61–70 of 106 posts
If you were offered the chance to become as intelligent as Feynman but only if you turn over a copy of all your future thoughts to the private business that made this possible, would you take it? Something non-invasive, like a computer that images your brain while you sleep. If we are machines, then it seems reasonable that within a few millennia we might have this capability. I'm trying to think up some scenarios wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we should really fix society before we develop that kind of technology. We need a socio-cultural breaktrough of the same magnitude as the technological breakthrough. Something on par with the development of monotheism, enlightenment, capitalism, or democracy. A "communistic" utopia (for lack of a better word) without the flaws of its historical implementations. Then the question is moot. There is no private b…
You've got it backwards. Our brains are what is holding society back. We need a socio-cultural breaktrough of the same magnitude as the technological breakthrough That's what transhumanism is. It's a restructuring of the human system around symbiosis with AI.
I don't want to change people, I want to change society.
If you were offered the chance to become as intelligent as Feynman but only if you turn over a copy of all your future thoughts to the private business that made this possible, would you take it? Something non-invasive, like a computer that images your brain while you sleep. If we are machines, then it seems reasonable that within a few millennia we might have this capability. I'm trying to think up some scenarios wh…
A more interesting question is, what if you wake up one day as one of 10 copies of yourself? Would you today be worried about preserving the life of all 10 clones (with memories)? We are all afraid to die - but what if tomorrow there were clones with the memories you have today? The question basically is posed here http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1
Yeah, I have a few issues with that comic.
> The man was not a murderer.
This is one of a few logical leaps I can't accept. His past selves are already "dead". His future selves do not yet exist. If, for example, all my ancestors are dead and my offspring not yet conceived, how does my suicide harm them in any way? None will so much as feel the grief of losing me, but I'm supposed to feel guilty over "murdering" them? (Let's not follow up on what this would mean for topics such as abortion!)
If future and past selves are of such importance that we not murder them, how can present copies be valued any less? If destroying the original is not necessary, then that must surely be murder as well. It's worse, actually, because then it's not even hypothetical; "The Machine" would be intentionally and unnecessarily ending a life.
Why do I possess the subjective experience of me, not you, and not some other me separated by time or space? Barring notions of a soul, either those other instances are not real in some sense or else there's something phenomenologically special about each, which I can only attribute to being uniquely present at a particular point in space-time. If the teleported me is a clone, their existence ought to have nothing to do with me, thus I should not be murdered for their sake. However, if the teleported me instead can only exist as a function of my past-self ceasing to be, then that's little different than how I am from any moment to the next.
TL;DR: If it works like the movie version of "The Prestige" where one copy is murdered purely for convenience, I'm not stepping into that teleporter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People already essentially turn their brains over to businesses today, without such grand promises of intelligence or immortality. Its actually maybe even a pretty accurate description of religion
Religion does make a grand promise of immortality.
If you were offered the chance to become as intelligent as Feynman but only if you turn over a copy of all your future thoughts to the private business that made this possible, would you take it? Something non-invasive, like a computer that images your brain while you sleep. If we are machines, then it seems reasonable that within a few millennia we might have this capability. I'm trying to think up some scenarios wh…
I suspect given the opportunity many would take this. ( without knowing any of the consequences I tentatively would certainly take it in that situation)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cage_(Star_Trek:_The_Origi...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Menagerie_(Star_Trek:_The_...
If you were offered the chance to become as intelligent as Feynman but only if you turn over a copy of all your future thoughts to the private business that made this possible, would you take it? Something non-invasive, like a computer that images your brain while you sleep. If we are machines, then it seems reasonable that within a few millennia we might have this capability. I'm trying to think up some scenarios wh…
I think we should really fix society before we develop that kind of technology. We need a socio-cultural breaktrough of the same magnitude as the technological breakthrough. Something on par with the development of monotheism, enlightenment, capitalism, or democracy. A "communistic" utopia (for lack of a better word) without the flaws of its historical implementations. Then the question is moot. There is no private b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've got it backwards. Our brains are what is holding society back. We need a socio-cultural breaktrough of the same magnitude as the technological breakthrough That's what transhumanism is. It's a restructuring of the human system around symbiosis with AI.
We are somewhat offtopic, but: That sounds a bit like the church in the middle ages saying: "your sins are what is holding society back, that is why you can't have nice things". Or like many utopians, who wanted to create a "better man". Or their detractors, who said utopia doesn't work because people are flawed. I don't want to change people, I want to change society.
Somehow you think those are different things and I'm not sure why. Society only changes when enough people individually change. You can force change through government or coercion, but it's temporary and unsustainable.
utopia doesn't work because people are flawed.
Right, I'd agree with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we should really fix society before we develop that kind of technology. We need a socio-cultural breaktrough of the same magnitude as the technological breakthrough. Something on par with the development of monotheism, enlightenment, capitalism, or democracy. A "communistic" utopia (for lack of a better word) without the flaws of its historical implementations. Then the question is moot. There is no private b…
The other, and much more likely in my opinion, future is that developing this kind of technology will cause us to "fix" our society, or rather society will grow to support the new technology. It is unlikely that private business will relinquish it's control willingly, we must aim for a future that makes private business irrelevant (massive automation removing the need for humans to "pay" for anything)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we should really fix society before we develop that kind of technology. We need a socio-cultural breaktrough of the same magnitude as the technological breakthrough. Something on par with the development of monotheism, enlightenment, capitalism, or democracy. A "communistic" utopia (for lack of a better word) without the flaws of its historical implementations. Then the question is moot. There is no private b…
You've got it backwards. Our brains are what is holding society back. We need a socio-cultural breaktrough of the same magnitude as the technological breakthrough That's what transhumanism is. It's a restructuring of the human system around symbiosis with AI.
This sounds more like to basically have a socio-cultural breakthrough, you want a technological entity (some AI or whatever it turns out to be in the future) to control and direct human socio-cultural thoughts and execution. Transhumanism seems to be more oriented towards equipping humans to be interfaced(through some HCI - human computer interface) with computers around an AI, and other human built accessories (atleast for now) to enhance their mental abilities to project them as more powerful humans. One question is, how much do we actually know the power of our brain and abilities, if its properly used rather than enhancing with computers etc., Yes, there are great use-cases for HCI. But giving control to an AI to make your decisions or control humans in the name of technological break through is absurd.