This is how humanity will end...potentially.

page: 5
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
You would merge with a robot?
That's how ditached you are with the world around you and everything it has to offer.
I would never dream of merging my valuable and beautiful body with a chunk of metal and plastic.

You have to be depressed for that. IMHO.


-eyes his IPod, looks at the headphones on his head, considers contact lenses, reminds himself to call his mother and ask how her pacemaker is doing, etc-

ya...would never dream of merging with technology...

Just to make sure though, if you lost a leg, you certainly wouldn't get some weird prosthetic leg, right?...I mean...if you do, that means you must be depressed




posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Cosma
 

Evolution does not stop with our present body and our present behaviors.

If we do not change, we simply die.

That's why people are afraid. Because they do not want to change.

But the vast bulk of humanity will change when the time comes. I don't know how long it will be.

I think it will happen in steps. Small steps. So small that most won't notice.

Those changes are happening right now with our communication here on this forum.

Everytime you use a phone to talk to a friend or use a computer to do school work.

It's all happening right underneath your nose. When the time comes, you'll lose your fear.

Nothing stays the same. That's why we die. That's why our DNA changes. As we live longer, we change more. If we lived hundreds of years we would change as much in 50 to 100 years as is the average difference between two present-day humans. Once you understand this then you know that we live forever through each other. Change is the constant. It's the give and take of the universe.

Since we will not lose our humanity, I do not fear it.

If we did lose it, I would fight alongside you. Our humanity is our reason.

Your mistake is assuming that humans will lose their humanity. You're wrong. There's nothing that humans hold more closely to themselves than their humanity. It's the only thing that makes it all worth it. All of the pains people have experienced. The death. The loss. All of that is in vain if we give up and throw it all away. There're walls that must come down. Not just to overcome, but to restore the memory of those that have come before us. Perhaps we will find a way to observe the past and to record our ancestors. It's not just about moving into the future. It's not just about solving problems. Humans are not just calculators.

So, no, I am not afraid of merging with computers. I see them as just another tool. Like machines. Or radio. Or oil extraction and internal combustion engines. Or chemical rockets. Or protective clothing.

I remember when I was a christian, I didn't want to do Yoga in class because I thought it was demonic. I'm not a christian anymore, but sometimes I think people fear technology the same way. Like it's dirty somehow or satanic or corrupting. I think that tools can be bad if we do not know how to use them correctly. But that's the danger in anything. Anything and everything can be used incorrectly. That cannot be the reason to reject it. We can't eliminate risk in life. Too much safety is itself dangerous.
edit on 11-3-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by AuranVector
What did you think of Spielberg's "AI"? At that movie's end, human's were extinct and all that was left of humankind was AI.

Actually, I don't know if the humans were extinct.
I know there was lots of robots around, and the humans of the past weren't...
But, I got the impression the humans sort of evolved up to become the robots. I guess its however you want to look at it.


I don't believe AI can fully replace humans -- we are too complex. I'm referring to our special central nervous system that makes God-realization possible while one is incarnated in a human form.


Going to back out of this conversation. But will simply say...if you think a biological central nervous system is required to realize god, then...erm..ya...we have dropped off any sensible discussion.

Personally, I think what is required for god realization in humans is a liver. no liver, no soul.
makes just as much sense.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 




-eyes his IPod, looks at the headphones on his head, considers contact lenses, reminds himself to call his mother and ask how her pacemaker is doing, etc-


I don't own an Ipod, Iphone or any I crap, the only I me has is the I inside of me.
Don't own headphones but yes got some speakers, not on my head though.
Contact lenses? I can see like an eagle.
My mother is healthy and I don't need to call her she lives about 10 houses down.

What I need to do is feed my chickens though and my dogs.
I wonder when all this tech will reach south Spain.

That's the difference between some people. You're sitting there surrounded by plastic and I'm sitting here surrounded by nature.
Got bulls in the field outside my window and stuff and that's how I like it.

Peace and remember what they say "be careful what you wish for".

Take care Saturn.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Me thinks this is a bad idea! Could you imagine a robot Hitler or Pol-Pot(not sure about this spelling)?
No, we have enough problems with the human species, we do not need to create another.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Cosma
 


I suspect there will always be groups that shun technology after a certain arbitrary date, saying anything before a certain mark is good, anything after is bad.
Thats fine, thats your right.

I don't judge the amish for wanting to stay in the 16th century style living, thats their right and choice and seems to make them happy.

Here is the difference though
They will most certainly judge others who decide to use anything outside of their arbitrary line
look at your sentence about how anyone going outside of your comfort zone must be depressed.

judgement is reserved for those whom fear change



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Going to back out of this conversation. But will simply say...if you think a biological central nervous system is required to realize god, then...erm..ya...we have dropped off any sensible discussion.

Personally, I think what is required for god realization in humans is a liver. no liver, no soul.
makes just as much sense.


You obviously do not believe in the existence of the Kundalini (the psychic component of the human central nervous system).

In any case, S&F for a thought-provoking thread (great video clip -- I wanted to see more). I also loved "Blade Runner" -- I'm a Ridley Scott fan ("Alien," "Gladiator," etc.)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

Actually, seeing as how all of this plastic and material living isn't always good for us, I can understand his reservations. But I'm thinking 100-700 years down the line. We can't stay landlubbers forever.

But he does have a point. Natural evolution brought us here and our body doesn't understand these steel jungles or these sugar foods or these long hours of sitting down or reading books. Our body is essentially evolved to a world that's more natural than the one we presently inhabit. In a way, modern people are like immigrants. They're taking a chance and probably ending their lives short. But they're in it for the future.

Nobody is right or wrong. Ultimately, we all live forever through each other. In the broad scheme of things, we're living forever through other life on this planet and from the cosmic rivers that feed the planets. Panspermia is an increasingly supported theory. If true, then we're probably as much ET as we're earthly. And this may point towards human-like lifeforms elsewhere in our galaxy who share these cosmic rivers.
edit on 11-3-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Isaac Asimov was at least 40 years ahead of his time, with regards to the ethical questions that we now face in robotics and genetics.

I truly felt something for the machine, because it was self aware.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Hendrix92TheUniverse
 

Well, if you read some of his books, you find almost a complete lack of computers. In his 1983 book, he has people communicating via trimensional connections (TVC), large rooms in the home with a viewing screen. I see no mention of computers, even though Asimov loved to appear on ads for computers in the 1970's and 1980's. To get computers so wrong and be expected to get robots so right, seems odd in my book. I think that he guessed accurately what would happen if we truly made artificially intelligent robots, but I don't think he foresaw human minds on computers nor the internet or the expansive use of computers.
edit on 11-3-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
will they be f*able?



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AuranVector
You obviously do not believe in the existence of the Kundalini (the psychic component of the human central nervous system).

In any case, S&F for a thought-provoking thread (great video clip -- I wanted to see more). I also loved "Blade Runner" -- I'm a Ridley Scott fan ("Alien," "Gladiator," etc.)


I believe in almost nothing..because I seek out truth, and truth is typically in the form of proof.

I do however entertain lots of notions., and quite often equally. I know that lots of people, due to a desire for answers, tend to make stuff up about lots of things so they feel in control of the universe.
the kundalini sounds like just another made up bit of fluff to explain consciousness...

Beware anyone whom says they have the answer that stems from a simple belief or desire.

You say matter of factly that there will be no soul in anything not having a central nervous system. You state it as if you are somehow privvy to knowledge that pretty much everyone else does not have access to. You then determine all factors of life, past, present, and future based on this mysterious factual knowledge you alone posess.
You can see how I am a bit skeptical about your claims, and my only really point is...well..prove it. prove scientifically and categorically that what you state is true...until then, you simply put together a guess...a opinion..and not in any way objectively demonstrated through fact.

You give a religion...and religion in matters of progression of our species attempts to slow down and stop any progression...you say we don't need to seek out answers through our own self evolution, because you alone have it all figured out...so don't even bother trying

Its good to have a open mind...what you demonstrate is a very closed mind though, because once you "know" something, you shut off all other possibilities.

Religion and science are not good bedfellows...and religion that attempts to explain things in the scientific community will most certainly corrupt both.


incidently, using religion not as a structured religion understanding, but rather as a supernatural knowing that overrides logical discussions of our current understandings.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

Actually, seeing as how all of this plastic and material living isn't always good for us, I can understand his reservations.

I hear that a lot, but I am a numbers kind of guy.
I tend to ignore the noise and look at the statistics.
before the plastic and material living, you had a very low life expectancy
I don't know what we are doing as of late, but our life expectancy is very high, and almost yearly increases a bit more and more.
So, I am not seeing the issue...matter of fact, the numbers tend to show the opposite from any objective standpoint.



But he does have a point. Natural evolution brought us here and our body doesn't understand these steel jungles or these sugar foods or these long hours of sitting down or reading books.

Again, point out the life expectancy.

Mankind..homo-sapians, are top of the food chain from an evolutionary path that favors mental agility over physical prowess. since the dawning of our species, our main drive in all societys is to evolve past our limitations of body.
We are not growing gills or scales...but we are on a very natural evolutional path of our species...and pushing synthetic and augmented aspects into ourselves is exceptionally natural
as natural as using a shovel to overcome our limited digging ability, or a language to go beyond our simple vocal ability. We are also not alone in this persuit...plenty of animals use tools and adaptive measures to improve itself artifically...we are just really, really good at it.

I also suspect that the fake foods, sugars, etc, although harmful, may be purposeful in our self evolution. We seem to really progress ourselves when an obstacle is in our way...and perhaps we as a society subconsicously create new obsticles to overcome and enhance ourselves.

Its a good philosophical argument anyhow.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

The life expectancy went up mostly because infants aren't dying as much and because of the improvements in surgical procedures. All of this is expensive. End of life care is 80% of healthcare costs.

None of that addresses the steel jungle or the sugar food or the long hours sitting down or being indoors or the increasing use of portables and computers (and not real social contact) and so on.

Did I mention obesity? Just attach that to sugar foods and lack of exercise.

My argument is that these things aren't necessarily bad. Modern people are immigrants. They immigrated to a new world. There -should- be disadvantages at first. But with the higher risk comes higher reward.

Modern people are like the first aquatic mammals that ventured onto land. Life was hard at first because evolution had to keep up and evolve the right characteristics so they could survive on land.

We know that extreme stress accelerate evolution (and extinction).

People who resist change do so because it -does- make sense in a limited way. You need to realize that. It -does- make sense to have real life contact and to avoid being indoors too much and to exercise and to eat natural and be natural, in accordance to the requirements of our body. Evolution is not blind.

But evolution didn't anticipate steel jungles or computers, either. It's not perfect. It did not anticipate that people would be protected from the seasons and would no longer need fat for the winter. It did not anticipate that humans would grow a desire to travel into space. It's falling behind. Thus, humans are forced to take up the slack. If we want these things, we'll have to assume the risk.

That's what I'm telling you. All of these potential rewards carry a risk.
edit on 11-3-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hendrix92TheUniverse
I truly felt something for the machine, because it was self aware.


Just to play devils advocate.
What you felt for the machine was not real, because it was not real.just an animation.

What if a proper robot does this one day...with the crying and all sorts...and it was simply a pre-programmed response to a certain event to be triggers..a programmer could have snuck the code in just for a bit of a laugh, or trying out a new fake emotional response for a sociological thesis he was creating.

Its a interesting dilemma, isn't it. Because we are not the robot, we have no clue if what it just said is true or false, because we, us dumb humans, are programmed to have sympathy and are a gullable lot...we even feel stuff for animations with scripted wordings that we know are fake.

Murky situation at best, and nothing should be taken (or dismissed) at face value.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


The life expectancy went up mostly because infants aren't dying as much and because of hte improvements in surgical procedure. All of this is expensive. End of life care is 80% of healthcare costs.


Imagine the day when life doesn't end then...



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I would say beyond the shadow of a doubt, there is in fact a conspiracy to initiate the beginning of what can only be described as a technological singularity. Merging with technology, be it with AI, a hivemind, or other systems. Perhaps we will become so inhumane ourselves, ground to dust with ironic misanthropy and apathy, that we will just become 'machines' outright.

I've been thinking about this for quite a while now, not out of the blue, but from seeing very strange behavior online and elsewhere. Sometimes it's frightening, other times I wonder if half the stuff I read or 'see' is even something an actual "person" wrote or made. It's not even easy to describe without appearing contrived or insane, but I will say that you "know it when you see it" and I wager some of you have. It goes beyond the realm of, "That was a strange coincidence." and plummets into the "What is going on, is this real life?" realm. There are strange goings-on within the interwebs and abroad, take heed and beware.

It seems to have started with social networking, and before that even in more primitive forms. The formation of a singular hive-mind intelligence, or consciousness where a thought process is beamed out at the will of a 'user', and the entirety of "plugged-in" civilization processes it all at once. Hot centers are more or less the depths of Facebook where no one questions each other, these 'people' only pass along information that has been uploaded by the user. They cannot discuss anything outside of the commands (propaganda, manipulation) and can only fall back on consumer gossip and mediocre pop-culture, when they are not processing. They get this mediocre nonsense from what is now known as the "fail-safe", or the television, otherwise known as the idiot-box (See; Hulu commercials).

If people fail to integrate into the hive-mind hell that is the emerging singularity (social networking being the spark), then it's assumed they'll fall back on the failsafe. Barring that, we're looking at an "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" scenario for all those not fully merged into the system. Nonintegrable infections, to be set aside for deletion. Your individual self-awareness, and consciousness are not needed anymore.

These are my thoughts.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 


Ever wonder if a single neuron in your brain thinks itself to be a self aware individual?



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


After our electricity fades away and our synapses quit firing are we not just a pile of parts?
Are emotions learned responses to stimuli?
Could a machine be programmed to love, hate or fear?

I don't know, but all things are possible. I'm sure that you would agree that we should be cautious of what we want for.

Artificial intelligence only infers that a creator instilled it with said intelligence. However, once the switch is flipped and the machine begins to think and operate independently from the creator a whole set of morale challenges would come into play. When the machine begins to correctly reflect the correct emotion for the situation presented isn't it genuinely doing what most animals, including humans, are doing?



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SmertSpionam1
 


What about a machine Einstein, Newton or Neil Armstrong?

I know about enough real, scary stuff, but when I dream, I want to dream of a bright, better future.





 
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join