Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

In Its Image. Computer That might prevent death in the future!

page: 3
66
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Read this thread it is very eye opening..And makes me wonder if the Human race has already done this several times in the past..Who knows...

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
Read this thread it is very eye opening..And makes me wonder if the Human race has already done this several times in the past..Who knows...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Saw that awhile ago and I think there could be something to that if what they say is true about the skin being more like fabric and the whole reverse-engineering of night vision from an alien lens. That is a big IF, mind you, but who knows if our perception is being altered by imagitrons(or decepticons, haha) right NOW?

Dude, we could be IN the matrix now for all we know...



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I wouldn't mind getting an "upgrade" to be able to perform millions of calculations per second like my good-old pc over here
, having my brain "co-work" with a microprocessor . What I'm skeptical about is this immortality thing . That would require having the entire "me" run on a processor . A good question to ask is this : Can an computer actual fully emulate me ? . If the answer is yes , does that mean a computer has consciousness ? . No matter how fast and how complex it gets , a computer is still a computer , isomorphic to the good old turing machine , sharing its limitations . For a more mundane example of what computers CAN'T do , take the halting problem . In a simplified context , every computer program , once given input , either gives a result (halts ) , or runs forever (the dreaded infinite loop
) . However , it's mathematically proven that you can't write a computer program that , once given a program as input , will tell whether it halts or goes in an infinite loop.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Wow, what an utter load of crap, sorry if that offends some of you, but seriously, it seems as if this guy just makes stuff up and then believes it. It sounds like he created a machine that uses equations that are considered "random" (but are actually just another level of mathimatics), then has it send those to another computer that siplifies them, or translates them to a lower level of mathimatics. THAT'S NOT A BRAIN OR AI!
The human brain is still the most advance, most complex machine ever created. It may be slower, but it's more complex and has truely endless possibilities.

A human can imagine a whole universe, whole other lives, realities, a whole histories of other millinos, billions of worlds spanning trillions of years and can still function and exist in this one. The human brain is more information that the entire universe combined, simply because it can imagine it.

This BS math computer that steve jobs (which is who the guy is like, or some wierd new age kook) has created can and will never do what the human brain can.

-Jimmy

[edit on 31-8-2008 by jimmyjackblack]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyjackblack
 


I suggest doing more research on the Machine this man has created. They don't give patents to kooks. This is actually very credible and if you know much about the history of AI and the research going along with it, then you would see how close this is to being a reality.

Seriously..Dig deeper.

www.initsimage.org...

[edit on 31-8-2008 by projectvxn]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma

Originally posted by halfmaskOn another note this screams singularity.


It did to me as well. I mainly wanted to reply because what 'halfmask' points out is precisely where my mind went.

I think it is fascinating and am curious enough to *want* to see how far this could go..

However, I am not oblivious to the implications of such technology.

I missed where the video talked about preventing death, but that may have been because the minute I thought singularity, my mind was off in so many different directions.

I am anti-immortality and even anti-living longer than is natural. The reason being is that I love the way nature creates, destroys, and renews itself. It is the process that has allowed me to be here on this planet at this time. I have no problem accepting that I will come to an end. In fact, it makes me that much more aware and appreciative that I am even here at all.

Other than that, I still have to admit my rabid curiosity in the contents of the video


starred and flagged OP

[edit on 31-8-2008 by justamomma]


Sorry, I probably should have worded it differently. I meant it prevents mental death I guess. Not physical



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
"nature creates, destroys, and renews itself" . Well nature better not touch my hard-disk .



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyjackblack
 



Here I'll even give you a start:

www.newscientist.com...

www.charlesriver.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by KaginD
I meant it prevents mental death I guess. Not physical

At least until some idiot still trapped in a meat-sack accidentally trips over the power cord & unplugs it..."Life" is sooo fragile, no matter how you look at it.


[edit on 31-8-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Excellent video.
As a transhumanist, this is quite appealing to me, and I applaud the scientists involved with this project.
This type of machine, once sufficiently advanced, combined with AGP (accelerated growth process) of cloned bodies, could enable us to live multiple lifetimes. Even without biological bodies, it would still be a way for us to enjoy conciousness for incredible periods of time, assuming no one 'pulled the plug'

Although, I'm guessing that our time perception could easily be manipulated faster/slower if we downloaded into it.

Does anyone notice the similarity between hit 2 box theory and our brain?
i.e. "Creativity Machine" and "Human Cognition" vs. "Left Brain/Right Brain"



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Star & Flag, thanks OP.

Many people have voiced reservations, seemingly based on pseudo-religious grounds: ' I would hesitate to trade an afterlife for 'life' in a computer'... and so on.

First- you already live in a computer ! Except for the pooping, belching, screwing that is. These may all be perceptions, anyway.

Second- these reservations may only be fears that you may grow out of.

Many good people pooped their britches when the first locomotive rolled into town... they simply went home, got cleaned up, and took a train ride. So will you.

Third. If you kick it in the computer for long enough, some genious will be offering corpses to carry you around sooner or later- then you can poop, belch, and screw if that's what you want to do. Let's just hope the real thing is tolerably entertaining by comparison.

I personally might opt for ' maintainance mode '.

Wake me up when my favorite bluegrass band comes to town... when my great great great grandchild is born, and so on.

The alternative to AI/ Human interface is death, and no-one ( not anybody at all ! ) can offer evidence of anything else...

Awesome... I'm paying down my credit cards right now !



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Sounds like a guy talking a load of crap to try and get funding, he seems a little over excited by a neural net??? How many documentaries like this have we seen in the past, this guy should go take his little hobby and go home.

I hope no one wastes their money funding this code hack.

[edit] removed a sentence that could be misconstrued as a bad explanation for a neural net, which it wasn't

[edit on 31/8/2008 by spitefulgod]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by spitefulgod
Sounds like a guy talking a load of crap to try and get funding, he seems a little over excited by a neural net??? How many documentaries like this have we seen in the past, this guy should go take his little hobby and go home.

I hope no one wastes their money funding this code hack.

[edit] removed a sentence that could be misconstrued as a bad explanation for a neural net, which it wasn't

[edit on 31/8/2008 by spitefulgod]


Do you remember any of the other docs off the top of your head?? I'd like to see the others.

[edit on 31-8-2008 by KaginD]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
For anyone who can;t be bothered to watch the video, read this page here, it mentions some of the products it has made and some of the groups and companies who use his technology or are empoloying him for that reason.

I know a little bit about this stuff, just finished a Masters degree in Cybernetics. Not actually heard about creativity machines before however, just your usual set of neural networks, GA's etc. One thing from the video, he generalises other systems way too much and makes it sound like theres only a few kinds out there, there are in fact, lots.

The concept is actually remarkably simple and I was worried that by his explination alone, anyone could put such a system together. However what he specifically does no mention is how he asks the system to produce something, the learning, sure, well covered, the perterbations too, but not how he asks it to do anything. Looks like I've got a patent to find and read.

If it works quite as well as indicated, this is a fantastic piece of technology. All the 'Hell no, didn;t you see terminator?' comments are ridiculous. This sytem does not use any form of emotional architecture (apparently, and no, that doesn;t mean it would literally love or hate things if it did) and has no concept of the world beyond what it is presented and asked to think up.

Where his idea falls down is in the idea of interfacing with the human mind. There is no agreed notion of how the mind and conciousness actually work and tie into the brain, and thats not to mention the concept of a soul. The idea of plugging one of these machines into a brain and melding them togther, as the technology and the way it works currently, is just stupid. The whole crux of his system working as it does is the 'perfect' network that judges the 'creative' one. Who wants a 'perfect' computer system judging your minds creativity? And once again, such a system is unlikely to understand emotions, as they are not applicable in the way (as suggested in the video) that the system works.

Interesting stuff, certainly. I'll have to look into using such systems in the future in jobs. However, there are certainly some worrying implications of the 'wrong people' using this to design better forms of terror and weapons used to target specific people, or types of people...



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by KaginD
 


The ones that spring to mind usually are hosted or have some cameo by Dr Michio Kaku, and most usually BBC documentaries you might get some on BBC iplayer but they're usually pulled off after 7 days.

The one thing that stood out on the documentary is the music creation.... what a load of pompous crap, people have been using computers to create music based on changing variables and pre-exposed tracks for decades, it's no more creative than a flocking program used to simulate bird grouping.

[edit]
Yeah it's Dr Kaku, have a look her you might be able to figure some google video links from it www.bbc.co.uk...


[edit on 31/8/2008 by spitefulgod]



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Vector J
 


Plus he states about how amazing his gait learning program is... so what it's a gait creator, people use these to teach robots to walk all the time.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by spitefulgod
 


You might want to try reading some of the links posted on this page. Specifically in the one I posted, the creator says that indeed 11000 tracks were made, and that 'some' of them were good, and intimated that some were awful. In the vid, you'll note that they played one exaple, and never claimed that the 11000 were any good.

Personally I was hoping that at the very end it was going to say that all the piano music had been made by the system, but no dice...



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_



Edit: OK watched most of the video, it's seems great for creating A.I we can "interact" with. But I don't see how we can transfer ourselfs to it.

If we want immortality, we have to "combine" our bodies with technology, for example nanotechnology can be entered into the body and change and heal what we need to live for longer.

Anyway it's all very interesting.


[edit on 31-8-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Anyone care to say if they think I'm right or wrong.

Combining ourselves with technology is highly possible, but transfering ourselves to another object would not make any sense, for example look at cloning, you could create a copy of yourself, but the other person will live on as another being if you die.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by spitefulgod
 


That I'll agree on, the slagging off of people who write gait algorithms was rather harsh. I'd be interested to see how fast it can make a bipedal robot move, which, in my opnion is more of a challenge than an insectoid layout (but I might be wrong about that)...





new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join