As it has been said before, I'm merely reiterating the idea, but the fact remains that if you damage the human brain in any way; no matter how minute or great: it can have massive repercussions on how you interact with the world. I remember seeing a report on how a man received a wicked blow from a board on a construction site, and though he didn't need to be hospitalized, suddenly lost the ability to "love". He didn't love his wife, nor his children, and--of course--not himself.
With this concept in mind, though using the word mind in an argument for purely physical consciousness is arbitrary and confusing, I think it is safe to say that there would be different consciousness alterations if you were to, as postulated: splice the synthetic mind and the organic mind and "merge" them together.
There also remains a question as to whether such physical damage really "changes" the "mind" of the person, or whether it introduces a physical barrier that blocks that "mind" from fully expressing itself. While profoundly interesting, the phenomenon doesn't completely get rid of the notion that there is a "consciousness" that exists that is not entirely dependent on physiology. It does imply that if this were the case, physiological damage can affect how that "consciousness" interacts with the world through the physical body. I don't have any strong beliefs either way, I'm just interested.
As it has been said before, I'm merely reiterating the idea, but the fact remains that if you damage the human brain in any way; no matter how minute or great: it can have massive repercussions on how you interact with the world. I remember seeing a report on how a man received a wicked blow from a board on a construction site, and though he didn't need to be hospitalized, suddenly lost the ability to "love". He didn't love his wife, nor his children, and--of course--not himself.
With this concept in mind, though using the word mind in an argument for purely physical consciousness is arbitrary and confusing, I think it is safe to say that there would be different consciousness alterations if you were to, as postulated: splice the synthetic mind and the organic mind and "merge" them together.
There also remains a question as to whether such physical damage really "changes" the "mind" of the person, or whether it introduces a physical barrier that blocks that "mind" from fully expressing itself. While profoundly interesting, the phenomenon doesn't completely get rid of the notion that there is a "consciousness" that exists that is not entirely dependent on physiology. It does imply that if this were the case, physiological damage can affect how that "consciousness" interacts with the world through the physical body. I don't have any strong beliefs either way, I'm just interested.
I'm scrounging around for my book right now so I can give you some quotes, but a major aspect of what makes these anecdotes about physical phenomenon affecting personality and consciousness so interesting is how surprisingly authentic the patients end up being, despite obvious and serious flaws. In many accounts they act as though their minds are perfectly intact, covering over what might be obviously missing (such as love, in that example). If it were a question of the mind lacking the ability to express the emotions, rather than actually lacking them, I'd imagine that the person's behavior would be more fractured. Admittedly this is more of an unsupported judgment, I do wish I could find a good quote to show you what I mean.
EDIT:
And as for which additional extremities I'd be willing try out, well...let's just say some day I might be "as happy as a dog with two dicks."
If it were a question of the mind lacking the ability to express the emotions, rather than actually lacking them, I'd imagine that the person's behavior would be more fractured. Admittedly this is more of an unsupported judgment, I do wish I could find a good quote to show you what I mean.
The quotes would be interesting, but I do understand what you mean and actually agree with you in practice.
I'm not inclined to disagree with you in terms of what I believe is the most probable explanation, but dealing with ultimately metaphysical concepts means that you can't rule the idea I mentioned out with any amount of evidence - the idea that somebody's behavior would be more fractured is, like you said, something that seems likely to you, not a rule that the universe must adhere to. There is, for the time being, absolutely no way to know for sure.
The idea might make more sense (or become more confusing) if you broadened the approach - imagine that there is a dimension of consciousness or, to make things even easier to imagine, an actual "God". Imagine that this being of vast consciousness decides to "experience" the universe in much smaller and more limited "doses" by filtering his consciousness through certain combinations of matter (brains). The only aspects of this being's "true consciousness" that would be expressed would be the aspects that those brains are equipped to express. That would mean that all conscious beings are actually this "god" character but have no way of knowing it, and thus would see each other as seperate beings.
That analogy either makes my idea clearer or insanely confusing - just putting forth the idea that it's possible to imagine a consciousness that remains intact even after the ability to fully express it is altered, not that this is actually likely to be the case.
What does quantum mechanics have to do with the rest of the O.P., and what reason do we have to suspect that the most experimentally verified theory in physics is an irrational fallacy?
What does quantum mechanics have to do with the rest of the O.P., and what reason do we have to suspect that the most experimentally verified theory in physics is an irrational fallacy?
What does quantum mechanics have to do with the rest of the O.P., and what reason do we have to suspect that the most experimentally verified theory in physics is an irrational fallacy?
Quantum mechanics has to do with the the rest of the OP because it is believed by many to be what enables the singularity. We probably won't be able to reach it with silicon alone, but quantum computers will have more than the processing power available to bootstrap us.
As far as being the most experimentally verified theory, it isn't. I'd say that gravity takes that one. Hell, it is close to the least most experimentally verified theory that is still taken as correct by the majority of scientists.
What does quantum mechanics have to do with the rest of the O.P., and what reason do we have to suspect that the most experimentally verified theory in physics is an irrational fallacy?
Quantum mechanics has to do with the the rest of the OP because it is believed by many to be what enables the singularity. We probably won't be able to reach it with silicon alone, but quantum computers will have more than the processing power available to bootstrap us.
As far as being the most experimentally verified theory, it isn't. I'd say that gravity takes that one. Hell, it is close to the least most experimentally verified theory that is still taken as correct by the majority of scientists.
Gravity is not a theory, unless you mean general relativity, in which case no, you're wrong. QM is much better verified than GR.
Gravity isn't a theory anymore. Back then inertia wasn't acknowledged as a scientific law either and impetus was a seriously considered scientific theory.
My point is just that Quantum theory while it is a mostly accepted theory, it isn't anywhere near the standing that the Thermodynamic Laws have in the scientific community. And while some parts of quantum mechanics are nailed down pretty solidly, there are still vast areas that are revised at a rapid rate, (eg. the various string theories). It is reasonable to assume that some people will not believe in Quantum Mechanics, as the OP mentioned.
Gravity isn't a theory anymore. Back then inertia wasn't acknowledged as a scientific law either and impetus was a seriously considered scientific theory.
My point is just that Quantum theory while it is a mostly accepted theory, it isn't anywhere near the standing that the Thermodynamic Laws have in the scientific community. And while some parts of quantum mechanics are nailed down pretty solidly, there are still vast areas that are revised at a rapid rate, (eg. the various string theories). It is reasonable to assume that some people will not believe in Quantum Mechanics, as the OP mentioned.
That's... just wrong. A law is not what a theory gets to be when it grows up. A law is an observed invariant relationship. A theory explains laws. The laws of gravity Newton discovered are not more solid than QM; they are wrong.
What zakkiel said basically. The only thing about QM that can be argued to be wrong is that it doesn't tell us why we get the results we do (at least, not in any satisfactory detail).
I'd also like to note that the laws of thermal physics, especially those of statistical mechanics, are in fact one of the verifications of quantum mechanics- if you read a modern thermal physics textbook, the equations of state will be derived from quantum mechanical descriptions of a gas. Solid state physics is largely the discussion of how (quantum) particles behave in a lattice. In astrophysics, fusion at the heart of stars wouldn't work without tunneling. For more reading on these topics I recommend Schroeder's Thermal Physics, Chandrasekhar's Radiative Transfer, and Kittel's Solid State Physics.
General relativity (I trust you do know that the Newtonian theory of gravity is wrong), on the other hand, has few enough experimental checks that I can name most of them offhand. Gravitational lensing, time dilation as measured by accurate clocks in airliners, the binary pulsar gravity wave energy loss, and the anomalous precession of Mercury. This is good enough for me, and good enough for most physicists, but I don't think anyone (who knows what they are talking about) would claim that it outweighs the evidence for the correctness of quantum mechanics.
As far as this is related to the OP- quantum computing is possible. I really doubt that it will make anyone omnipotent anytime soon.
You realize general relativity is pretty much one of the most heavily, repeatedly and diversely tested scientific theories in existence right whereas thermodynamics came about empirically. Or, to put it another way, relativity is a significant enough effect that we have to correct for it in the Global Positioning System for it to give remotely accurate readings since the relative speed makes the perception of time between ground and satellites significantly different.
Arguing that QM or General Relativity can be considered more valid then each other is just retarded.
This is off-topic but also sort of on-topic; what are scientists looking at today as the most likely unified theory of everything?
I'm currently reading The Elegant Universe but I've heard around that superstring theory is on its way out, is there any credibility to that? I'm just entering the multiple dimensions part of the book and this is where it's starting to lose me. It seems excessively challenging to me to create a testable, falsifiable hypothesis around the idea of dimensions past the fourth.
You realize general relativity is pretty much one of the most heavily, repeatedly and diversely tested scientific theories in existence right whereas thermodynamics came about empirically. Or, to put it another way, relativity is a significant enough effect that we have to correct for it in the Global Positioning System for it to give remotely accurate readings since the relative speed makes the perception of time between ground and satellites significantly different.
Arguing that QM or General Relativity can be considered more valid then each other is just retarded.
Yes. I didn't mean to say that QM was more valid, but it isn't "in doubt" or anything.
String theory as far as I know just has the fortune of being the most widely publicized contender for a GUT, rather then having anything more special then some of the others.
Gravity isn't a theory anymore. Back then inertia wasn't acknowledged as a scientific law either and impetus was a seriously considered scientific theory.
Since when? Last I checked (this past year) they still had yet to observe a graviton. Unless you're looking at "laws" as somehow more verified than theories, which isn't entirely accurate - I'm looking at a law as a theory that can be put into predictive practice. Laws can be disproven, too - they're laws because they're theories that have active utility. The principles behind the "law of gravity" would still be predictive and useful even if a graviton was somehow disproven and an alternate theory proven to be true. Even if some other mechanism was ultimately involved, all those equations would still give you accurate answers.
Something that always annoy me when it comes to speculative discussion regarding the technological singularity and the future of mindkind is that there is sooo much focus on everything merging together and becoming one single mind.
That's why I love the Orion's Arm World Building Project:
Welcome to Orion's Arm, a scenario set thousands of years in the future where civilization spans the stars. Godlike ascended intelligences rule vast interstellar empires, and lesser factions seek to carve out their own dominions through intrigue and conquest. And out beyond the edge of civilized space and the human friendly worlds, adventure awaits those prepared to risk all.
Come join us in this ever-expanding collective worldbuilding effort. Within the vast universe that is Orion's Arm you will find:
* Hard Science
* Plausible Technology
* Realistic Cultural Development
* A vast Setting
* 10,000+ years of historical development
* Realistic Exobiology
There are group minds, singular minds and a lot of variations in between; entire civilizations where the individuals transcend into a higher toposophic level while other remain behind and still have a purpose of some sort; countless of varying cultures and clades - which are basically all offshoot species from modified baseline humans, provolved animals/splices and artifical life in both physical and digital shape.
I think in the end, "singular" minds would have about as much purpose as single-celled organisms would compared to more complex life. Yes, bacteria have a very important role to play in Earth's ecosystem, but they will never achieve the sort of freedom and self-awareness that a human being - an organism composed of trillions of cells working in harmony - can aspire towards.
I think in the end, "singular" minds would have about as much purpose as single-celled organisms would compared to more complex life. Yes, bacteria have a very important role to play in Earth's ecosystem, but they will never achieve the sort of freedom and self-awareness that a human being - an organism composed of trillions of cells working in harmony - can aspire towards.
Yes, I think that's an appropriate analogy.
Not necessarily, what's to say that a singular mind can't be every bit as complex as a group mind?
Group minds might also suffer from a unique set of possible problems that might stop us from all going that particular path - so hopefully we end up with variation anyway
Though what you brought up about single-celled organisms is also hypothesized in the world building site I mentioned.
There they say that the reason these super powerful and intelligent beings keep baseline sapients (that is beings of equal mental capacity as modern day humans) is for the same reason we have gut bacteria inside of ourselves.
The biggest hurdle would be that there's a lot more to copying a mind than just scanning brains, not only is there anecdotal evidence that the brain is just where most of the information is kept but really all you need is enough neurons in one place intercommunicating (i.e around major organs like hearts or the digestive system) but there's a lot more to how the brain works than just signals passing down neurons. How your brain responds to the chemical soup it sits in (and which over bits are contributing to the soup at any one time) is just as much a part of you as the data you've collected over time.
Transferring to another (similar, changing sex would certainly have a significant effect on you) human body is going to keep you being pretty similar to your previous self, but you'd definitely lose a lot of a person transferring them into a machine body (unless you also added a lot of 'unconcious' elements as well). First post-humans are probably going to come out as autistic sociopaths.
If you have the capability to scan and digitally reproduce neurons then I'm sure you can add in the hormones and other factors that affect your mind into the simulation.
It's a lot more work though, if you're just scanning the brain you're looking at modelling connections - if you can see and copy the pattern, then you don't need to model a lot of the small scale stuff. As long as neurone A responds to neurone B correctly then you don't need know how exactly the signal passed between the two.
If you want to add in hormones then you're digitally simulating a significant part of a human body at the molecular level - for which we don't even have all the structural data yet. It's a much bigger step up (and one that invalidates the need for putting people in robot bodies, since they'll just be programming them like a corporeal person from inside their simulation) than giving a non-human machine some likeness of a human mind.
Did something new pop up in the past 3 years or something?
How do you mean, the answers probably - yes loads of things, but nothing particularly revolutionary - we already knew that there is a huge level of interaction between all the parts of the body, it's just the scope of that interaction appears to increase when you actually start being able to write them down (in the same way we knew there were a lot of stars, but the scale of the universe shown by the Hubble pictures of empty space really drives it home).
Not necessarily, what's to say that a singular mind can't be every bit as complex as a group mind?
Logic? A group mind would ideally have a far greater cognitive capacity and situational awareness than an individual mind. I've yet to see a valid argument for why this wouldn't be the case.
Group minds might also suffer from a unique set of possible problems that might stop us from all going that particular path - so hopefully we end up with variation anyway
Right but I hesitate to make too many assumptions until we're clearer on the particulars regarding what exactly those problems might be.
There they say that the reason these super powerful and intelligent beings keep baseline sapients (that is beings of equal mental capacity as modern day humans) is for the same reason we have gut bacteria inside of ourselves.
Not necessarily, what's to say that a singular mind can't be every bit as complex as a group mind?
Logic? A group mind would ideally have a far greater cognitive capacity and situational awareness than an individual mind. I've yet to see a valid argument for why this wouldn't be the case.
Precisely, just as a singular mind of higher complexity (when compared to us) could be spread out while remaining "individual" would have far greater cognitive capacity and situational awareness than our individual mind.
If the singular mind and group mind has the same amount of substrate then why would one be superior to the other?
Group minds might also suffer from a unique set of possible problems that might stop us from all going that particular path - so hopefully we end up with variation anyway
Right but I hesitate to make too many assumptions until we're clearer on the particulars regarding what exactly those problems might be.
That's pretty much what I think, yet sci-fi very often tend to go for a group mind, a fusion of all life and a final omega point.
Let's say that you download your consciousness onto a computer. It wouldn't be an AI, per say, as it would be closer to a human brain than a computer one at that time--it would have the same connections, the same memories up to that point, the same knowledge. From that point on, however, while I go to work, eat meals, and go on dates, the cyber version of myself, so long as the computer I download myself to is on, has only one outlet--the internet. Considering that a computer's processor can go far quicker than a human brain, and that a, let's call it AHI (artificial human intelligence), would have no real world to distract them, an AHI would be using the internet pretty much as long as the computer was on.
Meaning that I could go to the computer at the end of every day, and talk to what's basically myself, except a version of myself that now has a far greater base of knowledge than I.
The question, however, is how long would it take for a computer generated human intelligence to have no similarity to a human being? How long would the process from AHI to AI take?
And would this be a more viable way to make an AI than simply building a new one from scratch? Simply (though I know it's not so simple) find a way to transcribe a human brain into the computer, then let it run?
Let's say that you download your consciousness onto a computer. It wouldn't be an AI, per say, as it would be closer to a human brain than a computer one at that time--it would have the same connections, the same memories up to that point, the same knowledge. From that point on, however, while I go to work, eat meals, and go on dates, the cyber version of myself, so long as the computer I download myself to is on, has only one outlet--the internet. Considering that a computer's processor can go far quicker than a human brain, and that a, let's call it AHI (artificial human intelligence), would have no real world to distract them, an AHI would be using the internet pretty much as long as the computer was on.
Meaning that I could go to the computer at the end of every day, and talk to what's basically myself, except a version of myself that now has a far greater base of knowledge than I.
The question, however, is how long would it take for a computer generated human intelligence to have no similarity to a human being? How long would the process from AHI to AI take?
And would this be a more viable way to make an AI than simply building a new one from scratch? Simply (though I know it's not so simple) find a way to transcribe a human brain into the computer, then let it run?
The bolded right there is your problem.
The Internet is the biggest distraction of them all, a human in a computer would also have to sort out all the shit information from the useful stuff while being prone to getting stuck watching porn/play some games/write a post about how awesome it is to be digital in some forum.
I'd think an AHI like that wouldn't stay healthy for very long unless you also simulate all extra input and stimuli that a body could give to it, not just neural, but also hormonal etc. You wouldn't want to miss something essential that would guarantee it becoming insane or depressed.
I'd think it will take a while before we have not just the processing power not just to run such an AHI, but to also be also to have enough space for backups and run reliable 'experiments' in reasonable time frames. There's some research being done by IBM that expects to run a simulation of a complete human brain by 2019 or something, but only using a simplified model of neurons. I suspect they're underestimating how much extra things would need to be simulated to make it work properly, mostly epigenetics, but I'm interested how far they will come.
Something else we could do right at this very moment which could have exciting results is implant one of those implantable electrostimulating grids, and another grid that can read neurons into two people. Then, see if you can build a brain bridge between two people by simply outputting what you read in one person as stimulation for the other. With a lot of luck, the brain might be adaptable enough that two attuned people with a lot of patience could either sense some things the other is sensing or even deliberately communicate with each other using the brain bridge.
Let's say that you download your consciousness onto a computer. It wouldn't be an AI, per say, as it would be closer to a human brain than a computer one at that time--it would have the same connections, the same memories up to that point, the same knowledge. From that point on, however, while I go to work, eat meals, and go on dates, the cyber version of myself, so long as the computer I download myself to is on, has only one outlet--the internet. Considering that a computer's processor can go far quicker than a human brain, and that a, let's call it AHI (artificial human intelligence), would have no real world to distract them, an AHI would be using the internet pretty much as long as the computer was on.
Meaning that I could go to the computer at the end of every day, and talk to what's basically myself, except a version of myself that now has a far greater base of knowledge than I.
The question, however, is how long would it take for a computer generated human intelligence to have no similarity to a human being? How long would the process from AHI to AI take?
And would this be a more viable way to make an AI than simply building a new one from scratch? Simply (though I know it's not so simple) find a way to transcribe a human brain into the computer, then let it run?
The bolded right there is your problem.
The Internet is the biggest distraction of them all, a human in a computer would also have to sort out all the shit information from the useful stuff while being prone to getting stuck watching porn/play some games/write a post about how awesome it is to be digital in some forum.
Yeah, I was thinking about the other effects of this, such as AHI forums which would be running at the speed of processors, or how by the time that an AHI has been separated enough from a human being to be an AI, they would also be horrifically socially awkward.
And how, depending on you access to databases, most of an AHI's new knowledge would be trivial wikipedia crap.
One thing that I would suspect that faster-thinking AIs would pretty much have to do in order to stay sane would be to invent new methods of entertainment for their own consumption, which would likely be difficult for a human to follow or ever comprehend.
There's also that chance of delusional grandeur that can come with knowing that you are immortal and comparatively all knowing, especially if you started out from what was a human mind map. It's a scifi trope but what would motivate an AHI to do anything worthwhile for those pesky slow meatbags? Survival, knowing they could pull the plug? Threating to kill someone is not a reliable motivator I'd say.
Posts
I think you can imagine the immediate uses.
To go with the extra set of breasts we'll give the ladies?
Crushing sunglasses?
What else?
There also remains a question as to whether such physical damage really "changes" the "mind" of the person, or whether it introduces a physical barrier that blocks that "mind" from fully expressing itself. While profoundly interesting, the phenomenon doesn't completely get rid of the notion that there is a "consciousness" that exists that is not entirely dependent on physiology. It does imply that if this were the case, physiological damage can affect how that "consciousness" interacts with the world through the physical body. I don't have any strong beliefs either way, I'm just interested.
I'm scrounging around for my book right now so I can give you some quotes, but a major aspect of what makes these anecdotes about physical phenomenon affecting personality and consciousness so interesting is how surprisingly authentic the patients end up being, despite obvious and serious flaws. In many accounts they act as though their minds are perfectly intact, covering over what might be obviously missing (such as love, in that example). If it were a question of the mind lacking the ability to express the emotions, rather than actually lacking them, I'd imagine that the person's behavior would be more fractured. Admittedly this is more of an unsupported judgment, I do wish I could find a good quote to show you what I mean.
EDIT:
And as for which additional extremities I'd be willing try out, well...let's just say some day I might be "as happy as a dog with two dicks."
The quotes would be interesting, but I do understand what you mean and actually agree with you in practice.
I'm not inclined to disagree with you in terms of what I believe is the most probable explanation, but dealing with ultimately metaphysical concepts means that you can't rule the idea I mentioned out with any amount of evidence - the idea that somebody's behavior would be more fractured is, like you said, something that seems likely to you, not a rule that the universe must adhere to. There is, for the time being, absolutely no way to know for sure.
The idea might make more sense (or become more confusing) if you broadened the approach - imagine that there is a dimension of consciousness or, to make things even easier to imagine, an actual "God". Imagine that this being of vast consciousness decides to "experience" the universe in much smaller and more limited "doses" by filtering his consciousness through certain combinations of matter (brains). The only aspects of this being's "true consciousness" that would be expressed would be the aspects that those brains are equipped to express. That would mean that all conscious beings are actually this "god" character but have no way of knowing it, and thus would see each other as seperate beings.
That analogy either makes my idea clearer or insanely confusing - just putting forth the idea that it's possible to imagine a consciousness that remains intact even after the ability to fully express it is altered, not that this is actually likely to be the case.
What are you talking about?
Quantum mechanics has to do with the the rest of the OP because it is believed by many to be what enables the singularity. We probably won't be able to reach it with silicon alone, but quantum computers will have more than the processing power available to bootstrap us.
As far as being the most experimentally verified theory, it isn't. I'd say that gravity takes that one. Hell, it is close to the least most experimentally verified theory that is still taken as correct by the majority of scientists.
Gravity is not a theory, unless you mean general relativity, in which case no, you're wrong. QM is much better verified than GR.
My point is just that Quantum theory while it is a mostly accepted theory, it isn't anywhere near the standing that the Thermodynamic Laws have in the scientific community. And while some parts of quantum mechanics are nailed down pretty solidly, there are still vast areas that are revised at a rapid rate, (eg. the various string theories). It is reasonable to assume that some people will not believe in Quantum Mechanics, as the OP mentioned.
General relativity (I trust you do know that the Newtonian theory of gravity is wrong), on the other hand, has few enough experimental checks that I can name most of them offhand. Gravitational lensing, time dilation as measured by accurate clocks in airliners, the binary pulsar gravity wave energy loss, and the anomalous precession of Mercury. This is good enough for me, and good enough for most physicists, but I don't think anyone (who knows what they are talking about) would claim that it outweighs the evidence for the correctness of quantum mechanics.
As far as this is related to the OP- quantum computing is possible. I really doubt that it will make anyone omnipotent anytime soon.
You realize general relativity is pretty much one of the most heavily, repeatedly and diversely tested scientific theories in existence right whereas thermodynamics came about empirically. Or, to put it another way, relativity is a significant enough effect that we have to correct for it in the Global Positioning System for it to give remotely accurate readings since the relative speed makes the perception of time between ground and satellites significantly different.
Arguing that QM or General Relativity can be considered more valid then each other is just retarded.
I'm currently reading The Elegant Universe but I've heard around that superstring theory is on its way out, is there any credibility to that? I'm just entering the multiple dimensions part of the book and this is where it's starting to lose me. It seems excessively challenging to me to create a testable, falsifiable hypothesis around the idea of dimensions past the fourth.
Yes. I didn't mean to say that QM was more valid, but it isn't "in doubt" or anything.
AJ: We're a long ways off yet.
Not even any good guesses?
Since when? Last I checked (this past year) they still had yet to observe a graviton. Unless you're looking at "laws" as somehow more verified than theories, which isn't entirely accurate - I'm looking at a law as a theory that can be put into predictive practice. Laws can be disproven, too - they're laws because they're theories that have active utility. The principles behind the "law of gravity" would still be predictive and useful even if a graviton was somehow disproven and an alternate theory proven to be true. Even if some other mechanism was ultimately involved, all those equations would still give you accurate answers.
That's why I love the Orion's Arm World Building Project:
There are group minds, singular minds and a lot of variations in between; entire civilizations where the individuals transcend into a higher toposophic level while other remain behind and still have a purpose of some sort; countless of varying cultures and clades - which are basically all offshoot species from modified baseline humans, provolved animals/splices and artifical life in both physical and digital shape.
Link here
Yes, I think that's an appropriate analogy.
Not necessarily, what's to say that a singular mind can't be every bit as complex as a group mind?
Group minds might also suffer from a unique set of possible problems that might stop us from all going that particular path - so hopefully we end up with variation anyway
Though what you brought up about single-celled organisms is also hypothesized in the world building site I mentioned.
There they say that the reason these super powerful and intelligent beings keep baseline sapients (that is beings of equal mental capacity as modern day humans) is for the same reason we have gut bacteria inside of ourselves.
Transferring to another (similar, changing sex would certainly have a significant effect on you) human body is going to keep you being pretty similar to your previous self, but you'd definitely lose a lot of a person transferring them into a machine body (unless you also added a lot of 'unconcious' elements as well). First post-humans are probably going to come out as autistic sociopaths.
If you want to add in hormones then you're digitally simulating a significant part of a human body at the molecular level - for which we don't even have all the structural data yet. It's a much bigger step up (and one that invalidates the need for putting people in robot bodies, since they'll just be programming them like a corporeal person from inside their simulation) than giving a non-human machine some likeness of a human mind.
How do you mean, the answers probably - yes loads of things, but nothing particularly revolutionary - we already knew that there is a huge level of interaction between all the parts of the body, it's just the scope of that interaction appears to increase when you actually start being able to write them down (in the same way we knew there were a lot of stars, but the scale of the universe shown by the Hubble pictures of empty space really drives it home).
Logic? A group mind would ideally have a far greater cognitive capacity and situational awareness than an individual mind. I've yet to see a valid argument for why this wouldn't be the case.
Right but I hesitate to make too many assumptions until we're clearer on the particulars regarding what exactly those problems might be.
It's possible.
I believe he's pointing out the fact that this thread has been lying dormant for about three years until just yesterday.
Also, Scooter, as far as I know we still haven't hit the Singularity and we still don't have flying cars. Sorry to get your hopes up.
Precisely, just as a singular mind of higher complexity (when compared to us) could be spread out while remaining "individual" would have far greater cognitive capacity and situational awareness than our individual mind.
If the singular mind and group mind has the same amount of substrate then why would one be superior to the other?
That's pretty much what I think, yet sci-fi very often tend to go for a group mind, a fusion of all life and a final omega point.
Let's say that you download your consciousness onto a computer. It wouldn't be an AI, per say, as it would be closer to a human brain than a computer one at that time--it would have the same connections, the same memories up to that point, the same knowledge. From that point on, however, while I go to work, eat meals, and go on dates, the cyber version of myself, so long as the computer I download myself to is on, has only one outlet--the internet. Considering that a computer's processor can go far quicker than a human brain, and that a, let's call it AHI (artificial human intelligence), would have no real world to distract them, an AHI would be using the internet pretty much as long as the computer was on.
Meaning that I could go to the computer at the end of every day, and talk to what's basically myself, except a version of myself that now has a far greater base of knowledge than I.
The question, however, is how long would it take for a computer generated human intelligence to have no similarity to a human being? How long would the process from AHI to AI take?
And would this be a more viable way to make an AI than simply building a new one from scratch? Simply (though I know it's not so simple) find a way to transcribe a human brain into the computer, then let it run?
The bolded right there is your problem.
The Internet is the biggest distraction of them all, a human in a computer would also have to sort out all the shit information from the useful stuff while being prone to getting stuck watching porn/play some games/write a post about how awesome it is to be digital in some forum.
I'd think it will take a while before we have not just the processing power not just to run such an AHI, but to also be also to have enough space for backups and run reliable 'experiments' in reasonable time frames. There's some research being done by IBM that expects to run a simulation of a complete human brain by 2019 or something, but only using a simplified model of neurons. I suspect they're underestimating how much extra things would need to be simulated to make it work properly, mostly epigenetics, but I'm interested how far they will come.
Something else we could do right at this very moment which could have exciting results is implant one of those implantable electrostimulating grids, and another grid that can read neurons into two people. Then, see if you can build a brain bridge between two people by simply outputting what you read in one person as stimulation for the other. With a lot of luck, the brain might be adaptable enough that two attuned people with a lot of patience could either sense some things the other is sensing or even deliberately communicate with each other using the brain bridge.
Yeah, I was thinking about the other effects of this, such as AHI forums which would be running at the speed of processors, or how by the time that an AHI has been separated enough from a human being to be an AI, they would also be horrifically socially awkward.
And how, depending on you access to databases, most of an AHI's new knowledge would be trivial wikipedia crap.