Should man become machine?

[Liffrea]

What’s your view on cybernetic advancement and artificial intelligence?

What does it mean for our definition of “human”?

Is the human form as it is some how “sacred”?

Are you a cyborg sent from the future to kill John Connor?

[poiuytrewq0987]

We strive to better ourselves everyday, if a mechanical part can make us perform better in something then so be it.

[Saruman]

I would gladly forfeit my life as it is to become a machine or cyborg or something else with much greater mental and physical capabilities. The improvement I consider eternal and never stopping, in sacred I do not believe, even if "God" would lift an Empire State Building just to prove his existence to me, I would still consider him just an advanced life form who's status can be theoretically reached. If I believe in sacred, the sacred is eternal evolution.
I guess this won't go well with many people around here but we surely have many different opinions, but that's what I believe, always have and always will. And I do not intend to depart this existence without at least attempting to take steps in that direction.

[Cail]

Yes. Cyborgisation, biorobotic, genedesign and direct brain-computer interface are the future.

[W. R.]

I do not think much of intelligence be it artificial of not. It are our instincts and blind desires which make us 'human' in the first place. If cyborgisation means getting rid of these, then it will mean beginning of a new race, not human. Do I believe in a bright future of this new race? Er... No.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/psychology/freuds_model.jpg

[Eldritch]

What’s your view on cybernetic advancement and artificial intelligence?

I'm a Transhumanist. If the Singularity fails to come then the human race is probably ultimately doomed.


What does it mean for our definition of “human”?

Is the human form as it is some how “sacred”?

I think being human has nothing to do with our biological, anatomical form -- which is the result of blind evolution, is deeply flawed and fails in less than a mere century.


Are you a cyborg sent from the future to kill John Connor?

I wish. :p

[Ulf]

Before I die I'd like to be at least partially bionic maybe when I'm really old have a fake heart or something. If humanity is ever going to reach out to the stars then I think the only way that will happen is with man-machines.

It'd be pretty cool if it could get advanced enough to be like the anime Ghost in the Shell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell), with the brain cases and fully cyborg humans.

If we can become part machine then we can break free, partly or wholly, from evolution and control our own changes and path.

[Piparskeggr]

Pacemaker...I am already. :D

[Crux]

If we achive that knowladge then yes ofcourse, we must always look forward.

[Monolith]

http://www.kheper.net/topics/psychology/freuds_model.jpg
I am unwilling to sacrifice the submerged part of the iceberg for some minor upgrade on its tip. There's always a trade-off.

[The Khagan]

I do not think much of intelligence be it artificial of not. It are our instincts and blind desires which make us 'human' in the first place. If cyborgisation means getting rid of these, then it will mean beginning of a new race, not human. Do I believe in a bright future of this new race? Er... No.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/psychology/freuds_model.jpg

About sums it up for me.

There is nothing of merit about artificially enhancing oneself in that manner. Being human is being on the tight rope between beast and something more. Get rid of the Id, you destroy the human. That dichotomy of cognition, and primordial instinct is what makes us human.

[Aramis]

What's after machine?

[Svipdag]

I foresee the day when a human being's personality and memories can be transferred to the "brain" of a virtually indestructible and easily repaired android, resulting in a kind of immortality in a mechanical body.

The android can be provided with all of the senses of a human being, in improved form with respect to sensitivity, range of , e.g. wavelengths iof light, frequencies of sound, sensitivity and discrimination of sensations of smell, taste, touch, and kinaesthesia, but lacking the sensation of pain.

There is, of course, no reason why androids could not be provided with organs suitable for recreational, though not reproductive sex, and no reason why they should be denied the experience of orgasms.

Of course, this would not be suitable for everyone. Immortality is a curse for those who lack curiosity and/or are subject to boredom. Only those few of us whose curiosity is forever insatiable and who eternally seek new experience
could endure immortality.

The android would not need food, oxygen, sleep, heat (as long as the ambient temperature was not too close to 0 degrees Kelvin or Rankine). It could "live" anywhere, especially in places unfit for human occupancy.

This may, indeed, not be the destiny of the human race, as it is debatable whether the androids should be considered "human", but it is the destiny of a new race which could range the universe, travelling, not only to the stars, but to other galaxies.

Ther transfer of the personalitiy and memories could made at any time before the death of the biological body that the brain was still in sound condition. For a short time, the mortal would be aware of having two bodies, they being kept in total communication with each other until the mortal was willing to surrender his aged biological body and go on forever in a bionic body.

[Monolith]

I foresee the day when a human being's personality and memories can be transferred to the "brain" of a virtually indestructible and easily repaired android, resulting in a kind of immortality in a mechanical body.

Wouldn't that be a prison of sorts, to be eternally caged in a mechanical shell?

Anyway, I believe that even if our knowledge regarding our physiology, molecular biology, psychology etc. were absolute, it would still be insufficient to transfer the human mind in its wholeness into an artificial vessel, due to fact that the complexity of human mind is the result of countless interwoven and inseparable elements, many of them being biological. In other words, such artificial people would cease to be us. And if it were possible to transfer the mind elsewhere, the question arises: could it also be possible to duplicate it?

To quote Loki, in a way, we strive to become something more because we don't like ourselves.

[Piparskeggr]

I was listening to a discussion on the radio a few years ago about AI. One philosopher opined that it was, in his view, an impossible dream because a machine will never be able to ask questions, which have never been asked before.

[Cail]

What's after machine?

Divinity.

[Lenny]

[the human body] is deeply flawed and fails in less than a mere century.
The only reason "Life Is Sweet" is because it is short.

A never-ending life would be a kind of torture.

How can every [or any] moment be sweet, if a single entity has millions of years' worth of "moments"? It would be meaningless.

[Lenny]

I foresee the day when a human being's personality and memories can be transferred to the "brain" of a virtually indestructible and easily repaired android, resulting in a kind of immortality in a mechanical body.
A large part of a human's personality/psyche stems from his (sub)consciousness of his impending death.

Transferring consciousness into an immortal robotic body would not be the same person any longer, but a monster.

[Eldritch]

Divinity.

Transcendence, rather.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Ullarsskald
I was listening to a discussion on the radio a few years ago about AI. One philosopher opined that it was, in his view, an impossible dream because a machine will never be able to ask questions, which have never been asked before.

We simply don’t understand what mind actually is to know whether or not a conscious machine is possible, a superior to human cognitive machine already exists for many specialised tasks and a general superior cognitive machine is possible and probably less than a few decades away. If mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain then, presumably, a conscious machine is possible.


Originally Posted by Lenny
The only reason "Life Is Sweet" is because it is short.

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…..

[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 :D

[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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Spiritual_Machines) lately, Liffrea? :D

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism) 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!:D


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.