Grudgeblessed is the mind too small for doubtRegistered Userregular
edited January 2009
Who said anything about biological evolution?
Humanity will most likely alter and enhance itself through technology. Given a few thousand years, parts of it would probably become unrecognizable from a 21st century point of view.
Plus, back to where this thread started, create other consciousnesses with far greater abilities than our own.
We're going to be able to change our genes at will long long before we see any kind of noticeable evolution.
Which is to say, even if we estimate that at five hundred years or so until it's possible, that's seeing the same change amount of change in the human genetic form from the sixteenth century to now. Though we'll likely see far more racial homogenisation and things like red heads dying out. Which I guess could be considered evolution if you really strech the term.
Agreed, humanity in it's current form is just the larvae stage of true consciousness.
I don't buy that. Barring some drastic change in the environment, we're probably not going to evolve much further. As it stands, we're an incredibly successful species, so evolution isn't necessary for our survival.
Perhaps we might alter ourselves artificially, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
We're going to be able to change our genes at will long long before we see any kind of noticeable evolution.
Which is to say, even if we estimate that at five hundred years or so until it's possible, that's seeing the same change amount of change in the human genetic form from the sixteenth century to now. Though we'll likely see far more racial homogenisation and things like red heads dying out. Which I guess could be considered evolution if you really strech the term.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Then again, we'll probably start seeing green heads and blue heads, what with genetic manipulation, so I'll take some comfort in that.
Agreed, humanity in it's current form is just the larvae stage of true consciousness.
I don't buy that. Barring some drastic change in the environment, we're probably not going to evolve much further. As it stands, we're an incredibly successful species, so evolution isn't necessary for our survival.
Perhaps we might alter ourselves artificially, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
This discussion is a bit funny because many people don't seem to realize that we are also machines. Biological machines, "built" by our genes in order for them to successfully reproduce. This self awareness-thing that we humans have is simply a by-product of an evolutionary arms race, evolved for maximizing survivability and reproductive potential.
Indeed. The human ingenuity we take such pride in is just evolved for one purpose. We are nothing more than a sack of meat with the sole purpose of carting our genes around until we can reproduce and pass the genes on.
I just try not to think of it because it's so damn awesome. :P
I don't think it's depressing at all that human intelligence, with all its complexity, has emerged naturally from chemistry.
Also: I think, in a very real sense, evolution is a form of intelligence.
I mean, what do people mean when they say "intelligence" anyway? Human intelligence, as well as AI systems, are actually complexes of different information-processing techniques. One such technique is the evolutionary algorithm (aka the genetic algorithm). Computer programs can solve engineering problems "intelligently" simply by simulating millions of trials-and-errors, with each trial a slight mutation from the last, and seeing what "works" the best. Human brains are also capable of such trial-and-error algorithms; I would argue that it's an essential component of what comprises our intelligence.
So I think it's a mistake to see human intelligence as the lucky byproduct of some completely unrelated system of genetic reproduction. That system itself, in the abstract, is a kind of intelligence. It's simply not centralized in any given body, nor is it set to produce any given goal. (The "goals" are determined by whatever ecological niches the genes find themselves in, which are constantly shifting). The evolution of nervous systems and brains is really just the refinement of this broad, abstract system of intelligence to work for a specific goal of preserving specific bodies. It's also sped up and diversified how this abstract intelligence functions.
This is basically what you're all talking about and have no idea.
Artifical Intelligence is meaningless, we've achieved it. All it is in terms of engineering is a system that responds and adapts differently based on a possibly dynamic set of rules over a stream of incoming information.
When machines can think as we think, that is to say they can achieve abstract thought it should be considered Artificial Consciousness.
Consciousness leads to self-awareness, once machines are self-aware they can improve their own designs, and most likely advance faster than we can, thus taking humanity out of technological advancement.
I highly doubt that said machines will be cold, utterly logical creatures. If these entities are capable of consciousness it is not a stretch of reason to assume they will exhibit other contemporary aspects of humanity. They should only deem it worthy to engage us in conflict if we give them sufficient reason to, and not some silly "humanity is a threat to itself and must be exterminated" reason from Sci-Fi.
I would think that the most extreme scenario will be one that is more popular in fiction now; where we let them do everything for us, only to become slaves to our own children.
Agreed, humanity in it's current form is just the larvae stage of true consciousness.
I don't buy that. Barring some drastic change in the environment, we're probably not going to evolve much further. As it stands, we're an incredibly successful species, so evolution isn't necessary for our survival.
Perhaps we might alter ourselves artificially, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
The argument is that our biological evolution is nearly or already complete, and evolution is now technological. It's all well and good to look at the differences between man and machine, but how about looking at the rise of machines compared ot the rise of organic life? What are the capabilities of machines now compared to amoeba, primordial ooze, insects, dinosaurs, etc.? And are they not proceeding along that path at a exponentially faster rate?
The argument is that our biological evolution is nearly or already complete, and evolution is now technological. It's all well and good to look at the differences between man and machine, but how about looking at the rise of machines compared ot the rise of organic life? What are the capabilities of machines now compared to amoeba, primordial ooze, insects, dinosaurs, etc.? And are they not proceeding along that path at a exponentially faster rate?
If there are other intelligent civilizations in the universe, and they have developed machines just like us, and those machines have evolved over a much longer period of time, then how come we have not encountered their machines or any such technological singularities yet?
The argument is that our biological evolution is nearly or already complete, and evolution is now technological. It's all well and good to look at the differences between man and machine, but how about looking at the rise of machines compared ot the rise of organic life? What are the capabilities of machines now compared to amoeba, primordial ooze, insects, dinosaurs, etc.? And are they not proceeding along that path at a exponentially faster rate?
If there are other intelligent civilizations in the universe, and they have developed machines just like us, and those machines have evolved over a much longer period of time, then how come we have not encountered their machines or any such technological singularities yet?
Clearly, something is very wrong here.
I see no reason to assume a form of intelligent life somewhere in the universe would inevitably develop the same technology as ours.
There's any number of explanations for the lack of intelligent life and their machines in our experiences so far.
-Faster than light travel is impossible, and/or near-FTL is impossible for physical objects of any complexity to withstand
-We are alone in the universe as intelligent beings, or at least as intelligent beings with an intelligence that creates or uses tools/machines
-We might be the first intelligent life
-We might be really far away from intelligent life, which is rare enough to exist so far away that even now, it has not reached us (other galaxies, maybe?)
-Intelligent species tend to destroy themselves before they reach the level of technology that would allow them to make contact
There's any number of explanations for the lack of intelligent life and their machines in our experiences so far.
-Faster than light travel is impossible, and/or near-FTL is impossible for physical objects of any complexity to withstand
-We are alone in the universe as intelligent beings, or at least as intelligent beings with an intelligence that creates or uses tools/machines
-We might be the first intelligent life
-We might be really far away from intelligent life, which is rare enough to exist so far away that even now, it has not reached us (other galaxies, maybe?)
-Intelligent species tend to destroy themselves before they reach the level of technology that would allow them to make contact
etc.
We'd be unlikely to be able to detect any civilization under type 2, simply because any civilization confined to it's own solar system while we are also confined to our own solar system is unlikely to interact with us in any meaningful way, meaning the only way for detection to occur would be a shot in the dark, like randomly picking up some sort of recognizable signal from SETI.
We still may very well be under the minimum limit for amount of time it takes to extend beyond type 2 and develop an interstellar civilization. considering that the technology of such a civilization would have to be vastly beyond our own, especially if the FTL speed limit is rigorous, which would greatly increase the time required for interstellar communication, etc.
An interesting theory I came across in a sci-fi novel once is that after singularity, there are still more singulariities possible, but that since everything is being done at light-speed or faster it's a cascading effect so that basically people starting transfering their conciouses over and then within an hour thye've all gone and dissapeared into other universes and into quantum space and all that's left is relics created along the way.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
There also might be a Von Neumann probe (a la 2001: A Space Odyssey) sitting around somewhere nearby waiting for us to do something, but most (sane) people think this is largely improbable.
The argument is that our biological evolution is nearly or already complete, and evolution is now technological. It's all well and good to look at the differences between man and machine, but how about looking at the rise of machines compared ot the rise of organic life? What are the capabilities of machines now compared to amoeba, primordial ooze, insects, dinosaurs, etc.? And are they not proceeding along that path at a exponentially faster rate?
If there are other intelligent civilizations in the universe, and they have developed machines just like us, and those machines have evolved over a much longer period of time, then how come we have not encountered their machines or any such technological singularities yet?
Clearly, something is very wrong here.
I see no reason to assume a form of intelligent life somewhere in the universe would inevitably develop the same technology as ours.
We all live in the same universe, there are similar facts to discover about it, similar capacities that, if discovered, are worth replicating. Better transportation, better communication, better optics, better manipulation of the universe are all desirable outcomes pretty much anywhere.
We all live in the same universe, there are similar facts to discover about it, similar capacities that, if discovered, are worth replicating. Better transportation, better communication, better optics, better manipulation of the universe are all desirable outcomes pretty much anywhere.
Different cultures have different motives, environments, and materials. The nearest intelligent species may have developed somewhere where wheels are incredibly shitty transportation due to the nature of their terrain. Hell they might be space dolphins.
We all live in the same universe, there are similar facts to discover about it, similar capacities that, if discovered, are worth replicating. Better transportation, better communication, better optics, better manipulation of the universe are all desirable outcomes pretty much anywhere.
Different cultures have different motives, environments, and materials. The nearest intelligent species may have developed somewhere where wheels are incredibly shitty transportation due to the nature of their terrain. Hell they might be space dolphins.
Sure. But at the same time, things like the eye have developed multiple times, as have wings and god knows what else. The same has happened with various elements of technology in various cultures. I don't see a reason to not extrapolate this to other possible civilizations.
This isn't to say that things would likely be radically the same, it's to say that we all have the same fundamental laws of the universe to work with, and that's going to cause some similar phenomenon.
The eye has also evolved out of creatures multiple times, as have wings and legs and plenty of other organs.
Yes, they have to follow the same laws, but their environment might encompass a completely different spectrum of those laws. The same laws on Earth lead to the crazy shit on Venus.
The A.I. will build the giant-robots. It will be up to a misfit band of heroes to commandeer some and copy the designs to make brightly colored goodguy giant-robots. Then someone will fall in love. The end.
We still may very well be under the minimum limit for amount of time it takes to extend beyond type 2 and develop an interstellar civilization.
A time limit? It's been billions of years.
Sometimes I sit back and wonder what's the most powerful civilization at this very moment, and what the fuck they are doing.
Well considering that if the speed of light really is the speed limit, simple interstellar communications would take thousands of years at minimum, we could assume that galactic overlords are both extremely long-lived and patient.
After all, while it would be possible for humans to send a ship to say proxima centauri and set up a colony, with even lightspeed communications taking 4 years each way, you couldn't call the 2 cultures that resulted much of a civilization in total, as resource exchange, emigration/immigration, etc would be virtually impossible. Now say that the the nearest suitable colony site is even 50 light years away, a tiny astronamical distance, and simply saying "Hi Bob" and getting a response takes longer than the typical human lifespan.
It's not hard to imagine after setting up a few colonies for the heck of it, a species with humanish lifespans would give up upon realizing that the only real benefit obtained from those colonies is the equivalent of a decades/centuries/millinia old postcard every once in a while.
Now, imagine an ai or some advanced lifeform that could theoretically live for billions of years. Thousand year communication times are no longer as much of an issue, and civilization is possible, but the speed of civilization-wide events would slow from measuring time in days to measuring it in millenia. It's not far-fetched to imagine wars or major civilizational projects taking millions of years.
The most obvious explanation is that the overwhelmingly dominant species in our galaxy is machine based, uniform in consciousness (so no rogue elements) and just doesn't give a crap about us. Right now, with only a few breakthroughs in technology we could build self replicating probes to explore the universe, since life is clearly abundant on the galactic time scale all we would need is one civilization to build such a probe and they would be everywhere. The galaxy after all is only 200,000 light years across, a civilization occuring a billion years ago would only need ships travelling at around 0.02% the speed of light to cross it, double that if we assume the ships spend the same amount of time replicating and scanning as they do travelling. This is perfectly possible, and requires no super tech beyond automatic factory assembly and launchers, it doesn't even need strong AI.
Since these von neumann probes would be out there competing for resources and probing each other, one should be here, and logically the one which should be here should be the most aggressive and inquisitive sort which is also capable of being smart in terms of how much replication it does. However since one is not here, the explanation is probably that something doesn't really care for all these idiot probes bumbling about and just blows them up, our machine or super civilization.
The only other explanation requires some kind of new science, either there is simply some physical reason why inter stellar travel is impossible even at low speeds, or life is a one off, either of which would be odd to the point of complete absurdity.
So the most powerful single entity in the universe at this moment would basically be the closest thing to a physical God.
That's still a little vague. The president of the United States can command more military power than anybody else in the world, but he might not fare too well in a cage match.
The most obvious explanation is that the overwhelmingly dominant species in our galaxy is machine based, uniform in consciousness (so no rogue elements) and just doesn't give a crap about us. Right now, with only a few breakthroughs in technology we could build self replicating probes to explore the universe, since life is clearly abundant on the galactic time scale all we would need is one civilization to build such a probe and they would be everywhere. The galaxy after all is only 200,000 light years across, a civilization occuring a billion years ago would only need ships travelling at around 0.02% the speed of light to cross it, double that if we assume the ships spend the same amount of time replicating and scanning as they do travelling. This is perfectly possible, and requires no super tech beyond automatic factory assembly and launchers, it doesn't even need strong AI.
Since these von neumann probes would be out there competing for resources and probing each other, one should be here, and logically the one which should be here should be the most aggressive and inquisitive sort which is also capable of being smart in terms of how much replication it does. However since one is not here, the explanation is probably that something doesn't really care for all these idiot probes bumbling about and just blows them up, our machine or super civilization.
The only other explanation requires some kind of new science, either there is simply some physical reason why inter stellar travel is impossible even at low speeds, or life is a one off, either of which would be odd to the point of complete absurdity.
Maybe the universe is fucking tiny and we really are alone. And what we have observed is just light looping around from the opposite ends.
So the most powerful single entity in the universe at this moment would basically be the closest thing to a physical God.
That's still a little vague. The president of the United States can command more military power than anybody else in the world, but he might not fare too well in a cage match.
Bush would fuck people up in a cage match.
Obs on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
There would be very little reason to just build von neumann probes to settle the galaxy, though. What would be the point in spending tons of resources on building interstellar ships when those ships have exactly zero chance of ever bringing anything of use back?
Again unless you've mastered immortality and live insane amounts of time, you'd generally be dead before you could even send probes out to scout appropriate sites.
Posts
Humanity will most likely alter and enhance itself through technology. Given a few thousand years, parts of it would probably become unrecognizable from a 21st century point of view.
Plus, back to where this thread started, create other consciousnesses with far greater abilities than our own.
Also, this is a nice little short story for perspective.
Which is to say, even if we estimate that at five hundred years or so until it's possible, that's seeing the same change amount of change in the human genetic form from the sixteenth century to now. Though we'll likely see far more racial homogenisation and things like red heads dying out. Which I guess could be considered evolution if you really strech the term.
Get back to me when we're type 1 on the Kardashev Scale.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Then again, we'll probably start seeing green heads and blue heads, what with genetic manipulation, so I'll take some comfort in that.
That doesn't sound terribly sustainable.
Also: I think, in a very real sense, evolution is a form of intelligence.
I mean, what do people mean when they say "intelligence" anyway? Human intelligence, as well as AI systems, are actually complexes of different information-processing techniques. One such technique is the evolutionary algorithm (aka the genetic algorithm). Computer programs can solve engineering problems "intelligently" simply by simulating millions of trials-and-errors, with each trial a slight mutation from the last, and seeing what "works" the best. Human brains are also capable of such trial-and-error algorithms; I would argue that it's an essential component of what comprises our intelligence.
So I think it's a mistake to see human intelligence as the lucky byproduct of some completely unrelated system of genetic reproduction. That system itself, in the abstract, is a kind of intelligence. It's simply not centralized in any given body, nor is it set to produce any given goal. (The "goals" are determined by whatever ecological niches the genes find themselves in, which are constantly shifting). The evolution of nervous systems and brains is really just the refinement of this broad, abstract system of intelligence to work for a specific goal of preserving specific bodies. It's also sped up and diversified how this abstract intelligence functions.
And here's the movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE
The argument is that our biological evolution is nearly or already complete, and evolution is now technological. It's all well and good to look at the differences between man and machine, but how about looking at the rise of machines compared ot the rise of organic life? What are the capabilities of machines now compared to amoeba, primordial ooze, insects, dinosaurs, etc.? And are they not proceeding along that path at a exponentially faster rate?
If there are other intelligent civilizations in the universe, and they have developed machines just like us, and those machines have evolved over a much longer period of time, then how come we have not encountered their machines or any such technological singularities yet?
Clearly, something is very wrong here.
I see no reason to assume a form of intelligent life somewhere in the universe would inevitably develop the same technology as ours.
-Faster than light travel is impossible, and/or near-FTL is impossible for physical objects of any complexity to withstand
-We are alone in the universe as intelligent beings, or at least as intelligent beings with an intelligence that creates or uses tools/machines
-We might be the first intelligent life
-We might be really far away from intelligent life, which is rare enough to exist so far away that even now, it has not reached us (other galaxies, maybe?)
-Intelligent species tend to destroy themselves before they reach the level of technology that would allow them to make contact
etc.
We'd be unlikely to be able to detect any civilization under type 2, simply because any civilization confined to it's own solar system while we are also confined to our own solar system is unlikely to interact with us in any meaningful way, meaning the only way for detection to occur would be a shot in the dark, like randomly picking up some sort of recognizable signal from SETI.
We still may very well be under the minimum limit for amount of time it takes to extend beyond type 2 and develop an interstellar civilization. considering that the technology of such a civilization would have to be vastly beyond our own, especially if the FTL speed limit is rigorous, which would greatly increase the time required for interstellar communication, etc.
We all live in the same universe, there are similar facts to discover about it, similar capacities that, if discovered, are worth replicating. Better transportation, better communication, better optics, better manipulation of the universe are all desirable outcomes pretty much anywhere.
Different cultures have different motives, environments, and materials. The nearest intelligent species may have developed somewhere where wheels are incredibly shitty transportation due to the nature of their terrain. Hell they might be space dolphins.
Sure. But at the same time, things like the eye have developed multiple times, as have wings and god knows what else. The same has happened with various elements of technology in various cultures. I don't see a reason to not extrapolate this to other possible civilizations.
This isn't to say that things would likely be radically the same, it's to say that we all have the same fundamental laws of the universe to work with, and that's going to cause some similar phenomenon.
Yes, they have to follow the same laws, but their environment might encompass a completely different spectrum of those laws. The same laws on Earth lead to the crazy shit on Venus.
A time limit? It's been billions of years.
Sometimes I sit back and wonder what's the most powerful civilization at this very moment, and what the fuck they are doing.
That's why someone falls in love. To beat the machine-race.
For all we know they died out a billion years ago.
Or it was on that grain of sand I just stepped on.
Well considering that if the speed of light really is the speed limit, simple interstellar communications would take thousands of years at minimum, we could assume that galactic overlords are both extremely long-lived and patient.
After all, while it would be possible for humans to send a ship to say proxima centauri and set up a colony, with even lightspeed communications taking 4 years each way, you couldn't call the 2 cultures that resulted much of a civilization in total, as resource exchange, emigration/immigration, etc would be virtually impossible. Now say that the the nearest suitable colony site is even 50 light years away, a tiny astronamical distance, and simply saying "Hi Bob" and getting a response takes longer than the typical human lifespan.
It's not hard to imagine after setting up a few colonies for the heck of it, a species with humanish lifespans would give up upon realizing that the only real benefit obtained from those colonies is the equivalent of a decades/centuries/millinia old postcard every once in a while.
Now, imagine an ai or some advanced lifeform that could theoretically live for billions of years. Thousand year communication times are no longer as much of an issue, and civilization is possible, but the speed of civilization-wide events would slow from measuring time in days to measuring it in millenia. It's not far-fetched to imagine wars or major civilizational projects taking millions of years.
Then they wouldn't be the most powerful civilization then would they.
Unless they're undead.
If a single ill-prepared biscuit can wipe them out they couldn't have been all that powerful.
:edit: And Garry, if you're reading this, don't get any ideas. You lost, it's over man.
Power defined as potence.
So the most powerful single entity in the universe at this moment would basically be the closest thing to a physical God.
Since these von neumann probes would be out there competing for resources and probing each other, one should be here, and logically the one which should be here should be the most aggressive and inquisitive sort which is also capable of being smart in terms of how much replication it does. However since one is not here, the explanation is probably that something doesn't really care for all these idiot probes bumbling about and just blows them up, our machine or super civilization.
The only other explanation requires some kind of new science, either there is simply some physical reason why inter stellar travel is impossible even at low speeds, or life is a one off, either of which would be odd to the point of complete absurdity.
That's still a little vague. The president of the United States can command more military power than anybody else in the world, but he might not fare too well in a cage match.
Only because Deep Blue cannot love.
Dragon Peppers?
Maybe the universe is fucking tiny and we really are alone. And what we have observed is just light looping around from the opposite ends.
Bush would fuck people up in a cage match.
I am certain astronomers have identified more than enough unique celestial bodies to rule out that possibility.
Again unless you've mastered immortality and live insane amounts of time, you'd generally be dead before you could even send probes out to scout appropriate sites.