become particular hard at that point to define what actually constitutes a living human being. The mind? A soul? Are the mind and soul one in that uploading your brain to a computer it would still be whole? Does your human body have anything to do with being human, or is it simply a useful artifact? Crazy indeed, and without a doubt a source of many philosophical and religious debates! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Pixie* Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 If you upload your brain to a computer, is the copy of you still you (assuming accurate simulation technology)? I kinda think so. If it is, then is it still human? Because if it's you, and you're human, then it should be as well, no? Is it immoral to delete a fully thinking, fully functional copy of a human mind? I don't think that a simple upload of your "current" brain into computer would be totally YOU. What about the visceral/emotional response to thoughts that humans experience, so called gut feelings? More often YOU is a combination of things, not just the brain. And how about the brain plasticity? Humans are responsive to surroundings on a daily basis and form new ideas, concepts and thoughts at different rates. Would the computer chip be just as plastic and constantly changing? It sounds to me that it would more of a snapshot, or a storage drive of your thoughts/memories at the time. Which is a neat idea in itself, I think. Imagine: you could access your BCHEM knowledge of carbohydrate metabolism years down the road:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erk Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 I see what you mean. I think it does become particular hard at that point to define what actually constitutes a living human being. The mind? A soul? Are the mind and soul one in that uploading your brain to a computer it would still be whole? Does your human body have anything to do with being human, or is it simply a useful artifact? Crazy indeed, and without a doubt a source of many philosophical and religious debates! I really believe it's a question we're going to be faced with very, very soon. Possibly within our lifetimes. Furthermore, even if part of our persona stems from our body as well as our mind, that too can be simulated. It will be fascinating to learn if perfect digital simulations are identical to physical beings. If they are, it's going to do some harm to the concept of a soul. If they are not, it gives the idea of a soul some weight (although it might just imply that there is more to simulate that we're missing). I'm intensely curious to see it happen. And scared. Applying the same arguments to completely artificial intelligences gets even nastier. So, if we create a human mind, and it works just like the human, I could see how we might reach a consensus that it's unethical to destroy this mind (especially if it is the last remaining copy of that human. It gets fuzzier if there are multiples). However, I don't think we could get the same concensus on something completely created out of software, from scratch. It is going to get messy. I don't even know how I feel about the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Pixie* Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 The more I think about it, the cooler I think the whole idea of a chip is. What if you could constantly "renew" the chip with daily/ hourly/ momentarily uploads without replacing old knowledge, but adding to it? You could technically have this external hard drive with literally MORE memory that can be accessed by you at any time. COOL. However, another issue arises then: GREED. Are people using such a device simply greedy for knowledge...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erk Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 I don't think that a simple upload of your "current" brain into computer would be totally YOU. What about the visceral/emotional response to thoughts that humans experience, so called gut feelings? More often YOU is a combination of things, not just the brain. And how about the brain plasticity? Humans are responsive to surroundings on a daily basis and form new ideas, concepts and thoughts at different rates. Would the computer chip be just as plastic and constantly changing? It sounds to me that it would more of a snapshot, or a storage drive of your thoughts/memories at the time. Which is a neat idea in itself, I think. Imagine: you could access your BCHEM knowledge of carbohydrate metabolism years down the road:p I'm sure emotions and viscera could be just as simulated; they're no different from neurotransmitters in basic function. Plasticity of function is considered one of the basic requirements of artificial intelligence: an in silica life form needs to be able to adapt to be intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychoswim Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 It makes my head spin thinking about all the possibilities. And you're certainly right that we will be faced with all this soon. And it's so hard to imagine all the ramifications that we're bound to be surprised with accomplished facts at some points where we'll have to deal with the consequences rather than prevent them. Scary indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychoswim Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 The more I think about it, the cooler I think the whole idea of a chip is. What if you could constantly "renew" the chip with daily/ hourly/ momentarily uploads without replacing old knowledge, but adding to it? You could technically have this external hard drive with literally MORE memory that can be accessed by you at any time. COOL. However, another issue arises then: GREED. Are people using such a device simply greedy for knowledge...? Greed is an ingrained part of humanity, hard to believe no one would ever go down that route. I agree it would be cool and useful, but that would also mean no more sense of accomplishment in a way, no more than a computer can rejoice because it remembered a file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Pixie* Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 I'm sure emotions and viscera could be just as simulated; they're no different from neurotransmitters in basic function. Plasticity of function is considered one of the basic requirements of artificial intelligence: an in silica life form needs to be able to adapt to be intelligent. Would in silica "you" adapt in the same way a real you would? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erk Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Holy crap, reading about this on Wikipedia.... apparently mental simulation has already been accomplished on a rat neocortical column, as early as 2006, down to the molecular level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain Even if this sort of thing doesn't pan out for decades in humans, I shiver to think of the increased understanding of neurology that could develop from comparing molecular simulations to real brains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erk Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Would in silica "you" adapt in the same way a real you would? Oooh that is a fascinating question. I mean, we would develop differently because we'd live in different worlds, but if all other things were the same would the changes to our personalities be equal? Wow, what a fascinating idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Pixie* Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Oooh that is a fascinating question. I mean, we would develop differently because we'd live in different worlds, but if all other things were the same would the changes to our personalities be equal? Wow, what a fascinating idea. Yeah it could be parallel to having a twin, right? It was just born later on in your life... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychoswim Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Holy crap, reading about this on Wikipedia.... apparently mental simulation has already been accomplished on a rat neocortical column, as early as 2006, down to the molecular level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain Even if this sort of thing doesn't pan out for decades in humans, I shiver to think of the increased understanding of neurology that could develop from comparing molecular simulations to real brains. Wow! Reverse engineering of the brain.. it would surely open the door to huge developments in how we understand the inner workings of the brain and human body! What makes our personality? Only what we interact with or more? Riveting stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychoswim Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 Yeah it could be parallel to having a twin, right? It was just born later on in your life... If we think about a duplicate mind in a computer as a twin, then we could possibly assume its personality would not necessarily evolve like ours even if placed in the same environment? Just like identical twins develop different personalities even when they're very young and doing everything the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Pixie* Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 If we think about a duplicate mind in a computer as a twin, then we could possibly assume its personality would not necessarily evolve like ours even if placed in the same environment? Just like identical twins develop different personalities even when they're very young and doing everything the same. +1. 10 char Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erk Posted May 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 If we think about a duplicate mind in a computer as a twin, then we could possibly assume its personality would not necessarily evolve like ours even if placed in the same environment? Just like identical twins develop different personalities even when they're very young and doing everything the same. I think this is a question that, if answered, could revolutionise spiritual thinking. If the digital twin is exposed to an identical environment yet develops differently, that implies either: 1) a random element to the development of our identities, or 2) an element of our identity and development that can't be represented by pure molecular simulation of ourselves. I'm not sure we'll ever see a simulation technology that could answer the question effectively. Here's another question. If you could copy yourself into a computer, would you? And if you did, what would you do with it? Would you run it as an application on your laptop, or would you store it on a USB key for your loved ones to pull up if you died? I can see some things, like wills, being completely revolutionised. "Would Carl want to be resuscitated in a biosynth body? We should ask him, where's his last backup?" I kinda think I'd back myself up every year or so and occasionally pull up my old backups to chat about how life is going. But then, would that be wrong? Would each of my backups then be an independent individual whom I did not have the right to put into cold storage at my own whim? I could see my backups resenting being 'the copy' rapidly. I mean, all I have to do is picture myself being the one suddenly going black and then waking up a decade later, only to be put back into storage, and I know how I'd feel about it. EDIT: But then again, maybe you could differentiate between an active living simulation and a copy. Perhaps rather than 'awakening' the copy, you could just 'access' it, through a front that let you view how it would respond to things without actually altering its neurology. In other words, ask the brain questions while it's still asleep. See how you've changed without bringing your old self to life and having to deal with the shutdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psychoswim Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 I can see some things, like wills, being completely revolutionised. "Would Carl want to be resuscitated in a biosynth body? We should ask him, where's his last backup?" ... EDIT: But then again, maybe you could differentiate between an active living simulation and a copy. Perhaps rather than 'awakening' the copy, you could just 'access' it, through a front that let you view how it would respond to things without actually altering its neurology. In other words, ask the brain questions while it's still asleep. See how you've changed without bringing your old self to life and having to deal with the shutdown. This made me chuckle a bit! I think it would be fascinating to be able to see/interact with our mirror copy from years ago. However, I'm not sure I would go for it and back up myself. I don't know, maybe something about uniqueness and individuality is tickling at me. There'd definitely be an issue if that "copy" continues to evolve in a possibly different "being" along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehumanmacbook Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 As long as we don't give artificial intelligence the ability to self-propagate, we're fine. That what am I T_T, but a macbook turned human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.