E
empther
Guest
The real problem is getting points across to…I don’t think your points will have any effect on a biological machine without a soul…
…er…
Never mind. I already hold the record for most suspensions in one year.
- Status
…er…
Never mind. I already hold the record for most suspensions in one year.
T
tonyrey
Guest
In that case Baptists and Cynics are the same, just seen from different angles…I love the responses from folk who two hundred years ago would claim flying machines are an unnatural abomination and no one will ever transmit messages through ye aether. Maybe people of faith and skeptics are the same, just seen from different angles.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Then you have nothing to fear. There must be a reason why you have survived! :clapping:The real problem is getting points across to…
…er…
Never mind. I already hold the record for most suspensions in one year.
T
tonyrey
Guest
An excellent example is a person who upholds the superiority of artificial humans and denigrates the mental capacity of his own species.
B
Bradski
Guest
OK, a thought experiment. Many years into the future, we have reached a point whereby damaged portions of a brain can be replaced with artifical parts. They work so well that anyone who has had a part replaced because of disease or accident is unaware of any differences. They still feel like the same person they were.I don’t think your points will have any effect on a biological machine without a soul…
Someone has a degenerative brain disease and over many years, parts of his natural brain are removed and artifical parts inserted in their place. He also has a physical wasting disease so that parts of his body are gradually replaced.
At some point, there is nothing natural left and he is composed entirely of artifical parts.
Is he still human? Will he still have a soul?
I
inocente
Guest
If God thought humans are perfect then Christ would not have needed to die for us. And if we’re not perfect then we’re in no position to mock the idea that something more perfect than us can be made. So yes, I am very cynical about the notion that God can be ordered to allow or disallow things.
Not that I agree with the OP. Any artificial humans would evolve similar traits as us. It stands to reason that individuals will both aid and compete with each other, otherwise they would not be individuals, they would be a collective (like Star Trek’s Borg).
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I know someone who has all these traits. His name begins " B. "There are a few threads are going on about the question of the possibility of creating artificial humans. In this thread I would like to examine a specific aspect of this question. Humans have a whole lot of mental properties. One of them is stupidity. Another one is dishonesty – both intellectual and moral. Then there are mentally deficient (crazy) people. Some people believe in superstitions. (For the sake of avoiding derail attempts, I will (reluctantly!) exclude religion from the list.) People are capable of doublethink – holding two mutually contradictory views simultaneously and believing both of them – which is a mental disorder. And lots of other negative aspects are also included in the members of Homo sapiens. (Sapiens??? My big left toe.
The point is that no one would purposefully implement these traits in some artificial beings, be they human imitations or not. We attempt to implement the positive traits, and we make some baby steps along the road, even though there is a very long way to go.
IBM’s Watson is able to analyze intentionally vague, sometimes even misleading clues and was able to beat the best of the Jeopardy champions. Chess programs can beat the human world champions. Medical diagnostic programs can make better evaluations than most doctors can. Face recognition programs can analyze thousands of faces in a crowd, and recognize one from a picture. And we barely scratched the surface of the possibilities. Of course these are not mutually exclusive traits, so it is possible to create one being, who has all of these abilities.
It looks like that we are going to be able to build some seriously “handicapped” artificial beings, which will have our “good traits”, but lack our negative ones. (If that would be considered a “handicap”.) It would not have the ability to cheat and lie, it would never be lazy or uncaring, it would be something that a “perfect” human would be. If you realize that this “handicap” is the result of the limitation (but not lack of) of “free will” you are on the right track.
That is an admirable aim to pursue. Why would anyone wish to build a creature with mental disorder? Or a con man? Or a serial killer?
I think you have too much time on your hands.
Linus2nd
B
Bagheera
Guest
You seem to be mistaken. In the OP I specifically said that making artificial humans would be a stupid idea, because to be a “human” would also include the undesirable traits. It seems to be much better to go on and build specialized entities, like Watson and his ilk.
E
empther
Guest
Bradski, who says he’s an atheist, wrote:
A thought experiment is supposed to determine the possible and the impossible.
For example: Einstein’s thought experiment about the man standing next to a railroad track and watching a train approach shows the impossibility of anything traveling faster than light because of the resulting absurdities. For example: if the train was traveling faster than light, the man would see it when it’s close to him before he saw it a mile away. It would appear to be traveling backwards. This is absurb.
But you assume parts of a biological organism can be replaced by artificial parts until there’s nothing left of the original. Your thought experiment does not prove this is possible, or impossible, and so it’s worthless, and any speculation derived from it is worthless.
A thought experiment is supposed to determine the possible and the impossible.
For example: Einstein’s thought experiment about the man standing next to a railroad track and watching a train approach shows the impossibility of anything traveling faster than light because of the resulting absurdities. For example: if the train was traveling faster than light, the man would see it when it’s close to him before he saw it a mile away. It would appear to be traveling backwards. This is absurb.
But you assume parts of a biological organism can be replaced by artificial parts until there’s nothing left of the original. Your thought experiment does not prove this is possible, or impossible, and so it’s worthless, and any speculation derived from it is worthless.
T
tonyrey
Guest
How is this related to my statements?
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
You raise a challenging question.
I am no scientist, but it seems feasible (although perhaps a long way of), that a computer program which has quasi-human perception and though processes could be made.
Now, what I don’t understand is, if such a program was made, how it could have any motives or desires (like, why prefer to know than not, why prefer to survive than not). These things seemed linked to hormones and physiology- which also, as I understand it, cause emotions.
But, again, in principle, I suppose they could be reduced to pre-progrmed responses, etc. But it would be immensely complex.
So, you are saying, why not place involiable ‘moral inhibitions’ in this being (like, against dishonesty)? In principle, I suppose it could be done.
But my response is, what would be the point? As I understand it, the whole point of human life is to save our souls- to return the Divine Spark back to Heaven. If there were quasi-human without this Divine Spark, with nothing to redeem, surely their existence would be utterly, utterly pointless.
If we programmed them to have desires, it would simply be causing suffering, since any desire which is not achieved implies some degree of suffering. But if they have no desires, their existence is (from their point of view) also utterly futile.
Let’s imagine you could make a fully sentient washing maching. Would there be anything more cruel?
I am no scientist, but it seems feasible (although perhaps a long way of), that a computer program which has quasi-human perception and though processes could be made.
Now, what I don’t understand is, if such a program was made, how it could have any motives or desires (like, why prefer to know than not, why prefer to survive than not). These things seemed linked to hormones and physiology- which also, as I understand it, cause emotions.
But, again, in principle, I suppose they could be reduced to pre-progrmed responses, etc. But it would be immensely complex.
So, you are saying, why not place involiable ‘moral inhibitions’ in this being (like, against dishonesty)? In principle, I suppose it could be done.
But my response is, what would be the point? As I understand it, the whole point of human life is to save our souls- to return the Divine Spark back to Heaven. If there were quasi-human without this Divine Spark, with nothing to redeem, surely their existence would be utterly, utterly pointless.
If we programmed them to have desires, it would simply be causing suffering, since any desire which is not achieved implies some degree of suffering. But if they have no desires, their existence is (from their point of view) also utterly futile.
Let’s imagine you could make a fully sentient washing maching. Would there be anything more cruel?
G
GEddie
Guest
Why would one even bother doing such a thing?
ICXC NIKA
ICXC NIKA
E
empther
Guest
Why would one even bother talking about something which is impossible?
B
Bradski
Guest
So if a train was travelling towards you faster than the speed of sound, then it would sound like it was travelling backwards? Maybe you need to rethink your analogy.
Neither does Einstein’s thought experiment (as you related it) prove or disprove that something can move faster than light. It just points out anomalies. Was it worthless? A thought experiment is just that. Something to think about while you’re waiting for the bus.
B
Bahman
Guest
Accepting materialist point of view and assuming that brain activity is reducible to several parts which is not the case. Our senses interact with thoughts and emotions in complex manner.
M
mikekle
Guest
Well, DARPA seems pretty intent on creating artifical humans, and their purpose will be entirely secular, you are right, a created being like this would have no other purpose but for some function in the world, they can already create robots who can learn and form ‘interests’ but in the future, Im sure the artificial humans will be pretty close to humans, but will not age, have any type of illnesses, or disease, etc.
They will not be inherently dishonest or evil, but the longer they exist, Im sure they can and will form opinions, but it will be based on facts and I could see them making collective decisions as a result, this could be bad for humans too!
Essentially, these types of robots/artificial humans will be perfect, and as technology progresses, they will only get smarter and gain more functions, it is entirely possible they will grow to despise humans and see all their flaws, Think of where this technology is today, then think where it will be in another 50 yrs or so…AMAZING!!! so they very well could retaliate, which if happened, it would be devastating to mankind.
E
empther
Guest
If a train or jet plane was traveling towards you faster than the speed of sound, you’d hear a continuous sonic boom which travels at the same speed as the plane, but it wouldn’t sound like the thing going backwards.
( The faster than sound plane causes a sonic boom, not the sound of a plane. Got it? )
Not just “anomalies”, a word you used to change what I said.
Absurdities. Impossibilities.
And so Einstein’s thought experiment proves something logically. Even the most rigid laboratory experiment requires some logical thought to reach a conclusion.
M
mikekle
Guest
Thats a good question, but I dont think anyone here can answer it, only God could, we can speculate but what are the chances we would be right?
IMO, there definitely would be SOME point where the person stops being human and becomes something else, but only God would know when that takes place, and then comes the question, if this person has all this artificial technology, then what happens when he continues living past a normal age of death with no signs of aging?
What would happen to a persons nature if we had the technology to basically prevent them from aging or dying? This is entirely possible in the near future, Seems to me it would be a slap in the face of God.
G
GEddie
Guest
I would disagree, but that’s just me.
The need to fight death is innate in our heads. If God does not want something to happen, it simply won’t.
ICXC NIKA
E
edwest2
Guest
Opinions about what? Why? They will do as programmed and that’s it. They will be added to the battlefield, not as intelligent beings with a will, but as humanoid killing machines.
Learning and prohibitions will be programmed in. They will never be us or like us. They will be things - devices. Nothing more.
Peace,
Ed
- Status