Guest roger Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 Just one that I can think of, the serious pursuit of answers to the various questions raised. Well I suppose that we are in agreement there. what are your suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest daviie Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 I really think that cannot be prescribed. The best that I can do is to relate my own experience and findings to an existing framework that is, or may be, roughly consistent with my own perceptions, and build or discard from there. I find a framework consistent with the work of G I Gurdjieff, suited to me. I do not for a minute expect others to agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore trout Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 (edited) hi daviie could ya give a synopsis of ya view in a few paragraphs to add to the conversation?as i see it, the best way to find out about how ya brain works is to observe it and, my observations lead me to think, as stated above, that theres something going on which would be impossible, at the moment, to reproduce, as we are very far from understanding its mechanisms. while we may be able to map and reproduce the "pattern" of a brain, this would not function as our brains do, as, not only does a brain store information, it sorts and enhances that information, or rather, there is a mechanism by which we can, by act of will, change the structure of our brains, enhancing certain patterns and letting others disipate Edited November 19, 2008 by kilgore trout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 "Is it philosophicaly possible, given a high enough level of technology to transfer(and or copy) a persons mind to some external device and still have it to all intents and purposes be the same individual? how does this relate to AI?" Hi thread I see it like this. I am just a biological machine, given enough storage (and were getting there) it will be possible to transfer my mind into a machine. I will not be the same, my environment will have changed significantly. Artificial intelligence is just around the corner, when a device can create its own purpose then it will be intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ngoma Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 "Is it philosophicaly possible, given a high enough level of technology to transfer(and or copy) a persons mind to some external device and still have it to all intents and purposes be the same individual? how does this relate to AI?"Hi thread I see it like this. I am just a biological machine, given enough storage (and were getting there) it will be possible to transfer my mind into a machine. I will not be the same, my environment will have changed significantly. Artificial intelligence is just around the corner, when a device can create its own purpose then it will be intelligent. Never. You could never build a machine to be as illogical as a human being, to emotionally pick and choose which few pieces of the billions of bits of stimuli entering the brain they are going to recognise and then discard the rest. Artificial intelligence will always be sub-human for that reason alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 (edited) Never. You could never build a machine to be as illogical as a human being, to emotionally pick and choose which few pieces of the billions of bits of stimuli entering the brain they are going to recognise and then discard the rest. Artificial intelligence will always be sub-human for that reason alone. "and what makes you say that, other than your feelings?" I feel humans will be capable of designing a flawed (as you describe) machine. What is it that makes us human? Strip away the layers bit by bit until...........................it is no longer human. I am thinking about this a lot at the moment. Edited October 17, 2009 by stickybackplastic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hostile Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 A human is a creature which kills something and then wears it's corpse as a hat, just to see if it looks good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randalizer Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 A human is a creature which kills something and then wears it's corpse as a hat, just to see if it looks good. Yea. We're practical that way. Let nothing go to waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groovelick Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) A human is a creature which kills something and then wears it's corpse as a hat, just to see if it looks good. Doesn't that stem from when we use to kill thing's and wear the skin's to kill some more of them. e2a randi sneeked in while I was roachin Edited October 20, 2009 by groovelick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randalizer Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Doesn't that stem from when we use to kill thing's and wear the skin's to kill some more of them. Any thoughts towards that are almost entirely speculation. But yea. The hunters that came back with their kills, wore adornments to show what they had accomplished for the survival of the tribe. The ones with the biggest, best adornments got the girl of their choice. And the bling bling continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hostile Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Yea. We're practical that way. Let nothing go to waste. We can kill for practical reasons, but I'm suggesting that humanity is the only creature that'll kill for the sake of amusement or fashion or any other petty self-involved concept. There's something else in our brains that hears us think "I don't need to kill this thing" and then asks "but maybe you should anyway?" We'll kill to see what happens to something when it dies, or just to say that we killed it. On reflection there's obviously far less miserable examples of our uniqueness. For example: many species of animal mate for life, some species of animal have sex for pleasure, but only one species of animal has turned sex into a highly lucrative industry. We're awesome like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I think it’s all in the communication. The Turing test will do for me.(my interpretation) If I can communicate in a meaningful way with an entity then it’s as good as human (intelligent). Whether rational or emotional communication it matters not. I would have no problem getting it on with say, the Borg Queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boojum Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) If there were such a thing as (like in some sci fi films) an AI construct that you could download your personality into, I'd love to have downloaded my personality into one before I started drinking so much, and then talk to it now, drunk. I'm sure alcohol over the years has made me less intelligent, what with how it destroys braincells, but I also know that I've come up with ideas drunk (same as stoned and on acid) that I'd never have come up with sober. It would be interesting to talk to a 'me' that is my age, but never became an alcoholic. Preferably one that had otherwise lived the same life, but that aint possible (even in sci fi terms, cos sci fi has got to make some sense somewhere or else it just doesn't work) cos my life has been greatly shaped by my alcoholism, a sober me wouldn't have lived the same life. But it would be fascinating to talk to different versions of yourself. I'd love to talk to a me that never got into drinking, a me that never did hallucinogens, a me that never smoked pot and a me that wasn't a manic depressive. That would be fascinating. E2A I'm not lumping hallucinogens and smoking pot in with drinking and manic depression, by the way. I feel hallucinogens and pot have had a positive effect on my development as a person. Alcohol and manic depression have probably had a negative effect. But they are the 4 things that have all had a significant effect, more than anything else. Edited October 21, 2009 by Boojum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blayz'd Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 We can kill for practical reasons, but I'm suggesting that humanity is the only creature that'll kill for the sake of amusement or fashion or any other petty self-involved concept. I disagree man. Cats for one are the same. I saw a bobcat on youtube a while back which found a venomous snake. The bobcat beat the snake to death and then wandered off without eating it. There's the point that the snake was venomous and he was killing it so he didn't have to worry about getting had by it. I doubt this was the case though. Even housecats are similar in their actions. They like to kill stuff for amusement. So if we're like it, and cats are like it. There's gonna be others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boojum Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 We can kill for practical reasons, but I'm suggesting that humanity is the only creature that'll kill for the sake of amusement or fashion or any other petty self-involved concept. There's something else in our brains that hears us think "I don't need to kill this thing" and then asks "but maybe you should anyway?" We'll kill to see what happens to something when it dies, or just to say that we killed it.On reflection there's obviously far less miserable examples of our uniqueness. For example: many species of animal mate for life, some species of animal have sex for pleasure, but only one species of animal has turned sex into a highly lucrative industry. We're awesome like that. Dunno man, as far as the first part goes we don't know why animals kill. Most animals kill for food, or defence, but perhaps it's to do with instinct. A raptor or a stoat, a shark or a tiger, they kill to eat or for territory/defence/ whatever, but it's instinct driven. But troops of male chimpanzees have been observed to just kill, for what appears to be sport (they kill smaller monkeys, but they don't always eat them, sometimes they just throw the corpse around), killer whales have been seen to do the same with seals. Those behaviours are not about instinct any more than man killing just for the 'fun' of it is. Once we've gone beyond instinct (and it's not just humans that have, other animals operate on more than instinct, maybe it's just that we've got to the point when we've truly gone beyond instinct, instinct is the least part of our behaviour, but the bit of us that controls us now - maybe our desires or whatever you want to call it, maybe that just needs a lot more time to evolve - the animal bit of us has evolved as far as it can go, but the next part of us is still in its infancy, but that will only evolve if we don't manage to wipe ourselves out first like babies crawling round with hand grenades). Sorry, as is apparent, I'm blotto again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now