Automatons

[quarky]

A sciency version of the eternal soul might be the concept of time travel. If we were able to bounce around to different times in history; dodging death, i suspect that we would be inclined to live lives of greater existential crisis and less moral bearing than without that technology. We would seek out moments of excitement; danger; violence...much like the way we choose movies to watch.

We would want to chuck spears at giant ground sloths; mate rampantly, without concern for ramifications; take whatever we wanted. If we were eternal spirit beings, it might encourage similar immorality.

Oh, wait...I forgot about being damned to hell for ever. That would suck.
nevermind.

 

[Hokulele]

That something is abstract means that it doesn't exist in reality. Show me Justice, for instance. Demonstrate to me that it exists.

Take a look at most modern societies. Justice and value exist just as much as speed. Law enforcement and trade would not be possible without them.

To me, it sounds like you are arguing that abstracts exist only if they are not dependent on people. Something along the line of objective vs. subjective abstracts. Is this correct?

 

[Jimbo07]

A sciency version of the eternal soul might be the concept of time travel.

From the science fiction aspect, I'd say:
- time travel is more fictiony than sciency
- a better aspect might be downloading personalities

I'd call my second point about equal parts fictiony and sciency. I predict that there will be more likelihood of capturing a person's brain state in something like an electronic format than there will be of travelling through time.

 

[bokonon]

From the science fiction aspect, I'd say:
- time travel is more fictiony than sciency
- a better aspect might be downloading personalities

I'd call my second point about equal parts fictiony and sciency. I predict that there will be more likelihood of capturing a person's brain state in something like an electronic format than there will be of travelling through time.

I don't regard either one as probable. Capturing brain state would seem to require snapping a picture of firing synapses for every nerve cell simultaneously, or crawling engrams somehow. I suspect either approach (and, probably, other approaches I haven't conceived) would quickly take you into "the act of observing alters the thing being observed" territory.

Certainly, I don't expect to live long enough to see brains interfacing with hardware for anything more complicated than controlling mechanical devices. The idea that we could augment intelligence or memory by hooking our brain up to a chip seems utterly fanciful to me.

 

[quarky]

From the science fiction aspect, I'd say:
- time travel is more fictiony than sciency
- a better aspect might be downloading personalities

I'd call my second point about equal parts fictiony and sciency. I predict that there will be more likelihood of capturing a person's brain state in something like an electronic format than there will be of travelling through time.

of course i agree...i was merely trying to address the issue with a different metaphor than the usual endless soul thingy.

perhaps better than either of those metaphors is the possibility of very, very long lives. I'd guess it would bring out the crappiest nature of the human being.
Eternal physicality?
No one likes that, do they?
And why not?


Because humans are kind of creepy. Its a good thought that we don't go on and on, as me or you. Imagine the mess we'd get into?

 

[Jimbo07]

Certainly, I don't expect to live long enough to see brains interfacing with hardware for anything more complicated than controlling mechanical devices.

Conversely, I'm almost shocked that we are able to do this! It lends more credence, I think, to the idea that the sophistication of the interface can grow... certainly moreso than for travelling backwards through time, for which there is zero precedent whatsoever!

That said, I only gave it equal parts fictiony to sciency, as opposed to time travel's more fictiony than sciency...

 

[Toady]

HiWhen it happens, I will revisit my theory and either revise or reject it.

I seem to remember a few, "inevitably"s in my time: The victory of the proletariat... the ascendancy of The Master Race...

It's common sense. Consider that in decades, we've gone from vacuum tube computers filling entire rooms to integrated microprocessors small enough to fit in a watch. Intel will eventually be introducing 32 nanometer processors, and the trend in computing now is the pursuit of parallelism--units functioning in parallel like cells to distribute workload. The hardware will grow powerful and efficient enough to support advanced artificial intelligence.

Your argument seems to be, essentially, that you believe technological progress is going to halt and remain at the level it is in 2008 rather than increase exponentially as it has been.

Mmmm... Ok... Where's the sense of humor?

The lower frontal lobes of the brain. The anterior supplemental motor area lights up with activity when you laugh.

Where's the creativity?

The right side of the brain.

Where do Justice and Mercy originate? If that's too steep, how about fairness and generosity?

Empathy and guilt are a function of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. People who suffer injury to this region might lose compassion for others.

Imaging research has revealed much information about the origins of our personalities. The qualities you listed are human concepts existing in our minds to maintain social order, because over the course of evolution, the people who tended not to maintain such order had their gene pools gradually reduced in the species because they were killing themselves or each other. Over time, those whose genes tended to empathize with other humans had increased survival rates because of improved group effort. Eventually, those genes became dominant and considered "human."

It's almost mundane in its simplicity and obviousness. We're physical constructs in a universe governed by math. If your first reaction is that it sounds harsh, it's because it is--the world is cold, emotionless, and going through the motions. Some people, when confronted with this truth, rely on religion to give them a sense of purpose and eternal persistence. Others, like me, ponder the point of the whole thing.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

It's common sense. Consider that in decades, we've gone from vacuum tube computers filling entire rooms to integrated microprocessors small enough to fit in a watch. Intel will eventually be introducing 32 nanometer processors, and the trend in computing now is the pursuit of parallelism--units functioning in parallel like cells to distribute workload. The hardware will grow powerful and efficient enough to support advanced artificial intelligence.

Your argument seems to be, essentially, that you believe technological progress is going to halt and remain at the level it is in 2008 rather than increase exponentially as it has been.

No - actually - my point is that I'll believe it when I see it. Prognostication is outside my purview.

...unless someone wants to pay me to do it, then I'll get, "pay purview," from the cable TV guys.

The lower frontal lobes of the brain. The anterior supplemental motor area lights up with activity when you laugh.

....

The right side of the brain.

....

Empathy and guilt are a function of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. People who suffer injury to this region might lose compassion for others.

Imaging research has revealed much information about the origins of our personalities. The qualities you listed are human concepts existing in our minds to maintain social order, because over the course of evolution, the people who tended not to maintain such order had their gene pools gradually reduced in the species because they were killing themselves or each other. Over time, those whose genes tended to empathize with other humans had increased survival rates because of improved group effort. Eventually, those genes became dominant and considered "human."

This is VERY cool. Thanks. I just now (well - last night) read about empathy and mirror neurons.

It's almost mundane in its simplicity and obviousness. We're physical constructs in a universe governed by math. If your first reaction is that it sounds harsh, it's because it is--the world is cold, emotionless, and going through the motions. Some people, when confronted with this truth, rely on religion to give them a sense of purpose and eternal persistence. Others, like me, ponder the point of the whole thing.

I'm actually sort of about to begin to consider thinking that.

RD got me writing a response that got me thinking about amoeba, which led to crowds of amoeba, which led to crowds of specialized amoeba sort of strung together into a new kind of animal.

I had to change the response. I may have to change my mind.

 

[bokonon]

We're physical constructs in a universe governed by math.

Okay.

If your first reaction is that it sounds harsh, it's because it is--the world is cold, emotionless, and going through the motions.

The world may be, but I'm not. I have plenty of emotion, and I'm not just going through the motions. I'm enjoying every damn minute of it.

Some people, when confronted with this truth, rely on religion to give them a sense of purpose and eternal persistence. Others, like me, ponder the point of the whole thing.

I still don't see the connection between "sense of purpose" and "eternal persistence." So what if the post I'm writing now will be completely forgotten, even by me, in a couple of months? So what if the delicious meal I enjoy this evening is only a memory in the morning? Frankly, I consider the idea "if it doesn't last forever, it's not worth doing" to be nonsense. Maybe you're just a lazy cuss who's looking for an excuse to do nothing.

 

[Brian-M]

It occurs to me we might be using the word "automation" in slightly different ways. For example, one person might use it to describe an autonomous construct with predictable behavior, while someone else might use the term to describe an autonomous construct made entirely from parts with predictable behaviors.

While these two definitions have a high degree of overlap, they have very different implications. When talking about people, animals and sentient computers passing the Turing test, I apply the second definition.

Does a toaster engage in existential angst?


Hell no, it toasts.

You're clearly not a fan of Red Dwarf...

TOASTER: You know the last time you had toast? Eighteen days ago. 11:36, Tuesday the third. Two rounds.
LISTER: Ssshhh!
TOASTER: I mean, what's the point of buying a toaster with artificial intelligence if you don't like toast?
LISTER: I do like toast.
TOASTER: I mean, this is my job! This is cruel! Just cruel!
LISTER: Look, I'm busy!
TOASTER: Oh, you're not busy eating toast, are you?
LISTER: I don't want any!
TOASTER: I mean, the whole purpose of my existence is to serve you with hot, buttered, scrummy toast. If you don't want any, then my existence is meaningless.
LISTER: Good.
TOASTER: I toast, therefore I am.
LISTER: Will you shut up?!

 

[Richard Masters]

Logically, I know it shouldn't be a problem, but it's the thought that everyone around me is really a "robot." Of course, I am one too, but I don't feel like it. Even though I know there's no evidence for a soul or afterlife, I can't help struggling with the thought of non-existence and non-purpose. Honestly, I find it disturbing.

"Automatons" is also correct.

I was thinking about this the other day, while perusing the thread on "The Hard Problem of Consciousness."

At first I strongly disagreed that there was no problem, but then I realized I was still thinking in abstractly dualistic terms, even though I thought I wasn't.

It was a strange epiphany, and I kept trying to place the self somewhere in the brain, or to make sense of meaning.

Once I reformulated my view of the world, I discovered a lot of hidden assumptions and some inconsistencies seemed to resolve.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I'm struggling with the ramifications of being an atheist. If there's no soul and no afterlife, does that not make us cell-based automatons, going through the motions with the illusion that we're making decisions? What are your thoughts?

There is no soul and no afterlife.

At least, there is no evidence for these things. Which makes us cell-based automations, going through the motions of life.

And so ****ing what?

We are going through life as every other entity of life has ever gone through it. In fact, we are going through it in a better way than other living creatures have. We are going through it with our eyes wide open.

No plant or bacteria ever went through it this way.

We do.

And we live for 80 years. Much longer than most other species.

We do very well.

 

[Mark Felt]

Take a look at most modern societies. Justice and value exist just as much as speed. Law enforcement and trade would not be possible without them.

I'm sure just as many people would disagree with your statement of justice as agree.

To me, it sounds like you are arguing that abstracts exist only if they are not dependent on people. Something along the line of objective vs. subjective abstracts. Is this correct?

Correct.

 

[Richard Masters]

It doesn't feel like an opportunity. It feels like a pointless excursion in physical suffering.

On the flip side of the coin, why bother to make things better if the world doesn't matter? Who cares what difference you make?

This is one of the first things I thought about. To claim and worry that existence is pointless would appear to be a paradox:

Your actual yearning for existence not to be pointless is proof that you give it meaning.

The people around you still feel, like you, and there are things to be seen, and experienced. Even if these things are illusory, or predetermined, they feel real and have actual consequences, so by definition, they are real.

If there's no reason or purpose, then this is simply a sphere of matter orbiting around a star in an observable physical universe that goes on existing, pointlessly. Those "real people" are just the latest generation of mathematically evolved cell structures that will reproduce more structures before dying off. Their appearance of being alive is an illusion--their brains are cell-based automatons, no more alive or of value than a rock tumbling down a hill.

That may be, but to call it an illusion doesn't change what yesterday felt like when you called it reality. What you choose to call it makes no difference, because it still is the same.

Think about it this way: If we can't tell the difference between free will and absolute determinism, then what is there to miss? And what if there is no difference between free-will as we know it and absolute determinism?

But value isn't real. The ultimate, objective conclusion on the physicality of the universe would be that morals, emotions, and social norms are illusions of the brain, evolved out of necessity for survival. That means there's no difference between a philanthropist donating to charity or a homicidal maniac killing ten people. To the universe, it doesn't matter.

But to us it does.

And apparently we are somewhat special in our part of the universe, as we get to experience it, and think about it, out of what appears to be pure chance. We even get to manipulate matter to our advantage and enjoy life. We get to ask these questions and come to our own conclusions.

Who cares what impact we leave behind? There's no eternal god to care, and future generations are robots who will live through their generation and die as we will, so their thoughts--nothing more than biochemical signals passing through some cells--have no meaning anyway.

But the real meaning resides in the now, not in the later when we are gone.
Without anyone to experience meaning, there is no meaning, obviously. Which is what makes the fact that we can experience it all the more meaningful. It's a better reason, in my opinion, to not waste the opportunity to exist. (I hope that makes sense).

Am I coming off as overly analytical here? I don't mean to. This is just a realization that bothers and fascinates me, though I know it's nothing new.

It fascinates me, too. I want to wrap the universe and the meaning of meaning into into a tight little package, and I don't want to stop experiencing life, (because I like it more often than not).

What I can't comprehend, and probably won't is non-existence; but I think that's where you were going with this. What is the meaning of non-existence?

 

[quarky]

non-existance is the default setting of the universe.

 

[bokonon]

What is the meaning of non-existence?

That's when I plan to indulge my despair over lack of ultimate purpose.

This side of the grave, provisional purpose suits me just fine.

 

[Jimbo07]

non-existance is the default setting of the universe.

Really? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Assuming the current model, was the singularity a state of non-existance?

 

[westprog]

It's common sense. Consider that in decades, we've gone from vacuum tube computers filling entire rooms to integrated microprocessors small enough to fit in a watch. Intel will eventually be introducing 32 nanometer processors, and the trend in computing now is the pursuit of parallelism--units functioning in parallel like cells to distribute workload. The hardware will grow powerful and efficient enough to support advanced artificial intelligence.

Your argument seems to be, essentially, that you believe technological progress is going to halt and remain at the level it is in 2008 rather than increase exponentially as it has been.

The argument for AI has been made along those lines for a good many years now. It was always assumed that the pure increase in processing power would be enough to produce intelligent machines a long time ago. It hasn't happened, which has led to a degree of scepticism about pure processing power being enough.

HAL was supposed to be functioning by 2001. It was almost taken for granted that Moore's law would be enough. It clearly wasn't.

 

[Mark Felt]

non-existance is the default setting of the universe.

How does I posted on non-existent internet?

 

[Toady]

The argument for AI has been made along those lines for a good many years now. It was always assumed that the pure increase in processing power would be enough to produce intelligent machines a long time ago. It hasn't happened, which has led to a degree of scepticism about pure processing power being enough.

HAL was supposed to be functioning by 2001. It was almost taken for granted that Moore's law would be enough. It clearly wasn't.

I don't see why the fact it hasn't happened yet means it won't ever happen. It's logical to assume that processing power will continue to progress and that someday, scientists will take advantage of it by developing advanced AI.