coyotes22;679064 wrote:That humans will never be non-existent. The Lord will take over before anything like that ever happens. JMO

LOL

If you believe that humans, at their basest level, are nothing more than incredibly complex "computers" ... that they have no real free will ... that their actions and thoughts are dictated by the collocation of atoms and processes taking place within their body ... that they lack any non-physical element ... then yes, this is possible. In fact, it is probable.

What we 'believe" will have nothing to do with dealing with a potential intelligence greater than ourselves. It will be what it will be. We have, since the beginning of our existence, been the unchallenged intelligence on the planet. The point of the article, that even if fully benevolent, the fabric of human existence will be torn. The implications go beyond what can be easily imagined...for example one small aspect..technological unemployment.

Not only its creator, but it's motivator

....hmmmm...maybe not unlike ours.

HitsRus;679069 wrote:Putting your christianity aside....how do you feel about the possibility of the human body, including the brain, to be completely reversed engineered within the next two decades?

I just dont think it will happen.

HitsRus;679388 wrote:What we 'believe" will have nothing to do with dealing with a potential intelligence greater than ourselves. It will be what it will be. We have, since the beginning of our existence, been the unchallenged intelligence on the planet. The point of the article, that even if fully benevolent, the fabric of human existence will be torn. The implications go beyond what can be easily imagined...for example one small aspect..technological unemployment.

Indeed, provided that we initiate the ball rolling, there are a lot of things that can be done which probably canNOT even be imagined at this point. I was attesting to the notion that a computer could actually "choose" or "decide" something, rather than simply following its programming, which is all a completely physical entity can do.

HitsRus;679408 wrote:....hmmmm...maybe not unlike ours.

Indeed, a parallel can be made. Even moreso if you believe that humans also function in a predeterministic reality.

I am not so sure that once human intelligence superiority is breached, whether we will know what is happening inside the box of microchips.

HitsRus;679237 wrote:By 2045 a solitary 'machine' would have a greater computational power than all the human brains on the planet combined. Networked to other machines of the same power and an entity of unfathomable intelligence is created.

Sort of like another ............. QuakerOats?

O-Trap;679235 wrote:That's not an accurate definition of free will. Free will, by definition, is the polar opposite of predeterminism. If something's actions are completely controlled by its "programming" (referring as much to living things as to computers), then it is, and will always be, predetermined to function a certain way under certain circumstances, and it has no actual say in what it does, how it reacts to and engages its environment, or even what it thinks (even if those thoughts tell it that it has control over its actions ).

i understand its definition. but applied to cognitive thinking, it is the ability for one to reflect on previous experiences and the understanding of how our decisions shaped those experiences (how a different decision may/may not have changed the given outcome), and applying that knowledge to future circumstances to further enhance the human experience. This type of "free-will" can and will be utilized by artificial intelligence.

that being said, true free will is hard to empirically find. I'm not so sure there is such a thing.

I'm not too worried about it. If humans are stupid enough to create robots that are intelligent enough to overthrow us than we probably deserve to be wiped out.

Mulva;679605 wrote:I'm not too worried about it. If humans are stupid enough to create robots that are intelligent enough to overthrow us than we probably deserve to be wiped out.

I like this.

tcarrier32;679540 wrote:i understand its definition. but applied to cognitive thinking, it is the ability for one to reflect on previous experiences and the understanding of how our decisions shaped those experiences (how a different decision may/may not have changed the given outcome), and applying that knowledge to future circumstances to further enhance the human experience. This type of "free-will" can and will be utilized by artificial intelligence.

that being said, true free will is hard to empirically find. I'm not so sure there is such a thing.

I would contend that such "free will" is then, not truly free, particularly if one does not actually have the ability to choose or refrain from choosing, regardless of everything taken into account.

I know that, given minutia that computers will one day likely be able to take into account, they'll be able to take actions based on even the most seemingly insignificant details, but they would still possess no capability to act in such a way that would be contrary to the programming of their hardware.

I would agree that searching for free will empirically will produce virtually no results.

To Mulva:

Vinge writes in his treatise to NASA

"But if the technological Singularity can happen, it will. Even if all the governments of the world were to understand the "threat" and be in deadly fear of it, progress toward the goal would continue. In fiction, there have been stories of laws passed forbidding the construction of "a machine in the likeness of the human mind" [13]. In fact, the competitive advantage -- economic, military, even artistic -- of every advance in automation is so compelling that passing laws, or having customs, that forbid such things merely assures that someone else will get them first."

to otrap:

Vinge writes:

"There may be developed computers that are "awake" and superhumanly intelligent. (To date, there has been much controversy as to whether we can create human equivalence in a machine. But if the answer is "yes, we can", then there is little doubt that beings more intelligent can be constructed shortly thereafter.)
Large computer networks (and their associated users) may "wake up" as a superhumanly intelligent entity.
Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users may reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent.
Biological science may provide means to improve natural human intellect."

So, how many Christians here would, if given the choice, have their brain swapped into a cloned body and live into perpetuity? I know I would, at least until my time comes when said body malfunctions with a heart attack or I get hit by a bus. Death would, quite literally in all cases, be a tragedy.

Imagine that. You could live forever, but inevitably everyone will meet a tragic demise in a fire, plane crash, random mugging, etc... Maybe eventually you grow tired of the rat race, grow old and decide "maybe this time I want to see what lays beyond"

HitsRus;679656 wrote:to otrap:

Vinge writes:

"There may be developed computers that are "awake" and superhumanly intelligent. (To date, there has been much controversy as to whether we can create human equivalence in a machine. But if the answer is "yes, we can", then there is little doubt that beings more intelligent can be constructed shortly thereafter.)
Large computer networks (and their associated users) may "wake up" as a superhumanly intelligent entity.
Computer/human interfaces may become so intimate that users may reasonably be considered superhumanly intelligent.
Biological science may provide means to improve natural human intellect."

Hmm ... I'm not sure how this addresses anything I've said, really.

gut;679673 wrote:So, how many Christians here would, if given the choice, have their brain swapped into a cloned body and live into perpetuity? I know I would, at least until my time comes when said body malfunctions with a heart attack or I get hit by a bus. Death would, quite literally in all cases, be a tragedy.

Imagine that. You could live forever, but inevitably everyone will meet a tragic demise in a fire, plane crash, random mugging, etc... Maybe eventually you grow tired of the rat race, grow old and decide "maybe this time I want to see what lays beyond"

Eh, I suppose I'm not that interested in living until the end of time.

However, I don't have any ethical problem with it, I don't think.

Free will can best be defined as: We take chances even when the odds don't favor us. A computer, even a super intelligent computer that is predicated solely on the odds of a situation and millions upon millions of variables affecting that decision will never take the non-optimal choice.

A great thought on this is actually at the end of Matrix Revolutions when Agent Smith is beating the shit out of Neo and he can't understand the logic behind Neo constantly getting back up to get the shit beat out of him and simply says, because "I choose to." That's free will. The ability to purposefully take a chance. To risk more than is necessary. To go out on a limb when the odds are against you.

The one thing that a machine wouldn't have that humans have is an innate desire to procreate. A machine would have no desire, if they had a conscience would be to create more of themselves to compete against (capitalism at its finest). Human nature is to procreate in the fleeting acceptance that we will perish from this Earth and that in some small way we still will persist. So much of our work, thoughts, desires, etc are in the pursuit of sex. It creates some amazingly complex, beautiful, aggravating moments yet it defines us as who we are. A machine without the desire to impress another machine, to court them. To procreate. To become purposefully vulnerable to another to share their lives in a biological quest to procreate.

In the end. Our conscience is our fallibility. Our foibles and mistakes. Our way of coping with our imperfection. To admire the beauty in the perfect moment. To recognize them when they are so fleeting. To enjoy even the most downtrodden of events. To find the silver lining.

A machine that only knows perfection as the way would have no sense of empathy. No sense of self. No sense of chance. No sense of the fleeting moments we hold so dear in our minds.

A machine?

It would never know these things the way we know these things.

Sykotyk

O-Trap;679720 wrote:

gut;679673 wrote:So, how many Christians here would, if given the choice, have their brain swapped into a cloned body and live into perpetuity? I know I would, at least until my time comes when said body malfunctions with a heart attack or I get hit by a bus. Death would, quite literally in all cases, be a tragedy.

Imagine that. You could live forever, but inevitably everyone will meet a tragic demise in a fire, plane crash, random mugging, etc... Maybe eventually you grow tired of the rat race, grow old and decide "maybe this time I want to see what lays beyond"

Eh, I suppose I'm not that interested in living until the end of time.

However, I don't have any ethical problem with it, I don't think.

Nor am I, but I think it would be interesting to live for say, 1000 years, just to witness the advances of the human race.

dwccrew;679817 wrote:Nor am I, but I think it would be interesting to live for say, 1000 years, just to witness the advances of the human race.

That was my thinking, sort of literally experience EVERYTHING life has to offer and then, like, "ok, I'm done...I've had enough....Beam me up, Jesus". Although, faced with the choice, or possibility, that there is nothing more...

Hmm ... I'm not sure how this addresses anything I've said, really.

Yes, yes, I know you like to debate predeterminism and free will. But there is somewhat of a implication here that free will cannot be created or duplicated in a mere 'machine'.( see Sykotyk waxing eloquent).
We are, simply put, biological machines....a collection of biochemical pathways that transmit information. It may not matter whether we are carbon based or silicon based.
( coincidental that they are in the same group in the periodic table)
It is, of course, an assumption (or a faith) that there is something more to us then being just a biological machine. It is an assumption that we cannot create a machine with free will. Is it not said that we are made in the image and likeness of our own creator? If that is the case, why would we be precluded from our own creation of entities. The very essence of the 'singularity' is that we are on a precipice of an intellectual explosion where all the rules and confinements of our current thinking is thrown out. A transformation unlike anything seen in human history. Once it begins, we may not be able to pick and choose what is comfortable to us.

It might be more comfortable to look at this from afar....say a hundred years....where we can ponder in the scenario in relative safety knowing that it will never affect us personally.
Rather disconcerting, it is more likely that many of us alive today will experience it directly.

Sykotyk;679752 wrote:Free will can best be defined as: We take chances even when the odds don't favor us. A computer, even a super intelligent computer that is predicated solely on the odds of a situation and millions upon millions of variables affecting that decision will never take the non-optimal choice.

A great thought on this is actually at the end of Matrix Revolutions when Agent Smith is beating the shit out of Neo and he can't understand the logic behind Neo constantly getting back up to get the shit beat out of him and simply says, because "I choose to." That's free will. The ability to purposefully take a chance. To risk more than is necessary. To go out on a limb when the odds are against you.

The one thing that a machine wouldn't have that humans have is an innate desire to procreate. A machine would have no desire, if they had a conscience would be to create more of themselves to compete against (capitalism at its finest). Human nature is to procreate in the fleeting acceptance that we will perish from this Earth and that in some small way we still will persist. So much of our work, thoughts, desires, etc are in the pursuit of sex. It creates some amazingly complex, beautiful, aggravating moments yet it defines us as who we are. A machine without the desire to impress another machine, to court them. To procreate. To become purposefully vulnerable to another to share their lives in a biological quest to procreate.

In the end. Our conscience is our fallibility. Our foibles and mistakes. Our way of coping with our imperfection. To admire the beauty in the perfect moment. To recognize them when they are so fleeting. To enjoy even the most downtrodden of events. To find the silver lining.

A machine that only knows perfection as the way would have no sense of empathy. No sense of self. No sense of chance. No sense of the fleeting moments we hold so dear in our minds.

A machine?

It would never know these things the way we know these things.

Sykotyk

Interesting way of putting it. Ultimately, a computer can not do something with arbitrary motive.

dwccrew;679817 wrote:Nor am I, but I think it would be interesting to live for say, 1000 years, just to witness the advances of the human race.

Oooh, that WOULD be cool!

HitsRus;680254 wrote:Yes, yes, I know you like to debate predeterminism and free will.

Not really, unless it is brought up in discussion. I don't really go out of my way to do so, though.

HitsRus;680254 wrote:But there is somewhat of a implication here that free will cannot be created or duplicated in a mere 'machine'.( see Sykotyk waxing eloquent).

And this is my point. As close as a computer can be to humanity, the ability to make a choice or take an action for arbitrary reasons is something I don't think can be replicated. In a nutshell, that's all my initial post was intended to say. Really didn't plan on spending so much time on this topic.

But I do tend to get sucked into a topic upon replies.

HitsRus;680254 wrote:We are, simply put, biological machines....a collection of biochemical pathways that transmit information. It may not matter whether we are carbon based or silicon based.
( coincidental that they are in the same group in the periodic table)
It is, of course, an assumption (or a faith) that there is something more to us then being just a biological machine.

Indeed, but what one believes regarding this carries its own slew of implications. Moreover, observation of the human condition, and its tendency to periodically make choices based on what seems to be arbitrarity is something that, to me, indicates that human beings and their actions are products of more than just the accidental collocation of atoms.

HitsRus;680254 wrote:It is an assumption that we cannot create a machine with free will. Is it not said that we are made in the image and likeness of our own creator? If that is the case, why would we be precluded from our own creation of entities. The very essence of the 'singularity' is that we are on a precipice of an intellectual explosion where all the rules and confinements of our current thinking is thrown out. A transformation unlike anything seen in human history. Once it begins, we may not be able to pick and choose what is comfortable to us.

It might be more comfortable to look at this from afar....say a hundred years....where we can ponder in the scenario in relative safety knowing that it will never affect us personally.
Rather disconcerting, it is more likely that many of us alive today will experience it directly.

Fair points. I can't say I have any reason to believe that we can program "arbitrarity." However, I don't assert with resolution that it will never be the case.

Has anyone been watching Jeopardy, suggest watching … IBM vs Man
http://singularityhub.com/2011/02/14/its-showtime-ibms-watson-to-make-history-with-jeopardy-performance-today/

No computer will ever be able to think like me .....or write like me ..... or make decisions like me. Computer may calculate the logical answer in a highest percentage of correctness but does not have the “will” to make irrational decision when required.

Who really want a computer to think like Belly

Who really want a computer to think like Belly

A point well taken.

Moreover, observation of the human condition, and its tendency to periodically make choices based on what seems to be arbitrarity is something that, to me, indicates that human beings and their actions are products of more than just the accidental collocation of atoms.

more? or less?


My point dear otrap, is that we have been sailing on the rather calm waters on a lake of existence. As we post on facebook( which did not exist 6 years ago), on a smart phone that didn't exist 3 years ago.... we think how cool, look how quick we are moving! We have entered the rapids, moving ever faster and closer to a precipice. There are smart people on this planet that can tell you what amazing things your "phone" will do in the next two years. They can see even out to 12 years. But they are telling us after that....all bets are off.
Don't you think it is kind of ironic that we debate the mundane...flailing about madly about the deficit or what Social Security might look like in 75 years?......all the time ignoring that we are on a brink of another kind.

HitsRus;680383 wrote:more? or less?

More, I contend.

HitsRus;680383 wrote:My point dear otrap, is that we have been sailing on the rather calm waters on a lake of existence. As we post on facebook( which did not exist 6 years ago), on a smart phone that didn't exist 3 years ago.... we think how cool, look how quick we are moving! We have entered the rapids, moving ever faster and closer to a precipice. There are smart people on this planet that can tell you what amazing things your "phone" will do in the next two years. They can see even out to 12 years. But they are telling us after that....all bets are off.
Don't you think it is kind of ironic that we debate the mundane...flailing about madly about the deficit or what Social Security might look like in 75 years?......all the time ignoring that we are on a brink of another kind.

"Dear otrap." I like that. Makes me think of "Dear Abby."

Oh, I don't disagree with anything you're saying here (apart from Facebook, which has been around for 7 years ... I was one of the early ones on there ), and I even agree with thinking that our energies spent on one front are ironic given the excitement we ought to have on another front, given that we are racing closer and closer to a new "era" as it were, particularly in reference to the time frames that we seem to think we can "play with" in each. I suppose one can look at history and see a difference in ability to project and notice trends, but still, it would seem that even 12 years from now is far enough away that any milieu within our society that progresses as quickly as technology should be left up to pure speculation.