/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2318960]

How come both sides of transhumanism are surrounded by mysticism, conspiracy theorists, and in general New Age faggotry? Type in transhumanism or any variant of the word and you get a hundred posts that have more to do wit religion than science or engineering. I just want to talk about cybernetics and genetic engineering without the thread derailing into posts about how Mecha-Satan and the Illuminati are trying to steal our souls using computers or how technology will prove X hippie religion true and we can be apart of the universal energy and Namaste!

Note: This doesn't really apply to /sci/ since it's like 99% atheist, but discussion of transhumanism elsewhere will attract fundies, tin-foil hatters and New Agers faster than their collective disappointment when nothing happens in 2012.

[OP No.2318969]

http://defenderpublishing.blogspot.com/2010/08/forbidden-gates-how-genetics-robotics.html

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.2318975]

>>2318960
That almost looks like the chick from Mirror's Edge.

[Anonymous No.2318983]

Because people are crazy.

Repeat after me.

People. Are. Crazy.

[Anonymous No.2319018]

New-agers and tinfoil hats think like children, and are attracted to anything "cool" in a saturday-morning-cartoon sort of way. Thus, when a chance to get cyborgs involved in their batshit insane mythology came along, they couldn't possibly let it pass by.

[Anonymous No.2319026]

I'm more interested in the singularity than anything. I'd say that the next step in human evolution, will be a singularity or merger of biological entities and technology.

[Anonymous No.2319030]

>>2318975
It's a photoshop of Miss Mosh, the most gorgeous woman on teh interwebs.

[Anonymous No.2319043]

>>2318969
What the fucking hell is this?

Also,
>99% of /sci/ is atheist
but
>98% of /sci/ are trolls pretending to be theist

[Anonymous No.2319051]

>>2319043
Also you should have said ATHEISTIC, but whatever.

[Anonymous No.2319052]

What are the two sides of transhumanism, scifi and fantasy? If you think transhumanism has anything to do with science or mathematics, you are delusional.

[Anonymous No.2319064]

>>2319052
I believe that the people in this thread are discussing trans humanism in the sense of combining humans with machines, not with spiritual shit, or crossing into a different plane of existence.

[Anonymous No.2319065]

/sci/ is split pretty evenly between atheist, agnostic, and theist.

[Anonymous No.2319068]

>>2319064
So they're on the scifi side of it.

[Tautoulogic !fcsdUrivQ. No.2319071]

>>2318960
How come both sides of nihilissm are surrounded by mysticism, conspiracy theorists, and in general New Age faggotry? Type in nihilism or any variant of the word and you get a hundred posts that have more to do wit religion than science or engineering. I just want to talk about free will and quantum dualism without the thread derailing into posts about how Mecha-Satan and the Illuminati are trying to steal our souls using computers or how technology will prove X hippie religion true and we can be apart of the universal energy and Namaste!

Note: This doesn't really apply to /sci/ since it's like 99% atheist, but discussion of nihilism elsewhere will attract fundies, tin-foil hatters and New Agers faster than their collective disappointment when nothing happens in 2012.

[sage No.2319077]

>>2318960
>transhumanism are surrounded by mysticism, conspiracy theorists, and in general New Age faggotry?

Cause transhumanism discussion by little kids on /sci/ is pretty much new age faggotry.

Yall talk about that shit to escape reality, in the same way new age faggots talk about new age bullshit (to escape reality). It pretty much serves the same purpose. Yall both need to man the fuck up and do some real science (or engineering if you are a homosexual)

[Anonymous No.2319086]

>>2319071
nigger please

[Anonymous No.2319096]

>>2319077

[Anonymous No.2319104]

>>2319077
I hope you don't honestly think becoming a cyborg is "magical" or any way related to crystal healing or hemeopathy. Transhumanism isn't a science, it's a philosophy, but that doesn't mean it can't be scientifically based.

[Anonymous No.2319125]

>>2319104
Have fun trying to escape reality, im sure that will work great for you.....LMAO.

>it's a philosophy

LMAO.....WOW....So, you don't even really know what transhumanism is? That is some funny shit.

[Anonymous No.2319144]

>>2319125
By posting on the internet, you are trying to escape reality.
By playing video games, you are trying to escape reality.
By reading books, you are trying to escape reality.

Why does this matter to you so much? There is nothing wrong with improving your body. If you're fat, you work out or run. If you lose an arm, you get a prosthetic. Let's say getting a synthetic body would be better than our natural bodies. What's escapist about choosing the objectively better option?

[Anonymous No.2319147]

>>2319125
Have fun ... dieing?

[Anonymous No.2319148]

>>2319144
>What's escapist about choosing the objectively better option?
What's escapist is you're
>implying that'll be possible in any of our lifetimes

[Anonymous No.2319170]

>>2319144
>By posting on the internet, you are trying to escape reality.
>By playing video games, you are trying to escape reality.
>By reading books, you are trying to escape reality.

Confirmed for no friends

[Anonymous No.2319185]

>>2319144
All your options are fuckin fantasty dude. You should stop watching so much anime, it is fuckin with your brain.

[Anonymous No.2319196]

>>2319148
I wouldn't be so sure about it. I think in 5-50 years,a lot will happen. At least if you follow the direction of scientific research:
1. Human-like AI in 5-10+ years, if we can do better is yet unknown.
2. Fusion - 5-30+ years
3. BCI's - we're already there, but they're primitive so far, it'll only get better from here, especially as technology keeps improving
4. Brain uploading - 30-50+ years (?), this will probably take longer, mostly due to difficulties in making accurate and non-destructive scanning technologies (if nanotech becomes feasible, it will be reached much faster) as well as building equivalent hardware to emulate/run the data. I think it will happen after we achieve point 1, and maybe point 1 is even a requirement as the needed hardware for both is similar.
5. nano-technology - I have no idea how long this will take. If anyone has any idea, I'd like to hear it, but I can't see it happening without some major breakthroughs.
6. slowing/stopping human aging, possible improvements with regards of regeneration - 5-10+ years, with improvements as time passes.
7. Easy cures for cancer - same as 5 (cure does not mean prevention).

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2319203]

>>2319185
Planes
Rockets to the moon
Atomic energy
Mission to Mars

[Anonymous No.2319214]

>>2319196
STOP WATCHING SO MUCH ANIME!

[Anonymous No.2319215]

Which would you think would be better for everyone:

Strong AI modelled on an emulation of the human brain or Strong AI that was once a human that eventually completely converted to mechanical/digital existence?

tl;dr - AI: Never human or once human?

[Anonymous No.2319218]

>>2319196
>1. Human-like AI in 5-10+ years, if we can do better is yet unknown.

Super cool story, bro. WHAT the HELL makes you think human-like AI is on that much of a fast-track?

[Anonymous No.2319230]

>>2318960

Because transhumanism is going to be a mystical idea for quite some time still. The fusion of humans and machines is far from refined, in fact it's some of the crudest resulting applied science we have presently. Last time I checked the most widely available prosthetic limb used twitching of the biceps and triceps to rotate and open/close a robotic claw. While advanced in its own right, it's...primitive, compared to what most people would say transhumanism is.

[Anonymous No.2319239]

>>2319196
I am a transhumanist too.
I want to __RANDOM FANTASY SHIT__.
Then more __RANDOM FANTASTY SHIT__. Wouldn't __RANDOM FANTASTY BULLSHIT__be better then we are now?

It could all happen becuase __BAD IMPLICATIONS OF UNRELATED RESEARCH__. The __SPECUALTIONS OF RESEARCH THAT ISNT ANYWHERE NEAR COMPLETION__ is science, so its all scientifically sound!

Now I will go back to watching __SHIT ANIME__.

[Anonymous No.2319247]

>>2319239

[Anonymous No.2319249]

>>2319214
None of those that I've listed is impossible. Most of my estimates are based on what is current research and their own estimates. The only thing I'm unsure about is nano-technology and everything that depends on it, which essentially means 5 and 7 are unknown when they will be reached (as long as we don't wipe ourselves out by then), 6 can be reachable much sooner as the causes of aging and how they can be prevented or fixed are starting to get better understood (maybe I shouldn't be a lazy fuck and actually provide citations for my claims, but something tells me you're just responding me to troll me, so I'm not going to bother, try looking it up by yourself). 2's estimates are just official estimates of the leaders in those respective fields (and a lot of money is being put into that now by countries around the world). 1 is based on the results in modeling the neocortex and the brain - current models are pretty damn good, and are only limited by our ability to make hardware which can run such designs efficiently (currently, the most promising work in making such hardware is done by HP and US military).

So while I may watch "animu", I don't think my estimates are unfounded at all, as they're all based on either estimates given by experts in their field as well as the research papers in those fields that I've read so far (only in fields I'm proficient in).

[Anonymous No.2319254]

>>2319077
>>2319096
>>2319239
>>2319247
Dude, I agree with you, but seriously... stop samefagging so hard. It's making me mad. Lern2 4chan.

[Anonymous No.2319259]

>>2319249
>None of those that I've listed is impossible

Doesn't understand basic logic, or the burden of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

[Anonymous No.2319262]

>>2319254
I only posted two of those

[Anonymous No.2319268]

>>2319239
WIN

[Anonymous No.2319273]

>>2319215
Probably a computer based on humans. An AI would probably be completely disconnected from us. AT=t least a former human might be able to understand us.

[Anonymous No.2319279]

[Anonymous No.2319282]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110106145311.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101214122850.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208142301.htm

My specialty is in genetics, not cybernetics,but here are some interesting articles. Cyborgs aren't as far away as you think.

[Anonymous No.2319288]

>>2319239
>>2319247
Obvious samefag is obvious. You even need to give yourself an "Epic Win" response, since you're unsure that anyone would agree with you.
>>2319215
Since efficient hardware will come much sooner than humans will be able to upload, we'll probably get non-human AIs first. I don't know which will be better for anyone, I just think it will be much earlier that we'll get the non-human one.
>>2319218
For one, when the memristor is a mature enough technology, we'll be able to make much cheaper parallel hardware similar to the human brain, that is, neuromorphic hardware. There is already a lot of research and funding put into this. Here's one such project:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/artificial-intelligence/moneta-a-mind-made-from-memristors/0
http://cns.bu.edu/nl/moneta.html

[Anonymous No.2319294]

>>2319288
> continued
The main problem is energy consumption for something of the size of the human neocortex (and other related neural regions) when implemented in traditional VLSI technology, however, we're already getting different and competing alternatives to it, which will make neuromorphic hardware much more possible and it will eventually reach the size of the human neocortex.
At the same time, there are some pretty interesting models of the neocortex which seem to explain a lot of our intelligence, see "On Intelligence: How a New Understanding of the Brain will Lead to the Creation of Truly Intelligent Machines" by Jeff Hawkins (even if it's a bit outdated) and then read the papers on numenta.com .
There are many other researchers and interesting results in the field, but I'm not going to go and list all of them now, look them up yourself!
All I'm saying is that the field is moving on quite fast, and if the hardware catches up with the theoretical research, we'll eventually reach some human-like AI. My estimate is at least 10 years for something good, but it could happen sooner. I'd say 5 years for animal-like intelligence, if the hardware front progresses as fast as it expects to.

[Anonymous No.2319322]

Gentlemen, you focus so much on the hardware, but I ask of you: What about the software?

Think about today's computers. Our hardware can perform much more efficiently and powerfully if one thing weren't holding it back: the software.

[Anonymous No.2319328]

>>2319294
The problem is software. I don't think we really know enough about the human brain to re-create it like that.

[Anonymous No.2319330]

>>2319322
>>2319328
softwaremind

[Anonymous No.2319335]

>>2319322
>>2319328

softwaremind

[Anonymous No.2319345]

We really don't know enough about the "mind" or brain, if you're not a dualist.

If we really are our brains, then "copying" over to a computer will not save us. It will create a clone identity, not transfer you.

If dualism is wrong, and all we are is the biology of our brains, then the only way we can shed our bodies is via brain-in-a-jar, and putting that jar in command of a robotic body.

The challenge then becomes immortalizing the brain.

[Anonymous No.2319348]

>>2319282
>The team of researchers created genetic sequences never before seen in nature, and the scientists showed that they can produce substances that sustain life in cells almost as readily as proteins produced by nature's own toolkit.

"What we have here are molecular machines that function quite well within a living organism even though they were designed from scratch and expressed from artificial genes," said Michael Hecht, a professor of chemistry at Princeton, who led the research.
>protein design works

OH SHIT NIGGER

SHIT JUST GOT REAL

[Anonymous No.2319350]

>>2319330
>>2319335
softwaremind mind

[Anonymous No.2319353]

>>2319345
>doesn't know about gradual replacement

bitch please

[Anonymous No.2319358]

>>2318960
>How come both sides of transhumanism are surrounded by mysticism, conspiracy theorists, and in general New Age faggotry?

because transhumanism isn't /sci/ence

take this to /lit/ , /x/, or /b/

[Anonymous No.2319365]

Transhumanism is pretty fuckin' awesome.
The reason why religious types, etc. are haters is because transhumanism wants to break the myth of the inferiority of humankind- it's the central thesis of most religions.
Then you have the "gaps" argument (not God of the gaps argument), that basically states that science fails to capture ALL there is to know about what it's like to be human (it's basically a humanist interpretation of the religious doctrine above). Then the question becomes, as science progresses, and its methods become better and more reliable, being able to probe into deeper and more fundamental questions, what WILL science miss concerning the nature of humans? Also coupled with the fact that it's an evolutionary need to become better than the rest to survive- the predictions o transhumanism will become a reality one day.

[Anonymous No.2319379]

Transhumanism is an pretty cool guy. eH fights singularities and doesn't afraid of anything

[Anonymous No.2319404]

>>2319365
>one day

Thing is, I want it to happen before I die.

I want to live forever in a robot body. I want to jump off a spaceship and float to Pluto. I want to walk on Gliese 198 or whatever the designation is.

I can't do that in this meatsack! Get me out, science!

[Anonymous No.2319410]

>>2319322
We have somewhat failed in reaching general AI with software models meant to run on the sequential CPU. There are some promising projects in that area, but wether they will reach decent results is unknown.

On the other hand, we know our brain works fine, so it's what we should try to model/emulate if we want to achieve an AI. I'm not claiming it's the only way - there are problably many ways, however this is one guaranteed way.

Now some facts about the neocortex (the part of the brain responsible for our intelligence):
- 30 billion neurons
- 100 trillion synapses.
If you were to create a human-like AI based on the neocortex, you'd need to run all those synapses in parallel, and each step results in changes in their state.

[Anonymous No.2319414]

>>2319404

404: science not found.

Also, no.

[Anonymous No.2319427]

>>2319410
If you try to run it on a lot common CPUs, it would be incredibly slow and eat up a huge amount of energy ( think of the amount it would take to power a city ). If you're smarter, you'll realize that CPUs are not efficient enough to run a system that is highly parallel like that, so you'll turn to designing some sort of neuromorphic hardware (keep in mind, all electronic hardware runs everything in parallel, which makes it perfectly suitable for the task (even if most hardware is designed to be sequential through the use of a clock, as it makes the design process considerably simpler)). However, even with neuromorphic hardware, the actual energy costs are high if you want to run something the size of the human neocortex, which is why people are pushing towards technologies like the memristor (among others) which allow for a lot of miniaturization and reduced energy consumption (see http://www.neurdon.com/tag/memristor/ for some links to some interesting projects)). Our brain consumes a lot less energy than equivalent hardware would, however we should also keep in mind that our brain is reduntant in the sense that it tolerates dead neurons, resistent to noise, and so on - this will also allow reducing the cost of manufacture as architecture allows a lot of room for error.

Oh, as for the software of the brain: it doesn't seem like the brain has very many specific/custom circuits. The main part which provides our intelligence (the neocortex) is actually comprised of the same fairly generic "circuit" (the way the layers are organized creates it, it's not intentional, in the same way a human designs a circuit, the connections between neurons are stochastic, but order is given through layers and overall organization of the connectivity) with minor differences throughout.

[Anonymous No.2319442]

I've never understood the arguments against transhumanism. So, death is a good thing? What? Who wouldn't want to live forever? Pic related, it's opponents of transhumanism. On a serious note, I do think civilization should focus its resources on curing aging. Surprisingly, Mormons are probably the largest religious group supporting this movement. Immortality in this life somehow fits perfectly into their ideology.

[Anonymous No.2319444]

Just a quick question:

if who we are is a product of the biology of our brain through a continuous stream of consciousness, if you stop all brain activity and then restart activity in the same brain, is a new consciousness created?

[Anonymous No.2319449]

>>2318969
>"... to everything you have known about spiritual warfare."

How do people like this even manage to use a computer, let alone get a book published?

[Anonymous No.2319450]

>>2319427
How much power does the brain use, accounting for ATP and all that?

Could we generate that much electricity to power an artificial brain?

[Anonymous No.2319455]

>>2319442
The idea is good. The fan club is full of morons, zealots, and mystical hippies.

[Anonymous No.2319462]

[Anonymous No.2319465]

>>2319444
Quite likely the case, but can you really say you're the same consciousness as he one that went to bed last time? We lose consciousness during some parts of the sleep in some sense. What about a coma patient or someone who had a near-death experience?

The continuity of consciousnes is given to us by our memories, but there is no reason to believe that it truly exists when you sleep or when you're passed out/etc

[Anonymous No.2319467]

>>2319442
How old are you? 12?
Maybe when you grow the fuck up, you will understand shit better.

[Anonymous No.2319481]

>>2319465

But even during sleep, your brain doesn't just stop firing/having chemical reactions.

[Anonymous No.2319482]

>>2319350

[Anonymous No.2319484]

>>2319455
Sounds like most ideologies, yeah.

[Anonymous No.2319487]

>>2319467
Nope, 20, and I've never heard a convincing argument on why death is necessary or desirable. Our number one goal should be the end of death.

[Anonymous No.2319490]

>>2319462

I lol'd hard

[Anonymous No.2319491]

>>2319481

actually it's a period of heightened activity

[Anonymous No.2319495]

>>2319465
IIRC then your entire brain is not active all the time. Only portions of it are, which is why you can experience mind-blanks, because the information in that section of your brain is currently unavailable. Of course, I may be regurgitating shit here.

If we finally figure out the precise patterns to reproduce that create what we call consciousness, would you think it is ethical to create one? To end one? Would such a thing deserve rights and freedoms?

[Anonymous No.2319508]

>>2319487
Bullshit, you can't be that old! You sound like a fucking child.

FYI: The older you get, the less and less afraid of death you get. It is a sign of maturity, that naturally happens to all creatures.

Your thoughts and viewpoints are those of a 12 years old girl, with very little real world experience. Are you an engineer by any chance?

[Anonymous No.2319512]

>>2319450
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JacquelineLing.shtml So some 20W? Our costs even when using something like the memristor will be much higher, but manageable. However, at the same time, a brain built on VLSI-like technology would be many orders of magnitude faster (10^ 4 - 10 ^ 6) than the human brain, which is actually quite slow. We're just that fast because most of the information we retrieve is just "cached" and accessible from fairly short circuits (let's say some 10-30 neurons in depth) and each neuron takes some 25-40ms to pass the information (I'm probably wrong by the numbers to some degree as I'm trying to recall it from memory, but I'm pretty sure it's not much more than 100%. If any neuroscience types are around here, feel free to correct me on this).

Which essentially means that even if neuromorphic architecture would consume a lot more power, it would be a lot faster than the human brain.

Imagine such an AI reading an entire book in a second, if it was ever taught human language. Of course, some sort of slow down would be required, if such an AI would have to be taught human language in the first place.

[Anonymous No.2319516]

>>2319508
Acceptance of death is a sign of maturity?

Rather the final stage of the grieving process. You spend your entire life mourning your own mortality. The only reason we tolerate death is because for so long it's been an absolute.

Now we finally have a possible way out, to have a real chance at eternal existence.

And jackasses like you look down on people like us and call us immature, because we don't want to die.

Well, be that way. You will die, we will live on, and your ideologies will die with you. Within 100 years, nobody will ever question the destruction of death being a good thing.

[Anonymous No.2319520]

>>2319508
I'm not the one you're responding to, but I'm not afraid of death, or just stopping to exist, however since I do love life, I think it should be our goal as a race to prolong our existence or achieve some sort of pseudoimmortality. If someone wants to die, that's their choice, however not working on giving others the choice to live on is not the most moral thing to do.

[Anonymous No.2319529]

>>2319512
Now Imagine if we all had brains like that. If all knowledge could be disseminated easily and instantly.

There would be no ignorant people anywhere, because learning would be as simple as "copy+paste" to your personal hard disk analogue.

Spend the last 100 years doing machine repair? Want to do something different? Download our physics pack today and discover the limits of reality tomorrow!

Beautiful.

[Anonymous No.2319537]

>>2319516
>Watches too much anime

[Anonymous No.2319541]

>>2319508
I'm not afraid of death either, it seems. Pain makes me apprehensive though.

[Anonymous No.2319543]

>>2319529
You could still remain ignorant by:

1. Not acquiring information
2. Not understanding information

The first will remain a problem unless you eliminate freedom of choice. The second will always be a problem.

[Anonymous No.2319544]

>>2319508
Acceptance of something that is not inevitable doesn't sound mature to me...

[Anonymous No.2319561]

>>2319543
Let's say you are now some pseudoimmortal AI, what do you do to stave off your boredom? You acquire information.
What excuse could one possibly have to not get educated?

In today's world, there are enough venues for entertainment to last someone a long time, and there are menial jobs for those who are not smart enough of have some mental block which makes them not acquire knowledge, but if there would be no such jobs, what would they do? If you had many thousands of years to live, wouldn't you eventually want to learn? Assuming there are no actual problems in the organization of such an AI that it's incapable of learning (in which case, is it even an AI?), and if there are problems, can they be fixed?

[Anonymous No.2319565]

>>2319544
A little kid fantasizing about anime all day, and trying to relate everything to anime is the opposite of mature. When you grow up, you will understand how fuckin stupid you sound.

TURN OFF THE DAMM TV FAGGOT!

[Anonymous No.2319570]

I'm curious >>2319185
>>2319214 >>2319239 >>2319537 >>2319565
do you actually work in any real scientific field or do you just come here from /b/ to troll?

[Anonymous No.2319572]

>>2319544
>that image
>randomly placed computer parts in the gaps

I know I'm nitpicking, but I'm mad.

[Anonymous No.2319575]

>>2319565
What does anime have to do with anything? I rarely watch TV.

[Anonymous No.2319576]

>>2319537
>ad hominem

your arguments are rendered null.

>>2319543
When acquiring information is as easy as logging online and downloading a package, say, "Brain Surgery," then there's really no reason a person would not do so. Hell, I'd buy multiple databanks so I could just pop in different slots and have multiple skills at hand.

As for understanding them? That will come with the data. Say you want to learn about clinical psychology. You buy the data pack on clinical psychology, it's all the history, research, methods, and relevant information pertaining to the R+D and practice of clinical psychology. All that information is written to memory banks that you access just like you would access your organic memory. The knowledge is there. The understanding is there. All in a simple download.

We could specialize the population to an unbelievable degree.

[Anonymous No.2319580]

>>2319572
Are you saying you don't want a USB port in your armpit?

The cables would be the new armpit hair, and "trimming" them would actually be upgrading to wireless.

[Anonymous No.2319584]

>>2319570
>do you actually work in any real scientific field

Yes

>do you just come here from /b/ to troll?

I come here to educate /sci/ sometimes, it keeps me one my toes. Also, I can't help but laugh at threads like this. Fuckin Highlarious.

[Anonymous No.2319591]

>>2319561
>What excuse could one possibly have to not get educated?

If you are still human, though immortal and with personal processing power exceeding that of all the world's supercomputers, you can still avoid what you don't like or don't want. You can turn a blind eye; intentionally remain ignorant of anything you like. In fact, you have even greater capacity for ignorance than a normal human, because you can delete your information at will.

>If you had many thousands of years to live, wouldn't you eventually want to learn?

Depends on the person. And unless all of humanity is going to be replaced with one type of person, then the answer to this question is "not necessarily."

>Assuming there are no actual problems in the organization of such an AI that it's incapable of learning (in which case, is it even an AI?), and if there are problems, can they be fixed?

You can fix these problems by removing the desire for ignorance, uniting humanity in such a manner that all information acquired by an individual is immediately and forcibly added to the memories of the species, and bringing all humans to the highest possible level of understanding. How this would turn out depends on how much you want to violate humans of choice, and whether those who do not desire these outcomes would fight back.

[Anonymous No.2319599]

>>2319584
And what is this field?

[Anonymous No.2319602]

>>2319576
>When acquiring information is as easy as logging online and downloading a package, say, "Brain Surgery," then there's really no reason a person would not do so.

Ease of acquisition does not ensure acquisition. Do you know how staggeringly easy it is to learn about the world even now? How does ignorance still exist when we have all this information readily available through the Internet?

>As for understanding them? That will come with the data.

Not necessarily, no. Knowing something does not mean understanding it. A calculator "knows" how to perform mathematical operations, but I don't think you would argue that it understands them. Understanding is a human capacity, and not all humans have the same capacity, in this area or in others.

[Anonymous No.2319607]

>>2319584
wait......r.....u....King of /sci/?

[Anonymous No.2319610]

>>2319591
>humans of choice

Freedom of choice. And this is the point at which I get more coffee.

[Anonymous No.2319611]

>>2319591
If we become capable of editing ourselves, wouldn't people edit themselves so that they DO want to learn, and create, and expand?

If the most depressed alcoholic drug user in the world was given the option to completely erase his addictions, ignorance, depression, cynicism, and replace it with curiosity, intelligence, pro-activeness, and kindness, wouldn't he?

Once our very personas become open to change, why shouldn't we change them? Is there something special or "sacred" about who we are that we shouldn't change ourselves as we see fit?

If transhumanism becomes reality, I will probably do this several times. I'll rewrite myself as conservative, liberal, straight, gay, man, woman, biased, open-minded, and as every way to perceive a thing, so that I can fully understand it in every way it can be understood.

Well, maybe not gay, but then again my hesitance to do so is part of who I am. Once I can change that, then everything is game.

[Anonymous No.2319612]

>>2319599
Ohh, ohh
So curious, but I haven't asked you any questions yet. What do you do for a living bro?

[Anonymous No.2319621]

>>2319602
Yes, many people will probably choose ignorance, instead preferring to spend an eternity playing Halo. Then again, after ten thousand years of Halo, they might decide to go and improve themselves.

When you say "understanding", I think there's a risk of getting bogged down in semantics. Could you explain precisely what you mean by understanding?

[Anonymous No.2319623]

>>2319584
How may we serve you.

[Anonymous No.2319626]

>>2319611
>If we become capable of editing ourselves, wouldn't people edit themselves so that they DO want to learn, and create, and expand?

No. Not everyone would.

>If the most depressed alcoholic drug user in the world was given the option to completely erase his addictions, ignorance, depression, cynicism, and replace it with curiosity, intelligence, pro-activeness, and kindness, wouldn't he?

Perhaps, or perhaps not. Depends on the person.

>Once our very personas become open to change, why shouldn't we change them?

No particular reason, I suppose, unless your desire more permanence.

>Is there something special or "sacred" about who we are that we shouldn't change ourselves as we see fit?

That depends on your point of view. My own is rather nebulous on this, so I won't argue about it.

>If transhumanism becomes reality, I will probably do this several times. I'll rewrite myself as conservative, liberal, straight, gay, man, woman, biased, open-minded, and as every way to perceive a thing, so that I can fully understand it in every way it can be understood.
>Well, maybe not gay, but then again my hesitance to do so is part of who I am. Once I can change that, then everything is game.

Good for you. But not everyone will want to do this.

[Anonymous No.2319629]

>>2319584
>>2319584
>I come here to educate /sci/ sometimes

[Anonymous No.2319631]

>mfw people already have mechanical implants like cocheal implants and pacemakers and people in this thread think transhumanism is something that has no basis in reality and thinks it's all from faggots who watch anime.

>mfw I don't watch anime and I'm going to school for robotics to get this shit done.

[Anonymous No.2319639]

>>2319621
I still can't imagine them not getting bored of it. If your mind is 1000-1000000 times as fast at it used to be, you'll eventually grow tired of it, oh, also, with regards to single-player and multiplayer gaming: your sequential machine would probably be too slow to accomodate your perception speed, and online games across the world are already laggy across large distances due to inherent limits of the speed of light, so you'd probably have to slow yourself down for certain actions, such as those and some physical ones. I think it would be an incredible waste of time not to take advantage of one's natural speed, but it would indeed be their choice (even if our time in this universe is limited, as pseudoimmortality just means living as long as you have enough energy, which is less than a couple of billion years, if you acquire energy in a smart enough way from nearby stars, etc).

[SAGE No.2319641]

>>2319631
SAGE for retardedness

[Anonymous No.2319643]

>>2319621
>Then again, after ten thousand years of Halo, they might decide to go and improve themselves.

They might, but this is not assured.

>Could you explain precisely what you mean by understanding?

I suppose this:

Understanding
1 - mental process of a person who comprehends; comprehension; personal interpretation: My understanding of the word does not agree with yours.

Comes close. It's more about seeing the "why" than the "how," not just knowing how to do something but why it and parts of its process are done, etc.

Since I can't make a coherent definition myself, I suppose there's really no point in arguing about understanding.

[Anonymous No.2319644]

>I'm a scientist and come here to educate /sci/ sometimes
>derides everyone as an anime-watching idiot
>offers no real counterarguments

Sounds like you could use some education yourself.

[Anonymous No.2319648]

>>2319544
Mathematically, it is inevitable.

[Anonymous No.2319650]

>>2319639
>get bored

On /v/, people often talk about games they'd love to forget about so that they can play again for "the first time."

WELL NOW YOU CAN!

Once you get bored and there's nothing else to do, wipe it and do it all again! Instant entertainment!

[Anonymous No.2319652]

>>2319631
>mfw I'm dyslexic and meant to type cochlear
and then forgot the verification

[Anonymous No.2319657]

>>2319631
I will be going to school for robotics. Currently, I have no fucking idea what I am talking about. Like the rest of the trashumanist fags, I jump to huge fuckin conclusions, based off very very very little actual science. I assume way to much shit, and hope that science will fit around my world view.

>fixed that 4 you

[Anonymous No.2319661]

>>2319631
>robotics

You'll create the physical analogues, but the real "trans" in transhumanism is being done by AI research and the like.

[Anonymous No.2319671]

>>2319648
What is, death?

Every so often there's a thread about that microwave radiation that suggests the universe continuously destroys and recreates itself.

Find a way to hitch a ride on this process, and survive the destruction of all things into a new universe. Hopefully it will operate on the same rules.

[Anonymous No.2319678]

>>2319650
I suppose they could, but to all the people in this thread that think wiping memories or just "downloading" skillsets would be easy, I have doubts about it, at least as far as the ability of "uploaded" human brains to do that. The neocortex (where most of your memories lie and the source of your intelligence) is incredibly complex and distributed, so actually modifying it is difficult. A modification such as adding a new sense or allowing oneself to have deeper associations would probably be easier to achieve than something like inserting a new skillset or deleting a memory as "skillsets" and "memories" are distributed throughout the neocortex and most memories would be combined with others and so on. I'm not saying it would be impossible to delete memories, just difficult. I've no idea how actually downloading skillsets would be possible without having your brain experience all the needed information (actually spending the time reading the books, watching videos, or in this possible future - experiencing what others experienced, as it might be possible to capture sensory input to some degree).

[Sir Jackson Fuckfarts No.2319681]

>MFW I achieve near-eternal life in about 50-70 years

[Anonymous No.2319682]

>>2319678
Imagine a computer. You have two flash drives. Each one has unique information. Pop one in, and all that information is instantly available. Once you're done with it, take it out and pop the other one in. Instantly available.

This is what I'm talking about. Removable drives with skills on them. Instant expertise.

[Anonymous No.2319684]

>>2319644

Yes, transhumanist kids on /sci/ are mostly just anime wathcing idiots. See you are learning somthing.

You have made no arguments, at all. All you did was state a few studies, then jump to huge fuckin conclusions.

You actually have no argument at all, all you have is a fucked up world view. You hope that science will one day make your fantasty reality, but you have no real evidence that we are even near (or even approaching those stages).

Please, provide some concrete evidence that any of the "fantasty bullshit" you have been talking about is directly under development. Show me that "transhumanist scientifc papers".....LMAO

[Anonymous No.2319691]

>>2319684
>Still no logical reason explaining how its irrational to predict that human technology will advance to this level
>mfw

[Anonymous No.2319699]

>>2319684
There's actually a lot of papers and progress in related areas which gives one an idea about where we're going, but if you actually insist on completly transhumanistic-related papers (not just specific AI or physics or neuroscience research), here, I'll give you one example:
http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/3853/brain-emulation-roadmap-report.pdf

[Anonymous No.2319703]

>>2319684
I hate it when theistfags clog up our board with trolls. gb2 church, and let us do the heavy technological breakthroughs.

[Anonymous No.2319709]

Transhuman: a term that refers to an evolutionary transition from the human to the posthuman.

Posthuman: a hypothetical future being "whose basic capacities so radically exceed those of present humans as to be no longer unambiguously human by our current standards."

Is Posthumanism anywhere in our future for the next 50-100 years? Probably not. Is transhumanism in our future? Considering the widespread use of prosthetic limbs and other artificial mechanisms being added to the human body to fix various things, we are already, by the very definition, in a "transhumanist" era.

[Anonymous No.2319710]

posting ITT because I've always thought MJ will be remembered as the first trans-human.
posting also because I think most transhumanist today are akin to furfags, who are only subscribing to it as a form of sexual debauchery, and are generally massive faggots.

[Anonymous No.2319711]

>>2319684
Scientists successfully grew mouse neurons and hooked them up to control the movements of a robot. No body, just mouse brain cells. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

That is proof of concept for brain-in-a-jar style trans-humanism.

[Anonymous No.2319716]

>>2319661
Is the fabrication of physical analogues not also important in the entirety of the process? It may not be central, but I do not think that it should be "downplayed" because of it.

[Anonymous No.2319718]

>>2319691
You provide an extrodinary claim, then ask why I don't disprove it. If I don't try to disppove it, you assume your claim is fact?

You really fail at basic fucking logic. Read up little guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

[Anonymous No.2319719]

>>2319711

Source? Sounds intriguing, and also incredibly far-fetched.

[sage No.2319722]

>>2319691

[Anonymous No.2319725]

>>2319710
Why does that have to do anything with sexuality? It's even unlikely we'd have the same sexual drives as we do today in a transhuman future. I just see it as a way for humanity to go beyond its limits and assure its survival and colonizing of space.

[Anonymous No.2319732]

>>2319719
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/000842.html

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/08/rat-robot-vid/

Sensors on the robot send electrical signals to the neurons, which respond and direct the robot as if it were a real body.

[Anonymous No.2319738]

>>2319718
There is no reason to assume we won't reach that level given the current rate of progress and general direction.
The only questions are if we as a race will survive until that point. Here's some possible guesses of how we could wipe ourselves out: http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html

[Anonymous No.2319743]

>>2319725
because they're fetishcise the lifestyle, and it's not simply an idea or something to be studied like you talk about physics. they turn it into some kind of fetish so they're no better than furfags, atleast furfags don't hurt anyone.

[Anonymous No.2319753]

>>2319699
1) That isn't scientific, that is a phil. BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

2) This doesn't look like a peer-review published paper. It's value is meaningless (even in the context of phil) without proper peer-review and publication.

Nice try though. It is interesting, I'll give you that. But it isn't science. It does have some neat references on particular scientifc studies, but that is all.

The paper is not science, and jumps to huge fuckin conlusions (just like you), based off a few studies. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Anonymous No.2319758]

>>2319743
How do they hurt you? They are only interested in modifying themselves.

[Anonymous No.2319769]

>>2319722
>>2319718
>>2319710
Sure is samefag in here.

[Anonymous No.2319775]

>>2319758
He's clinging to his hate of a specific group.

Granted, they are the most annoying fetishist group out there with their persecution complex, but once they actually DO have animalistic bodies, maybe they'll go found their own colonies someplace else.

[Anonymous No.2319781]

>>2319753
Have you read it? It tries to review the state of certain branches of science and how far are we and in what direction do we need to go to achieve whole brain emulation. Would you call something like the ITRS ( http://www.itrs.net/ ) non-scientific? ITRS guides the progress of semiconductor technology throughout the years, and it always follows through. Peer-reviewed papers are important for many specific discoveries, but is there really that much of a need to have a roadmap which describes current technology and possible future directions peer-reviewed?

[Anonymous No.2319787]

>>2319775
I had no idea there's that furries make up that large part of the transhumanist crowd.

[Anonymous No.2319795]

>>2319738
You seem to have a problem with basic logic, and assumtpions. You make the classical mistake of thinking like a common retard, and not a scientist.

Let me give you an example:
In 1940's there is no reason to assume we won't have anti-grav flying cars by 2000.

Most common folk, thought that it was a foresure thing. Surely we would develop some sort of anti-gravity by 2000, given the current rate of progress and general direction that society was going. However, scientists never said that shit!

2011 - NO ANTIGRAVITY

Retards jumping to fucking conclusions: 0
Level headed scientists: 1

[Anonymous No.2319838]

>>2319795
You are a fucking retard. Anti-gravity would change the laws of physics as we know it. There is NOTHING about transhumanism that breaks the laws of physics. Look at prosthetics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1541406/Woman-with-bionic-arm-regains-sense-of-touch.html

This is one of the many cases where a person regained feeling in a limb thanks to cybernetics. I can show you more links if you want, but hopefully you get the point. We can feel in synthetic arms or legs. Why not replace our whole body? I've posted studies that organic life can act like a computer. Why not use this knowledge to construct a better brain. Again, there's been tons of links posted, but not a single one by you. This is because you have NO argument, and are simply a Luddite who shouldn't be anywhere near a science lab. You are simply a fetishist of death.

[Anonymous No.2319848]

>>2319781
>but is there really that much of a need to have a roadmap which describes current technology and possible future directions peer-reviewed?

Wow, you are fuckin retarded! Of course you dumbshit! Else it is no better then one crazy persons opinion.......DURRRRRRR

I could write a paper on all sorts of bullshit. Legitimizing how Harry Potter is going to happen IRL in the next 10 years. I would cite all sorts of articles, and present that shit as fact. And dumbasses who really like Harry Potter would buy into that shit. They would swear that shit was true, and was going to happen. Then they would cite my paper, as some sort or legit source......LMAO. (Just as you do with transhumanism). YOU ARE GETTING TROLLED BY YOUR OWN SOURCE!

Again, your source make some fucking grand claims, yet is not peer-reviewed. Your source seems not scientific, it appears on a university page for there philosophy department. WTF?
Please provide a scientifc source, when talking about science.

[Anonymous No.2319855]

>>2319795
"Antigravity" would require some major physics progress, and it would also probably be quite costly compared to traditional airplans and fuel-powered cars.
However, to say that no equivalents to it exist is not correct:
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_levitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_stabilized_magnetic_levitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_levitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_levitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_levitation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_film_levitation
...
And of course, in space the effects of gravity are reduced. We also have rockets which are able to go against earth's gravitational field and break orbit.
Maglev is mostly used in industrial contexts.

Anyway, with regards to strong AI and in the farther future, whole brain emulation, there is no reason whatsoever to assume it can't be done: our brain is physical and it's not as complex as most people think. The major challenge to achieving human-like AI through the study of the brain lies within making energy-efficient hardware that can run it fast enough. It is both an engineering and scientific challenge, however it is something which is possible in the short term future. I do have my doubts with relationship to achieving whole-brain emulation in the short-term as our scanning techniques are far from perfect and real nanotechnology is nowhere in sight, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that AI based on the human brain won't be achieved in the short/mid-term, that is, unless you're some kind of dualist which doesn't believe the mind is a product of the brain.

[Anonymous No.2319865]

>>2319848
The author provides source and citations for all his claims. I /can/ verify his claims. Just because I read something doesn't mean I believe it: I evaluate the claims and verify them. If something isn't peer-reviewed, it just means you'll have to take it with a grain of salt and validate the claims yourself. Besides, you'd be surprised how much crap actually manages to get into some peer-reviewed journals - just because it is, doesn't make it "true", it just makes it a more trustworthy source. The only way to actually decide if you want to trust the information is to verify it yourself and check out all the sources (and verify them too).

[Anonymous No.2319879]

>>2319838
>missed the point

>Thinks antigravity would change the fundemenatl laws of physics

>doesn't know what a real fundemenatl law of physics is

LMAO

The point was about jumping to conclusions. You jump to way too many conclusions (like the people who thought we would have flying cars, the people in the 1990s who thought we would have all sorts of human clones by now, or the people in America who literally believe our society is turing socialist/communist). Jumping to conclusions is bad!

Yes, we have some really cool human agmentation going on, and that is proven science. However, that doesn't imply the huge leaps you make, nor is there any scientifc indication that those leaps will or can be made.

\thread

[Anonymous No.2319889]

>>2319865
You don't have science backing you dude, all you got are opinions. Have fun with that shit.

[Anonymous No.2319893]

>>2319865
WOW, JUST WOW

[Anonymous No.2319898]

>>2319889
The physical reality doesn't care if it's backed by a peer-reviewed journal or not. It's like you're claiming that unless something is in a peer-reviewed journal, it's false. You are free to think and experiment by yourself all you want, and you're also free to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, however that is not a requirement.

[Anonymous No.2319899]

>>2319855
>there is no reason whatsoever to assume it can't be done

That is what they thought about antigravity back in the day. You are missing the whole fucking point.

[Anonymous No.2319904]

>>2319898
Just stop talking bro, you sound fucking retarded.

I thought this was a scientifc discussion, but now you claim that science doesn't matter.

You have no science backing your argument. All you give me are your opinions, no science, no facts. Have fun with your shitty reasoning bro.

[Anonymous No.2319906]

>>2319879
>>2319889
>>2319893
>>2319899
Stop samefagging so hard.

The reason to not believe in antigravity (whatever that is - various forms of levitation exist, see links provided) is because there is no physical basis (except for the given examples) for it.

HUMANS ARE PROOF THAT INTELLIGENCE CAN EXIST, OUR EXISTENCE IS FACT.
THE BRAIN'S FUNCTIONALITY IS DETERMINISTIC IN THAT IT FOLLOWS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. IT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD AND FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENTS BASED ON THE CONCEPTS THAT CAN BE DISTILLED FROM IT CAN BE MADE.

WHY IS IT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

You have entire fields working on understanding the brain better and building neuromorphic hardware and yet you still spout this bullshit. It may not be the easiest thing, but there is no reason whatsoever to believe it cannot be done as at the moment it's just an engineering challenge. The only reason you could possibly believe it's not possible is because you don't believe in cause and effect or physical laws.

[Anonymous No.2319948]

Just think, 50 years ago there were no personal computers. Nothing wireless. Nothing digital.

Things can change, people. Just because something is improbable doesn't mean it's impossible. Saying "Oh blah blah will NEVER HAPPEN" in this context is really kind of silly.

[Anonymous No.2319962]

My life is boring and I'm sick of my responsibilities. This makes the "singularity" very appealing to me. It is different from other apocalypse/massive-upheaval predictions in that it's really sciencey.

[Anonymous No.2319980]

Macros are better here than /b/.

[Anonymous No.2319994]

I hope we never achieve immortality. There are too many stupid people in the world as it is. If we could all like forever we would have to do so with all the idiots and all the new idiots that would be spawned ever generation. Sounds like hell to me.

[Anonymous No.2320040]

The exponential rise of technological advance as postulated by a singularitarian can only happen if there is an according modernization and expansion of current infrastructure. Perpetual material growth, however, is not mathematically guaranteed.