Should man become machine?

[Lenny]

it’s interesting that we have this idea of deity [i.e., immortality] within the human psyche as if it is something we should strive for…..

Well, we can achieve it by perpetuating the human race.
The life of one man is rather meaningless, but the existence of Mankind -- along with our undying purpose of the ennobling of Mannkind -- is very meaningful.



But to get back on track, there is a cosmic irony: Things we think we want are often best left unattained.

Many people would think that they would want a life of perpetual leisure, if they could get it. But such a thing has often been understood by wise men to be a terrible idea :

If all the year were playing holidays,
To sport would be as tedious as to work;
But when they seldom come, they wish'd for come,
And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.
--Wm.Shakespeare

[Baron Samedi]

I look forward to the day we can augment ourself a-la Deus Ex (older PC game, look it up...).

[Piparskeggr]

Divinity.

An old Greek concept: Deus ex Machina

[Zankapfel]

The beauty of AI research is there are multiple motivations, some commercially focused, some philosophically motivated, some driven by a spirit of engineering, some altruistic, some just flat out insane. This brings different kinds of resources and input to the overall problem set.
I'm a bit tired of philosophical diatribe, I suspect that humans do not need to solve problems intelligently all the time, I'm not sure how I think of biological longevity and I'm definitely not much of an Utopian.
But, if you consider the amount of intelligence as a scalar value that can be represented by both AI minds and human minds, then I believe we already have a decently high amount of intelligence on the planet.
The key is that the amount of intelligence available to us is still very low compared to what it could be with AI. If our planet-wide intelligence was to be networked through AI, then the intelligence bandwidth could be distributed efficiently when/where problems need to be solved. More could be done with less. And that, to me, would be AI's strongest and best purpose.
I'm a Mechatronics student, and most of the stuff I'm doing currently doesn't really count as AI. Still my primary interest would be producing machines which have some independent existence and personhood.
Machines which can in some sense understand the physical world around them in a way which is meaningful so, that's mainly my focus.
Don't ask, I have not worked out all the bugs yet.

[Monolith]

Divinity.

Transcendence, rather.

You both seem to know that you want to be something more than you currently are. How would you define this higher state of being, and why is it a superior state in the first place?

Being both mortal and knowledgeable of it is human, right from the Epic of Gilgamesh the difference between man and God(s) has been often the quality of mortality. Yet it’s interesting that we have this idea of deity within the human psyche as if it is something we should strive for…..

IMO, most motives for creating this idea of Man becoming a Deity stem from the subconscious fear of dying, rather than from some impulse for self improvement, hence the hope of developing new technologies as a means to escape from our inevitable fate.

But, if you consider the amount of intelligence as a scalar value that can be represented by both AI minds and human minds, then I believe we already have a decently high amount of intelligence on the planet.

I don't think something as abstract as human intelligence can be assigned a scalar value.

[Piparskeggr]

A philosophy professor of mine once quipped: "The sum total of intelligence on this planet is a constant, unfortunately the population amongst which it is split keeps growing."

Gods help us if we build machines using up the resource ,-)

[Svipdag]

I think that whether the conscious android were a monster would depend on the personality transferred. Only certain types of personality would be suitable for android immortality.

As I have already indicated, only a person essentially immune to boredom could endure immortality, even if the body were an immortal biological body.
Were the threat of death to be eliminated, the urgency for achievement would be removed. A being given forever to accomplish his ends could be much calmer, less "driven" that one who is in a race with death.

Impulsive thoughtless individuals would make unsatisfactory immortals. A thoughtful person, however, could take advantage of unlimited time to consider the potential effects of his actions before acting. Much ill-considered conduct could be obviated. Such an immortal would be a sage rather than a monster.

Granted that an android body would have certain sensory limitations. It would neither eat nor drink and could not experience the sensations , other than taste, which accompany these actions. On the other hand, the android could appreciate much finer sensations of sight, hearing, and smell than a mortal human being. Indeed, it could easily be arranged for the android to shut off any sense which is being offended and to regulate the sensitivity to any enjoyable sensation.

I am assuming that the android could be made capable of experiencing emotions without being driven by them. Always self-controlled, such a being would be much less of a monster than many members of the human race. It could experience hate, lust, despair, et al. without being dominated by them.

I cannot imagine why the android body would be any more of a prison than the human body. Indeed, it seems to me that the android psyche would be freer than it had ever been whilst trammeled by the limitations of a human body and oppressed by the fear of death.

[Psychonaut]

Have you been reading Kurzwiel's books lately, Liffrea?

I'm one of those Luddites he keeps mentioning in The Age of Spiritual Machines. However, my objection is philosophical, not practical.

So many proponents of AI and cybernetics place mind as the defining characteristic of humanity. But, to treat the human mind as being somehow separable from the human body is to accept the Cartesian proposition that mind and body are built from qualitatively different substances and that they somehow interact through an intermediary mechanism. This is a theory of mind that is, IMO, untenable and riddled with prima facie absurdities. Rather, I hold a panpsychist position and would say that the more of the particular body that results in the event that is that particular human is replaced by mechanical parts, the less human he becomes. To fundamentally alter the body is to fundamentally alter the mind, and thus become inhuman. Transhumanists see this as positive, but I am far too conservative in my thinking to make such an assessment.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Psychonaut
Have you been reading Kurzwiel's books lately, Liffrea?

I can’t say I have heard of him, my main introduction to the subject was through Gregory Stock’s book Metaman some years back also various Futurology websites, but I’ve recently become interested in the concepts again, probably watching too much BSG and Caprica!

So many proponents of AI and cybernetics place mind as the defining characteristic of humanity. But, to treat the human mind as being somehow separable from the human body is to accept the Cartesian proposition that mind and body are built from qualitatively different substances and that they somehow interact through an intermediary mechanism. This is a theory of mind that is, IMO, untenable and riddled with prima facie absurdities.

I’m not decided yet how I perceive the question of mind, I’m probably more inclined to a physicalist viewpoint but I’m also unconvinced that mind can be reduced solely to brain states. The question of mind was a major catalyst in me questioning the mechanistic and reductionist view of the world.

Rather, I hold a panpsychist position and would say that the more of the particular body that results in the event that is that particular human is replaced by mechanical parts, the less human he becomes.

I saw you mention that in your discussion with SuuT, I’ve managed to download a copy of Skrbina’s work, and I’ve started reading it…..I’m not sure (initially) if I hold with a panpsychic view as such given that I do tend to see higher order consciousness as uniquely human, presumably there could be different levels of mind in some form of emergent pattern….

To fundamentally alter the body is to fundamentally alter the mind, and thus become inhuman. Transhumanists see this as positive, but I am far too conservative in my thinking to make such an assessment.

I can appreciate that standpoint, it is something I have wondered over, if we accept that there is a coming age of machine and bioengineering as regards humanity there will, inevitably, arise a question of what it means to be human both physically and mentally.

[Eldritch]

To fundamentally alter the body is to fundamentally alter the mind, and thus become inhuman.

Transhuman, rather than inhuman.

EDIT:

I'll expand on this a little further tomorrow.