Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 7
66
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by MaynardisGod
 


I think you've missed the point of this video, it's some guy talking about technology that is decades old and trying to hype up the same old rubbish, it's a neural net, you program in a desired result (which is always the problem, as he stated with the music experiment, the computer was given all the good tracks, this is basically programming it whichever way you look at it, the computer didn't decide on its own that it's good), give it inputs and then the NN nodes get weighted up based on the input matching the desired result, at that point it is again Programmed by a human to shove these inputs through the weighted nodes to create a new output, the output is then places into a loop as the input.

Over hyped old technology, the machine doesn't "decide" it's just an analogue algorithm.




posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
well, the video is not new at all. I (STY) posted some links in page5 - one of them is a conference from spring 2008 - we start to understand more and more how the multi-erachic neuronal networks are working, and a big step in this field is expected within a few (under 3 ) years. The theory is already developed, now the next step will be the implementation of this new concept..



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
well, the video is not new at all. I (STY) posted some links in page5 - one of them is a conference from spring 2008 - we start to understand more and more how the multi-erachic neuronal networks are working, and a big step in this field is expected within a few (under 3 ) years. The theory is already developed, now the next step will be the implementation of this new concept..



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Vector J
----------


I'm not convinced you read most of the thread there buddy


You're right, I didn't. I didn't have enough time to even watch the video, let alone read several pages of posts.


ghaleon12
------------


Some people seem to want to keep themselves normal while still utilizing the technology to some extent.




I think it should (and will) be every person's right to chose whether or not to have cybernetic upgrades. However, I'm not sure if the choice will be that clear cut. We're already cyberizing people to a small extent with optical implants, cochlear implants, pacemakers, robotic prosthetics, BCI's for paraplegics, etc. Not many people here relish the though of being turned into a cyborg - but on the other hand, if they lost their hearing, would they want a cochlear implant to restore their hearing? Would they turn down a pacemaker to monitor and regulate their heart if it were diseased? I think it's really going to sneak up on a lot of people.

These tough choices we're going to be making in the next 10 to 20 years won't be an issue for future generations who grow up in a world where cyberization is increasingly commonplace.



If you live a million years, or 10 years extra from this technology then die, what is the difference for these people? Nothing, there is no use in the technology for this purpose.


I think they're only talking about practical immortality - not literal. There is no such thing as immortality. Even if you were to survive until the end of the universe - the universe would still end and you along with it. I embrace the idea of "living forever", but it's more of the idea that I can live for "as long as I desire". Besides, the human mind has never known immortality before. It didn't evolve to encompass such a reality. There's no way to know how it would react to such a fate. A few hundred years would be fun, sure... but think about immortality a moment... how would you feel after one millenium? Two? Ten? A hundred thousand years? A million? ten million? All blinks of an eye to te Earth... yet for us... I can almost think of no worse torture than "True" immortality.

Perhaps, if such a thing is possible, they could put consciousness in a sort of storage - like a long dreamless sleep, only to be awoken if you're called upon by a friend or relative, or at certain predetermined intervals in future history.


sdrawkcabII
---------------


Where are the other posters? If anyone thinks this is the way forward...I feel extremely sorry for you.


Get used to it, because it's coming whether you like it or not. No matter how hard you dig in your heels and cling to the past, the future will always come. You can either join it, or you can be left behind. There is no stopping it.




This man does not know how things work. Biological death is not death.


If you're talking about an afterlife, then nobody knows what happens after death. Our best interpretation is that you simply cease to be. Be-de be-de be-de, That's all folks. Anything else philosophy, religion, psychics, or NDE's seem to say about it is pure speculation on the unknown.


Distractions4Nothing
------------------------


Or have a billion clones of yourself serving as slaves inside some control freak's infinite software loop, tortured and abused over and over again at trillions of cycles per second, until the end of time!


Who's to say we're not already there and just don't know it. Sure would explain the fire and brimstone old testament stories.


Dewm0nster
---------------


I mean, it isn't just born like we are.


Why not? On the very simplest level our brains and computers operate in the same fashion - by sending and receiving electrical pulses. On and Off. 1's and 0's. When a child's brain first develops, it's not a fully conscious and self-aware being. It's neural pathways still have much development to go through before it reaches that point. Who's to say that an AI won't experience a similar transition as we become better and better at parallel processing and distributed networking?

seb2882
-----------


How can they be so sure that just "uploading" your brain into some sort of computer matrix which replicates it will actually be "you"? 'm not religious, but science doesn't hold an answer to that yet.


Religion and Philosophy doesn't have the answer to that question either. We may never know the answer. To further complicate matters, how do you know that each time you go to bed, that you'll wake up the same consciousness? What you might be seeing now as a continual flow of consciousness might just be a trick of the brain created by memories. What if who you are right now in this exact moment in time will cease to be tomorrow night, only to be replaced by another you tomorrow?


badmedia
------------


For it to be actual intelligence free will and consciousness is a basic requirement.


It actually hasn't been conclusively proven that we have free will at all. There's still a divide between those who think we do have free will, and those who think we operate on extremely complex but calculable stimulus responses which only give the illusion of free will. We can't prove that we're really conscious either. However, they have built AI's which (back to reality here) are "functionally conscious". I believe they have one in the NAVY called "IDA" which is used to hold correspondence with and negotiate assignments for sailors based on their skill, demand, and the sailors desired position.




The simple fact it doesn't include death is an obvious sign that it's not actual intelligence. There is a reason we die. It's not obvious to most of us, but when you start looking at the philosophy of life and such it becomes very clear.


The reason why we die is to remove redundant genetic material out of the gene pool. Life is about survival, and the best way to ensure survival is through diversification rather than specialization. If there were no death (in a physical world, not a cyberspace) then specific genetic traits which may be a liability to the species will not be weeded out - nor will there be a buffer of diversity to help overcome cataclysmic events.

Further, life requires resources, and a world without natural death would find it's resources quickly depleted, destroying the survival potential for future generations..



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


We die because DNA is damaged via byproducts of mitochondria

Nothing to do with gene pool degredation, I bet we'll crack aging before we see one of Dr Donothings machines running around.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
The Guy in the Video is obviously one of those Disgusting Mutant, False enlightenment come faqs.. (frequently asked questions, which dont need to be.)

Id like to shove my tower up his moms butt...

while that AI in the background...

Plays, some god damned real music...



Signed, The Dark Prince...


[edit on 1-9-2008 by LuciferSatan]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by spitefulgod
 


You're talking about the mechanism which results in death. (Barring accident, disease, predation, etc. Telomere damage during cell division is the largest cause of aging, which leads to death) Still, there are cells in the body which do not divide and multiply - such as brain cells. Once the brain is done growing, it will not regenerate or replenish itself. The braincells you have in your head right now will last your entire life. Certain other cells such as cancerous cells are technically immortal since they do not suffer telomere damage either.

I'm talking about the purpose of death in nature. Not the mechanism. I'm sure there is some way to protect the telomeres in normal healthy cells during division, but nature never selected for it. It wouldn't have, because by eliminating death you're allowing a single set of genetic information to spread throughout at population for practically eternity. This increases the risk of a single, say, disease which takes advantage of a weakness in the genetic code to weak havoc on a large population that doesn't have the genetic variability or versatility to adapt to it. It increases the likelihood that a single mishap would wipe out an entire species.

The other half of this, of course, is reproduction with variation - which as said, a population without death would have serious overpopulation and resource management problems - since the older generations would be in constant direct competition with the younger generations. It would stymie the new generation and slow down the rate of variation and thus make a species more susceptible to extinction.

"Life" solves these problem with death. You are born, grow, give birth to the next generation, and die.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
well I personally thought the idea was ingenius and certainly the most interesting ideas/topics Ive read/watched in a long time. I thought the idea of turning the Internet into a creative machine and thus giving it conscience, thought and such was both scary and wonderful..I mean imagine what it could come up with having all the knowlege of the intenet at its mental fingertips..at the same time, I know for a fact there are some terrible things posted on the internet, and dont show exaclty the best side of humanity in idea or action. I suppose I understand how the creativity engine/machine whatever could allow us to have immortality, but the whole leap to the entire universe being one is a bit of a reach for me intellectually, seing as how I couldnt even pass pre-algebra in school, Ive never been one for the numbers of these high powered math junkoes, or being able to really understand formulae or physics equations or what else..I mean I can understand the idea of things..just not the actualy mathmatical structure. at any rate...Ill keep an eye out for the guy and his thinking machine and see where it goes...



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   
this stuff is very interesting. it seems to connect with some lingering thoughts ive had for years. i dont know exactly how to state them with out sounding random so forgive me.

i always wonder if people are right when they state that things arent "natural" or they arent "right". it almost seems logical to me that whatever IS has naturally arrived here right or wrong. whether its some toxic chemical, a cloned animal or even a computer that can learn and make decisions. why can bees create honey but humans cant naturally create technology? im sure if bees had the capability to create new tools to help expand indefinitely they would. so everything we have created are just tools (from ideas)for us to survive and flourish. right or wrong (which are only concepts we have made in our minds anyway). to me computers and AI seem like a natural progression.

i also think that many people here are missing the main point of what this man is saying. what the creator of this machine is trying to say is that WE are all just ideas being expressed by the universe(or god if you like) and his "creation" is just another idea expressed by the universe. it just seems a matter of simplicity changing into complexity. energy turned into matter, matter into elements. elements into single celled organisms and that into complex systems such as animals and humans. just because it doesnt physically spring forth from our own bodies doesnt mean it isnt an expression of this process. human beings could possibly be here only to facilitate the next expression of the universes ideas which could be AI.

as the creator of this machine states there will be a time of great anxiety, will our egos and fears be able to handle the fact that maybe we arent the end all be all of creation? can we handle the fact that we may just be a step in the process of whatever is happening.i think either way once an idea takes hold it cant be suppressed by any conscience means no matter how hard we try. if this man doesnt accomplish it someone or something eventually will.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
i have been reading this thread and i am forced to conclude that having your conciousness run in a machine is potentially a very bad idea. Who is to say that you won't have spam being pumped into your mind all day and night, who is to say that the computer won't get hacked and a virus comes in and makes your mind experience literal hell for eternity, what if the plug is pulled or some cosmic event causes a subroutine malfunction where the minds are trapped?



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by spitefulgod
 


You're talking about the mechanism which results in death. (Barring accident, disease, predation, etc. Telomere damage during cell division is the largest cause of aging, which leads to death) Still, there are cells in the body which do not divide and multiply - such as brain cells. Once the brain is done growing, it will not regenerate or replenish itself. The braincells you have in your head right now will last your entire life. Certain other cells such as cancerous cells are technically immortal since they do not suffer telomere damage either.

I'm talking about the purpose of death in nature. Not the mechanism. I'm sure there is some way to protect the telomeres in normal healthy cells during division, but nature never selected for it. It wouldn't have, because by eliminating death you're allowing a single set of genetic information to spread throughout at population for practically eternity. This increases the risk of a single, say, disease which takes advantage of a weakness in the genetic code to weak havoc on a large population that doesn't have the genetic variability or versatility to adapt to it. It increases the likelihood that a single mishap would wipe out an entire species.

The other half of this, of course, is reproduction with variation - which as said, a population without death would have serious overpopulation and resource management problems - since the older generations would be in constant direct competition with the younger generations. It would stymie the new generation and slow down the rate of variation and thus make a species more susceptible to extinction.

"Life" solves these problem with death. You are born, grow, give birth to the next generation, and die.



My mistake although what you have said reminds me of an episode of Babylon5 when he finds Lorien, an immortal, who had the following conversation with Sheridan



We were born naturally immortal.

----It's impossible. Everything dies

Yes. Now.
At first, we were kept in balance by birthrate.
Few of us were ever born, less than a handful each year.
Then, I think the universe decided that to appreciate life....for there to be change and growth, life had to be short.
So the generations that followed us grew old, infirm, died.
But those of us who were first went on.
We discovered the Vorlons and the Shadows when they were infant races......and nourished them, helped them......and all the other races you call the First Ones.
In time, most of them died. Or passed beyond the Rim....to whatever lies in the darkness between galaxies.
We've lived too long, seen too much.
To live on as we have is to leave behind......joy and love and companionship.....because we know it to be transitory, of the moment.



And maybe he's right, some simple organisms maybe born immortal by fluck but are destroyed by the experiences of life, be it being digested by another organism or event, unfortunately immortality won't be solved in my generation but it will be solved, humans don't have much time to listen to what the universe and nature has to say and if it's beneficial we’ll make it happen.

[edit on 1/9/2008 by spitefulgod]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
video not working for me...

anyone care to post a mirror to it? (or perhaps the OP would add a mirror to the first post!)



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Hmm... It's interesting.
Man has been on a quest for immortality forever. Why? Why is man so afraid of death? I know that answer, but none of you would like it or except it.
Even if this were possible and the guy presenting it had more than bs theories and was actually able to put his ideas to use, there is something incredibly wrong about not dying or being able to die by natural means.

-Jimmy



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyjackblack
 


I don’t get it, I’d love to be immortal there is too much in this world to experience for just one lifetime.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by spitefulgod
 


Not for me, I've virtually experienced a lot, I think I'll probably be living till 200 though, I don't rally want to however.
Once you get to be my age (23) the world is just a big ball of dirt and mud hanging out in space, well that's what it's like for me, emotions aside at least, emotionally, I'm still waiting to be able to experience true happiness and love from another person.

-Jimmy



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Holy crap! That computer made 'Glitch Drum n Bass'!! I want to buy one of those things, I'd see if I could race it to see who made the best DnB, first! haha! Man vs. Machine!



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I have been watching this thread progress (or more accurately, digress). I am in utter amazement of the comments I am seeing being posted. This board is generally so much more imaginative and critical. The responses show, however, that the interpretations of this video are highly speculative and surprisingly non-critical.

Some examples and justifications of my opinion are in order, in all fairness.

The first example is that it is almost as if many respondents did not listen to the video. I have transcribed the entire video and here are some highly salient points from Dr. Stephan Thaler himself (times are from the video as it appears from the OP):

"What we need, is a vehicle that looks very much, behaves very much like human consciousness. Number one, it has to be neural network based because the brain is neural network based. Secondly, it has to involve an imagitron being watched by a perceptron, uh, so that it can develop its own stream of consciousness and a perception of that stream of consciousness." (21:57.97)

This statement is important for at least reasons: One is the use of the "What we need…" term, which illustrates a future goal, not a current accomplishment (despite what some seem to have walked away with from this video). And two, is that is essentially a statement of the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Thaler makes no claim that he or his team are even close to solving the Hard Problem of Consciousness. In fact, later on the video he makes an even stronger statement regarding the achievements of his system to date:

"In this case we have the capability of prolonging the illusion of consciousness by combining with something that supports that illusion." (22:26.54)

"This has not been accomplished, it's just a very broad brushed description of what could take place." (22:38.28)

Well, of course! This is one of the great unsolved problems of consciousness right now. Dr. Thaler's vision is correct, but as he admits, there is, as yet, no viable solution. And this statement is nt very helpful in understanding what it is, exactly, that can be accomplished:

"Um, I think you are all aware that there some popular science writers out there that are predicting phenomenal AI in 25 years. I've been told by people who are very high in Government that my company can deliver this capability in just a couple of years." (19:54.16)

This is an odd statement on many levels. Yet it seems to have not drawn much attention. Why is Thaler himself unable to know what his company can deliver in a couple of years? The answer is that there are two distinctly different problems being discussed. One is the Hard Problem of Consciousness (which will not be solved in a couple of years) and the second is the solution and resolution of the Easy Problems of Consciousness, which are being solved and which have military and other applications (such as facial recognition, self-guidance, and the easier problems that are mentioned such as marketing and advertising, music creation, automobile and airplane design, etc.)

[Continued in next post...]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
He then goes on to say,

"At the most general level, this plan for immortality involves the gradual marriage of Creativity Machine with human cognition. So essentially, two friends living along side one another in a small room, and the name of the game is to begin to build interconnections between them … gradually, until the connection density between them rivals the connection density within the human brain. At that point, consciousness can diffuse back and forth between these two, housings, if you will, in a nutshell game — we can't really know for sure where consciousness is residing. Now, if the Creativity Machine were housed in a large enough computational, uh, vehicle, its connections, it's process units would far outnumber its biological counterpart, and when biological death did occur, it would be as if a hangnail were dropping away." (22:43.76)

In order for his "plan for immortality" to come to fruition, the Hard Problem of Consciousness must be solved (and it will not be, in any timeframe approaching two years). To be sure, it is likely (or at least possible) that the Hard Problem is solvable. But it is not plausible.

The other thing that bothers be about the responses to this thread is that very few people seem to have actually had any interest in the actual patented technology of the Creativity Machine (patents 5,659,666; 5,845,271; 5,852,815; 5,852,816; 6,014,653; 6,018,727; 6,115,701; and 6,356,884 are mentioned at video's end). If one looks at these patents, one will see that there is perhaps great progress in certain types of neural networks, but not anything close to the imaginings in this video.

Finally, as a conspiracy theory group, it seems that more would have picked up on:

"You may have seen commercial products on TV that were invented by the Creativity Machine; but there's a catch, I'm contractually obligated not to tell you that they were invented by Creativity Machines." — (18:13.61)

And the tantalizing statement that:

"On the dark side, how best to carry out attacks on information infrastructures." (19:03.82)

Where interestingly, Thaler's definition of an information infrastructure is formed so as to include human minds. The implication of these two statements is quite interesting. But perhaps even more interesting (from a conspiratorial point of view) is the following statement:

"On the positive side, how to protect, how to heal information infrastructures when under attack." (19:09.59)

The implication being that there are known ways (at least by Thaler and Imagination Engines, Inc) to protect information infrastructures (which according to Thaler includes human minds) from attack.

These statements of the positive and negative are, while quite interesting and tantalizing, entirely unsubstantiated in the patents, on his company website and in the video in as much as the implication is that they even apply to the human mind. The conclusion one must wrestle with then is, does Thaler even understand the Hard Problem of Consciousness? Or is he more concerned with the technological side of consciousness or the Easy Problems of Consciousness?

Food for thought. Check out the Hard and Easy Problems of Consciousness on the web (good intro at Wikipedia) and the patents at www.freepatentsonline.com.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Very nice, Intelligent reply. I agree that many people clearly overlooked these statements, in context of the video. Good post, anonymous. Good post.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


did i miss something or did he say this doesnt exist yet but he clams that it has produced products already? or is he talking about different machines?





new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join