I believe mankind will evolve into the entire gambit of conscious entities. Old fashioned humans will exist forever. Some of them will wish to travel to the stars. There is no reason why they can't make it happen.
in the days of jules vern only a few knew or believed that submarines would someday exist. and it wasn't prediction it was self fulfilling prophesy. bigger forces are at work with the singularity. greater achievements will be possible. humanity will wake up to their limitations and exceed them as we always have.
>wake up to their limitations and exceed them as we always have.
What you say is certainly true. I just wanted to make the point that some humans will wish to remain as traditional humans, and they will be free to do so. Just as the Amish choose to avoid modern technology.
I don't believe humans themselves will single handedly engineer their own future form. Rather, humans will create machine intelligence (this is what my hobby is, actually) and that will perform the miracles.
Rogue machines would see humans as animals, not even useful as slaves.
You're making the mistake of assuming sci-fi stories designed as entertainment are realistic visions of the future. If you are able to create a machine intelligence in the first place, you can control its motivations.
peak oil isn't even a problem, it's dwindling coal. which is good for the environment because oil won't support the lack of technology.
the second greatest resource under human intelligence is land space, then things like metal and concrete.
the major problem isn't the reserves because metal can be recycled and other materials created.. but the cost to society and how that effects the individual.
Could mi invent stuff such as a Garden Hose on a reel instead of an annoying loose one for instance? MI doesn't have a body so it can't walk around and get annoyed like I do. When people are annoyed they engineer stuff. How would MI get inconvenienced enough to start inventing stuff.
Maybe in a world where MI was a reality there would be no need for garden hoses ...
>MI doesn't have a body so it can't walk around and get annoyed like I do.
Why wouldn't MI have a body?
Coupled with MI is the ability to manipulate matter on a very small scale. Suppose you could construct anything you wanted using building blocks 1 cubic micron in size. The way you print out a piece of paper. You could construct anything, including an android body, clothing, toys, electronic gadgets, whatever.
In the case of a garden hose, what's wrong with a mesh of fine tubing that extends underground, and water is forced out of it as needed to keep the ground at the perfect moisture level?
Anyway the MI wouldn't need to be annoyed. The nearby human would get annoyed, and direct the MI to solve the irritating problem.
The extinction of the human form is preferable to the human mind and spirit falling into absolute 'robothood', no creativity, no imagination. Lack of physical resources is not the problem, nor will they ever be. Human unconsciousness is the 'problem', if it can be called a problem, that inability to adapt to different paradigms and evolve into new ways of existing.
It is common to glory in how intelligent humans are, rejoice in all our great works. What a joke! Human "intelligence" has much to be desired. We get bored easily, attention span is very limited. Our ability to hold lots of things in our mind at once and work with them is limited. Our memory is prone to error and it's a struggle to retain important information... CONT
Working out true understanding is simply a matter of collecting all the important facts into a single conscious entity. The problem is these things are complicated. Human knowledge is full of errors that have to be bypassed. Our theories of the subatomic realm must be full of misconceptions. But what are they? It takes humans years of dedication to even get to the forefront of human "knowledge". CONT
A superintelligent MI would operate much faster than we do in its thought processes. It would have better memory and unlimited attention span. It wouldn't get sleepy or bored. It would be able to concentrate on lots of different things at once.
It would be able to take all our knowledge, discard the errors, and move understanding forward, in every realm of science. And it wouldn't even be a struggle for it. CONT
Everything is hard for humans because we're really not so intelligent. Isn't just a matter of luck if humans are intelligent enough to be able to work out the Theory Of Everything?
My approach is to stop trying to do it all ourselves. Rather, focus on creating machine intelligence, and let IT figure everything out.
Funny thing is, we already have the solution to the world's major problem which is birth control. We've got all kinds of good inventions for that, problem is, people are soooo stupid they can't shake off their brainwashing that having kids is what really gives value to their existence.
Wrong. Most meaningless and counter-productive thing you will do on this earth is reproduce children.
oops, meant to say "produce" children. "Reproduce" children would be like cloning your kids, wouldn't it? Now there's a really bad idea -- that is probably just bad enough to catch on.
>Most meaningless and counter-productive thing you will do on this earth is reproduce children.
Think about this a bit more. Do you not see the urge to not reproduce can be considered as a virus? Any human that is infected with this virus will never reproduce. The only humans that reproduce will be immune to arguments that reproduction is wrong.
It's a philosophy or ideal that will immediately edit itself out of the species. A self defeating mechanism.
Moreover, even the argument that reproduction is wrong and harmful...to what? To the universe? It's a vast universe, pretty much aching for life to come fill it. Who are you to stand in the way of the great expansion of life into the cosmos?
Maybe the motivation to get off the earth will arise out of it being too crowded. Maybe having lots of children is a good thing, it'll force us to speed up the pace of technology.
thoughts aren't so easily manipulated by genes, if they were then I'd be moderately religious, heavily addicted to drugs and alcohol, nearly brain dead mentally, and would appear in most repects as crazy... considering that's what the rest of my family is like.
besides virii don't exactly alter genes they just attack them. syndrome is what you're after and I believe that part is more hard coded then most genes.
I don't like the word "athiest" but it is somewhat accurate. I don't believe in any gods or a creator or that the universe itself is intelligent. Nor angels, ghosts, heaven, hell, the soul, an afterlife.
There's a comment down there saying 2 billion a day are having trouble with food so maybe the resource in short supply is empathy or logic.
How would your MI address the likes of this problem because MI would be problem-oriented wouldn't it?
What is Intelligence. Is it a sort of "Common Sense" or a gift for prediction like Peter Schiff? Is it analytical or creative / insightful, perhaps like Einstein? What would your MI do in terms of problems or is it mainly for having good chats with?
Knowing that and with a bit of engineering, cheap fusion power (or something even better) is trivial. The MI could figure out how to halt human aging. How to cure all diseases. How the information in DNA controls all cellular processes and all the details of how life works.
I envision all of humanity becoming immortal, and choosing not to have children out of selfish reasons. So population stabilizes where it is. CONT
It stops its fast exponential growth. People only have children if they deliberately want to. Very few will opt for the responsibility. Birth control would be readily available.
I figure most births happen because of "accidents" or because people think they're running out of time, due to aging. If you knew you'd live 500+ years, most people would put off children for a long time. What we have today is children having children.
Regarding the WHEN X IS TRUE DO Y please understand this is a gross, good-old-fashioned-ai sort of explanation, and speaking in such terms might hurt my credibility. That is NOT how the nervous system operates in the small scale. Such "rules" are a symptom, if anything.
To convey all the details that I've worked out and where I am in my theory would take a lot of writing, or speaking...
The MI is an intelligent conscious entity deliberately devoid of human emotions such as anger, envy, greed, ambition, ego, etc. It is pure intelligence with no mysterious motivations. It is the perfect slave, intelligent yet docile and perfectly happy in its servant role.
I imagine they'd never deliberately harm humans, but they wouldn't protect them either. They wouldn't be cops, for example. They're just servants.
OK - that's a good overall picture you've presented there - you essentially believe that human intelligence in the sense of scientific enquiry could be synthesised and then accelerated through rapid learning so that we could effectively see ourselves in ten or twenty years how our understanding would develop out MI in 100/200 years?
That's very exciting - do you think we understand Learning itself now enough to program a machine that itself learns?
>do you think we understand Learning itself now enough to program a machine that itself learns?
I think I almost do. But I think no one else does. Everyone I've looked at supposedly working on the problem is hopelessly lost.
Once the problem is solved, looking back we'll wonder how we didn't see it -- it's so trivial. The way neurons give rise to learning and behaviour is really a very, very simple mechanism. L&B are an emergent aspect of very simple rules.
Now I guess though if you want to put into perspective, 1 Barrel of oil has the energy to the work of 12 People working for you all year. (approx 25,000 hours or work). we use 85 Million barrels of day of this energy to run our economies.
What alternative is that? None that I know of.
were going to be in some deep trouble if nothing is done about it.
It all gives me a headache Sometimes ignorance is bliss? Here is my ultimate outlook on it.
When it comes to pass, and humans do not find an alternative, then will not be enough Energy to sustain our Civilization at current levels. (No brainer) The outcome will be the population will shrink to lower levels before we had Oil. All the Big mega cities that will built, They will lay there empty as a sore reminder and Artifacts to our descendants.
>They will lay there empty as a sore reminder and Artifacts to our descendants.
I'm not so pessimistic. Alternatives to oil exist. Alcohol, for example. A determined effort could supplant oil with alcohol within a few years. The thing is, you'd do lots of stuff in parallel. The way we won the space race and the manhattan project.
In times of crisis humans can operate _fast_.
And even if I'm wrong, who cares? Too many damned people anyway... it'd be nice if NYC was a ghost town.
haha great man.. I couldn't possible tell you my thoughts on it with only 300 characters in my comment. One thing that I think that is mentionable are Farms (or food output) are highly depended on Petro-derived Chemical fertilizers because the farm soil is already depleted of the N-P-K the plants need. Without oil there will certainly be a food output shortage. Also the oil needed to ship the food around and harvest it.
What's wrong with you? When you hear or see news about some catastophe where lots of people are killed, don't you feel bad about it????
The funny thing is, I actually agree with most of what you say in this video, but when you say you don't care if a billion people die, I'm deeply shocked. I don't understand you. If that's true, there's a very serious malfunction with how your mind works.
>And you're kidding yourself if you don't feel the same way.
I mean if you claim you don't feel the same way, you're kidding yourself.
Regarding if a billion people die, consider this.
Somewhere in the universe there is another planet with billions of people on it with a rich culture, that at this very instant is being utterly destroyed by a giant asteroid. Their existence is not even a memory now.
If I'm not bothered by that, why should I be bothered if a billion humans die?
>If I'm not bothered by that, why should I be bothered if a billion humans die?
Understand more: I would not do anything to kill anyone. I accept that in certain areas I am powerless to prevent tragedy. Therefore, absolved of responsibility, I don't worry about it. Shit happens. I didn't cause it. So I need not suffer, knowing it has happened.
If I could push a button and wipe out 99% of humanity, would I do it? Absolutely not.
I'd be sad if my family and friends suffered. That's about it.
I feel deep emotion when I see or hear news of people suffering. I donate from 500 to 1000$ a year to relief agencies. Whenever there's an earthquake or flood in some impoverished country somewhere, I usually give 100$ or 200$. The real angels are those who actually volunteer to help, like the doctors for Médecins sans frontières, but I'm no angle, just an average guy with no time and a little bit of cash.
If I knew a billion people were starving or something, I'd be freaking out.
I've kind of come full circle on the begging thing. When I was a teen, I'd give money to them, but them at some point in my late 20s I got tough and decided not to, but now that I'm in my 40's I've become a softy again.
But then again things in Montreal aren't as bad now as they were in the 80s and 90s, so there aren't as many beggars.
Ape, when you give your money to orgainized charities there a good chance most of it, if not all of it, is being wasted. If you want to help people you should give money or food directly to them, so that you know exactly where it's going.
Sorry, you go into some depth on AI (or Mi?) here watch?v=dnO0HLPtHb4
It's a very interesting idea and will have me thinking about it now. I see some problems with it and I feel like throwing them by you to see what your thoughts are on them. One is that we need a definition of 'intelligence' - in teaching we talk about 8 types of (multiple) intelligence - would you be referring to one or a number of them? e.g. There is 'nature intelligence' but a machine can't have nerves can it?
>in teaching we talk about 8 types of (multiple) intelligence
The subdivisions I think you're refering to are irrelevant and don't add anything to the quest for machine intelligence.
Accept that a human infant's nervous system has essentially nothing hardwired. Its perception of the world, of its senses, of itself, how it can affect the world, all these things are learned. The DNA does not tell the human how to count, for example.
Ah - the one on Machine Intelligence - I have a pretty good memory but I don't remember which one exactly but I'll take a stab at the 'Possible Subjects for Discussion' watch?v=ya_iV_Ea0zM
It's the one where you are saying you are a very good computer programmer ...
I used to think a lot about Gravity and AI too, but the phase passed. Yeah you are saying you would like to build a 'learning machine'. How near would you say we are to this and could you make detailed videos on this topic?
I agree with you on the resource problem - not sure I agree with you on "Peak Human Intelligence" though I would like to hear more of what you have to say on that one. I came across you speaking on it on one or two of your videos but can't remember which - please tell us which ones.
I'd be inclined to think that there is Peak human something - maybe it's Empathy or Logic which is a finite resource or the Peace-Making Reflex?
You're prbably right about Intelligence being limited though.
>I would like to hear more of what you have to say on that one.
I just think pretty soon we'll have machine intelligence, where intelligence itself is built on an assembly line. Intelligence won't be a finite resource anymore.
I myself am hoping for a breakthrough. Machine intelligence is my real passion, what I think about most often I guess. I mean how to make it a reality.
I think our main problems the world faces now are Peak Debt Ceiling & the irreversible corruption of the natural cooling & heating cycle of the earth. As for your who cares what happens to others...It depends on which side of destiny's axe you are on!...J
>It depends on which side of destiny's axe you are on!.
Not if you're honest about it. If my future is to die of starvation (or whatever) you won't hear me whining about it. I don't expect anyone else to save me. And I also resent anyone else expecting me to save them.
When the chips are down, it's everyone for themselves. I've prepared as best I may, have you? "You" not meaning Rizky06, I mean anyone reading this.
I don't buy into human induced global warming, btw.
>Alcohol isn't viable as a fuel source for modern society became the EROEI is so low
David Blume's Alcohol Can Be A Gas refutes that whole argument, in a big way. The claim alcohol uses up more energy than it releases is big oil propaganda. Their "expert" uses cooked numbers through and through.
The idea of making oil from CO2 and water would be specifically to leverage the existing distribution systems for oil and gasoline, and all the gas burning engines. CONT
If you could mass produce oil using atmospheric CO2 and water, using fusion power as an energy source, it would be far more sustainable. Gas certainly is a convenient way of powering vehicles.
Solar power is not for on-the-car. You'd have huge solar arrays spread around the country, to replace coal and nuclear power.
All technological developments depend on the price of oil going up and up and up. Alternatives become perfectly viable.
I did not believe that you would try to put solar panels on 18 wheelers. The fact is that the mining of Gallium is a big problem (Check peak Gallium) since the amount of Gallium required to "go solar" is too much.
I did not say that Alcohol has a negative EROIE. I said that it is too low. And it is. It is between 1:1 and 3. Light sweet crude OIL is around 1:80.
One issue you may want to spend some time thinking about is that your entire "faith" is relying on a single IF statement. (Fusion)
>your entire "faith" is relying on a single IF statement. (Fusion)
You assume that I care what the future brings. This is a mistake.
I don't care if the whole human race is wiped out. I don't care if a large number of people starve. I don't care if we run out of oil and things change drastically. I don't care if cheap fusion never comes about.
I DON'T CARE! I have predictions of how I think things will play out. I don't even care if I'm right or wrong. It's just a game to me.
The fact I am trying to get at is that IF we stopped driving to the store to buy a bag of milk and used that energy to mine for Gallium with our existing infrastructure and used that to create solar panels we *MIGHT* be able to secure our future. But I think instead of doing it the hard way they're just going to wipe out a portion of the population. (Easier)
>The fact I am trying to get at is that IF we stopped driving to the store to buy a bag of milk
See now you're making assumptions. You wish things would simply change, almost of their own volition. And you obviously lament that they're not.
Change? Change will occur only after it becomes too painful for it not to occur. There is no other way. It is not in human nature to proactively avoid disaster. Humans respond to disaster. The disaster is necessary to trigger change. Embrace it!
No matter what the issue is, you will find experts that take both sides. Human induced global warming? Some say yes, some say no. Meanwhile humans don't respond to the "threat" in any meaningful way. It comes down to this: Let's wait and see.
Things have collapsed so much (economically) that business as usual is not an option. Cheap oil is almost a thing of the past. Wonderful, I say! This will spur human innovation. We're awash in energy. Human ingenuity will prevail. Why worry?
I already did my worrying years ago. I realized it is a useless waste of energy because it solves nothing. I would love to hear your strategy, how you feel things will actually pan out and what you're doing ahead of the curve to be ready for it.
I don't want the world to change. That is actually a misconception. I know we won't. The bag of milk comment was just pointing out how badly we allocate scare resources. Badly implies I have some "ideal" version of how I think reality should pan out.
>how you feel things will actually pan out and what you're doing ahead of the curve to be ready for it.
All my videos are still online, I've already answered these questions. Multiple times, I think.
"
I don't want the world to change." But I do want it to change. I just don't care how painful it is. And I don't especially care what form of change takes off. The human world as it is today is unspeakably disgusting. Any change will be an improvement.
Interesting video - making OIL from carbon dioxide is an interesting concept, unfortunately it requires more energy to create a molecule of OIL than it gives back.
Fusion is the best possibility I believe.
Solar is out because..... because you're not going to push around 18 wheelers with solar power. It just isn't going to happen so you want to forget that.
I would say Fusion is our best bet, and it is being worked on. However unless we get something working soon, we're going to be hurtin.
You care, yet you do nothing other than judge people such as myself who say openly, "I do not care."
You caring means nothing. You simply want someone else to solve your problems for you. "Can't someone else do it?" And when they can't solve them, you start insulting people. Start calling them immoral.
I'm honest. I'm honest with myself. I don't care.
And if I did care, you can bet I'd do a lot more than simply whine on YouTube.
Passing moral judgement on people who speak honestly on Youtube seems sort of pointless.
Personally I hate human suffering; bothered by the immoral wars we've waged & feel sorry for any decent person who's born into bad circumstances. But at the same time I know that if a meteor hit and instantly (and painlessly) killed about 5 billion people (but not me or my loved ones) I'd be really glad about it. Instantly the world would be a much better place for those who survive. That's just a fact.
LisaJ4Liberty at the same time I know that if a meteor hit and instantly (and painlessly) killed about 5 billion people (but not me or my loved ones) I'd be really glad about it.
No you would have a nuclear winter (Sun blocked completely by dust) for 1,000+ years. Your physical appearance would completely change and you would have to live artificially underground. You would also have to worry about the planet being knocked off it's orbit.
sadly almost all of what you said was utterly false, except for the last part about America has room to conserve energy. I would suggest you re-read the book, or perhaps try another book on the subject preferably not from an economist, they don't really understand it. try james howard kuntsler or richard heinberg or matt savinar.
>sadly almost all of what you said was utterly false
Saying it's false does not make it false. You have presented no facts, just names of books. Matt Savinar is a hopeless case.
According to MS, fundamental change will occur that will lead to massive human suffering. So I say, "So what?" if a billion people die, and it's unavoidable, why dwell on it?
Your comment is so vague and devoid of specifics there isn't much point in even trying to respond to it.
If you have been trying to warn people that some hardcore crisis is going to come in the future, and nobody is listening to you why not let the people die clueless and take care about the people that believe you or your self ?
Peak Oil is real
And it cannot be replaced by hydro-el or solar.
geir44 2 years ago
one more bit of spam before I go... do you understand transhumanist singularity?
that's what will succeed us... mankind will never travel the stars, transhuman and posthuman beings will.
MidnightRayn 2 years ago
>mankind will never travel the stars,
I believe mankind will evolve into the entire gambit of conscious entities. Old fashioned humans will exist forever. Some of them will wish to travel to the stars. There is no reason why they can't make it happen.
dashxdr 2 years ago
moving to space is what will convince us to alter ourselves.
Popularity, advantages... the only normal humans would be the highly religious zealots who eventually die because the air is no longer breathable.
at any rate regular humans will never survive well in space. not without highly modified spaceships built to perpetuate our existence.
to me it seems more logical that we go to inner space, like a digital mecca of our minds where anything is possible.
MidnightRayn 2 years ago
in the days of jules vern only a few knew or believed that submarines would someday exist. and it wasn't prediction it was self fulfilling prophesy. bigger forces are at work with the singularity. greater achievements will be possible. humanity will wake up to their limitations and exceed them as we always have.
MidnightRayn 2 years ago
>wake up to their limitations and exceed them as we always have.
What you say is certainly true. I just wanted to make the point that some humans will wish to remain as traditional humans, and they will be free to do so. Just as the Amish choose to avoid modern technology.
I don't believe humans themselves will single handedly engineer their own future form. Rather, humans will create machine intelligence (this is what my hobby is, actually) and that will perform the miracles.
dashxdr 2 years ago
You're assuming the machines won't see us as easy sources of expendable slave labor and work us to death.
One thing I know about humans is that we are amazingly good at making mistakes... like creating skynet.
And I personally know many people that desire that exact scenario.
MidnightRayn 2 years ago
>easy sources of expendable slave labor
Rogue machines would see humans as animals, not even useful as slaves.
You're making the mistake of assuming sci-fi stories designed as entertainment are realistic visions of the future. If you are able to create a machine intelligence in the first place, you can control its motivations.
dashxdr 2 years ago
just forget about resources... thermonuclear warfair, falling metorites, global warming?
we have to beat the odds on those for it to matter.
ever heard of post industrial de-evolution?
that's what will happen if we don't figure out fussion/fission reactors and the wolfs will never have the chance to take our place if we fail.
MidnightRayn 2 years ago
>ever heard of post industrial de-evolution?
Realistically, don't you think as few as 10,000 people could keep the human race alive, moving technology forward.
The vast hoard of humans are just taking up space. They don't add anything to human knowledge or understanding.
Accumulated human knowledge is immune to loss now. There are so many redundant copies.
Don't buy into the sci-fi stories without question. They're mostly around for entertainment.
dashxdr 2 years ago
peak oil isn't even a problem, it's dwindling coal. which is good for the environment because oil won't support the lack of technology.
the second greatest resource under human intelligence is land space, then things like metal and concrete.
the major problem isn't the reserves because metal can be recycled and other materials created.. but the cost to society and how that effects the individual.
MidnightRayn 2 years ago
>land space,
I don't think this is a problem. We can dig down and build up. Also outer space is limitless.
dashxdr 2 years ago
digging down and building up require more materials, resources, and manpower.
going to space is super expensive and not currently habitable for more then a few months.
MidnightRayn 2 years ago
I admire your courage!!!
ExploreEverything 2 years ago
Could mi invent stuff such as a Garden Hose on a reel instead of an annoying loose one for instance? MI doesn't have a body so it can't walk around and get annoyed like I do. When people are annoyed they engineer stuff. How would MI get inconvenienced enough to start inventing stuff.
Maybe in a world where MI was a reality there would be no need for garden hoses ...
machinenation 2 years ago
>MI doesn't have a body so it can't walk around and get annoyed like I do.
Why wouldn't MI have a body?
Coupled with MI is the ability to manipulate matter on a very small scale. Suppose you could construct anything you wanted using building blocks 1 cubic micron in size. The way you print out a piece of paper. You could construct anything, including an android body, clothing, toys, electronic gadgets, whatever.
The MI opens up all conceivable technology.
dashxdr 2 years ago
>The MI opens up all conceivable technology.
In the case of a garden hose, what's wrong with a mesh of fine tubing that extends underground, and water is forced out of it as needed to keep the ground at the perfect moisture level?
Anyway the MI wouldn't need to be annoyed. The nearby human would get annoyed, and direct the MI to solve the irritating problem.
dashxdr 2 years ago
The extinction of the human form is preferable to the human mind and spirit falling into absolute 'robothood', no creativity, no imagination. Lack of physical resources is not the problem, nor will they ever be. Human unconsciousness is the 'problem', if it can be called a problem, that inability to adapt to different paradigms and evolve into new ways of existing.
FrequencyFence 2 years ago
>L&B are an emergent aspect of very simple rules.
It is common to glory in how intelligent humans are, rejoice in all our great works. What a joke! Human "intelligence" has much to be desired. We get bored easily, attention span is very limited. Our ability to hold lots of things in our mind at once and work with them is limited. Our memory is prone to error and it's a struggle to retain important information... CONT
dashxdr 2 years ago
>struggle to retain important information...
Working out true understanding is simply a matter of collecting all the important facts into a single conscious entity. The problem is these things are complicated. Human knowledge is full of errors that have to be bypassed. Our theories of the subatomic realm must be full of misconceptions. But what are they? It takes humans years of dedication to even get to the forefront of human "knowledge". CONT
dashxdr 2 years ago
>forefront of human "knowledge".
A superintelligent MI would operate much faster than we do in its thought processes. It would have better memory and unlimited attention span. It wouldn't get sleepy or bored. It would be able to concentrate on lots of different things at once.
It would be able to take all our knowledge, discard the errors, and move understanding forward, in every realm of science. And it wouldn't even be a struggle for it. CONT
dashxdr 2 years ago
>wouldn't even be a struggle for it.
Everything is hard for humans because we're really not so intelligent. Isn't just a matter of luck if humans are intelligent enough to be able to work out the Theory Of Everything?
My approach is to stop trying to do it all ourselves. Rather, focus on creating machine intelligence, and let IT figure everything out.
dashxdr 2 years ago
Funny thing is, we already have the solution to the world's major problem which is birth control. We've got all kinds of good inventions for that, problem is, people are soooo stupid they can't shake off their brainwashing that having kids is what really gives value to their existence.
Wrong. Most meaningless and counter-productive thing you will do on this earth is reproduce children.
Figure it out sheeple.
LisaJ4Liberty 2 years ago
oops, meant to say "produce" children. "Reproduce" children would be like cloning your kids, wouldn't it? Now there's a really bad idea -- that is probably just bad enough to catch on.
LisaJ4Liberty 2 years ago
>Most meaningless and counter-productive thing you will do on this earth is reproduce children.
Think about this a bit more. Do you not see the urge to not reproduce can be considered as a virus? Any human that is infected with this virus will never reproduce. The only humans that reproduce will be immune to arguments that reproduction is wrong.
It's a philosophy or ideal that will immediately edit itself out of the species. A self defeating mechanism.
dashxdr 2 years ago
>A self defeating mechanism.
Moreover, even the argument that reproduction is wrong and harmful...to what? To the universe? It's a vast universe, pretty much aching for life to come fill it. Who are you to stand in the way of the great expansion of life into the cosmos?
Maybe the motivation to get off the earth will arise out of it being too crowded. Maybe having lots of children is a good thing, it'll force us to speed up the pace of technology.
Life is change. Get used to it.
dashxdr 2 years ago
I'd love to see change. Like much fewer people on the planet. It could happen.
LisaJ4Liberty 2 years ago
Comment removed
LisaJ4Liberty 2 years ago
"Do you not see the urge to not reproduce can be considered as a virus?"
Very interesting-- didn't think of that. But then again, I'm the one with the infection.
LisaJ4Liberty 2 years ago
thoughts aren't so easily manipulated by genes, if they were then I'd be moderately religious, heavily addicted to drugs and alcohol, nearly brain dead mentally, and would appear in most repects as crazy... considering that's what the rest of my family is like.
besides virii don't exactly alter genes they just attack them. syndrome is what you're after and I believe that part is more hard coded then most genes.
test tube babies and clones are a bigger threat.
MidnightRayn 2 years ago
Weren't you atheist?
ExploreEverything 2 years ago
>Weren't you atheist?
Are you asking me or LisaJ4Liberty?
I don't like the word "athiest" but it is somewhat accurate. I don't believe in any gods or a creator or that the universe itself is intelligent. Nor angels, ghosts, heaven, hell, the soul, an afterlife.
dashxdr 2 years ago
lol that's atheist bro why does the word bother you?
MidnightRayn 2 years ago
There's a comment down there saying 2 billion a day are having trouble with food so maybe the resource in short supply is empathy or logic.
How would your MI address the likes of this problem because MI would be problem-oriented wouldn't it?
What is Intelligence. Is it a sort of "Common Sense" or a gift for prediction like Peter Schiff? Is it analytical or creative / insightful, perhaps like Einstein? What would your MI do in terms of problems or is it mainly for having good chats with?
machinenation 2 years ago
>What is Intelligence
The aspect I care about is learning itself. An approximation to the nervous system is a giant collection of rules
WHEN X IS TRUE, DO Y
all running in parallel. Learning takes place when the number of operating rules increases.
The MI would learn like a human infant. Only once it was competent at talking, learning, thinking, you could clone them. They become the labor force.
A superintelligent MI could figure out the Theory Of Everything. CONT
dashxdr 2 years ago
>Theory Of Everything.
Knowing that and with a bit of engineering, cheap fusion power (or something even better) is trivial. The MI could figure out how to halt human aging. How to cure all diseases. How the information in DNA controls all cellular processes and all the details of how life works.
I envision all of humanity becoming immortal, and choosing not to have children out of selfish reasons. So population stabilizes where it is. CONT
dashxdr 2 years ago
>So population stabilizes where it is.
It stops its fast exponential growth. People only have children if they deliberately want to. Very few will opt for the responsibility. Birth control would be readily available.
I figure most births happen because of "accidents" or because people think they're running out of time, due to aging. If you knew you'd live 500+ years, most people would put off children for a long time. What we have today is children having children.
dashxdr 2 years ago
>What we have today is children having children.
Regarding the WHEN X IS TRUE DO Y please understand this is a gross, good-old-fashioned-ai sort of explanation, and speaking in such terms might hurt my credibility. That is NOT how the nervous system operates in the small scale. Such "rules" are a symptom, if anything.
To convey all the details that I've worked out and where I am in my theory would take a lot of writing, or speaking...
dashxdr 2 years ago
>lot of writing, or speaking...
The MI is an intelligent conscious entity deliberately devoid of human emotions such as anger, envy, greed, ambition, ego, etc. It is pure intelligence with no mysterious motivations. It is the perfect slave, intelligent yet docile and perfectly happy in its servant role.
I imagine they'd never deliberately harm humans, but they wouldn't protect them either. They wouldn't be cops, for example. They're just servants.
dashxdr 2 years ago
OK - that's a good overall picture you've presented there - you essentially believe that human intelligence in the sense of scientific enquiry could be synthesised and then accelerated through rapid learning so that we could effectively see ourselves in ten or twenty years how our understanding would develop out MI in 100/200 years?
That's very exciting - do you think we understand Learning itself now enough to program a machine that itself learns?
machinenation 2 years ago
>do you think we understand Learning itself now enough to program a machine that itself learns?
I think I almost do. But I think no one else does. Everyone I've looked at supposedly working on the problem is hopelessly lost.
Once the problem is solved, looking back we'll wonder how we didn't see it -- it's so trivial. The way neurons give rise to learning and behaviour is really a very, very simple mechanism. L&B are an emergent aspect of very simple rules.
dashxdr 2 years ago
Now I guess though if you want to put into perspective, 1 Barrel of oil has the energy to the work of 12 People working for you all year. (approx 25,000 hours or work). we use 85 Million barrels of day of this energy to run our economies.
What alternative is that? None that I know of.
were going to be in some deep trouble if nothing is done about it.
imperialcrypt 2 years ago
>were going to be in some deep trouble if nothing is done about it.
Sure is an exciting time to be alive, isn't it?
dashxdr 2 years ago
It all gives me a headache Sometimes ignorance is bliss? Here is my ultimate outlook on it.
When it comes to pass, and humans do not find an alternative, then will not be enough Energy to sustain our Civilization at current levels. (No brainer) The outcome will be the population will shrink to lower levels before we had Oil. All the Big mega cities that will built, They will lay there empty as a sore reminder and Artifacts to our descendants.
imperialcrypt 2 years ago
>They will lay there empty as a sore reminder and Artifacts to our descendants.
I'm not so pessimistic. Alternatives to oil exist. Alcohol, for example. A determined effort could supplant oil with alcohol within a few years. The thing is, you'd do lots of stuff in parallel. The way we won the space race and the manhattan project.
In times of crisis humans can operate _fast_.
And even if I'm wrong, who cares? Too many damned people anyway... it'd be nice if NYC was a ghost town.
dashxdr 2 years ago
haha great man.. I couldn't possible tell you my thoughts on it with only 300 characters in my comment. One thing that I think that is mentionable are Farms (or food output) are highly depended on Petro-derived Chemical fertilizers because the farm soil is already depleted of the N-P-K the plants need. Without oil there will certainly be a food output shortage. Also the oil needed to ship the food around and harvest it.
imperialcrypt 2 years ago
What's wrong with you? When you hear or see news about some catastophe where lots of people are killed, don't you feel bad about it????
The funny thing is, I actually agree with most of what you say in this video, but when you say you don't care if a billion people die, I'm deeply shocked. I don't understand you. If that's true, there's a very serious malfunction with how your mind works.
Ape65 2 years ago
>don't you feel bad about it????
I don't empathize with a statistic like, "A tidal wave killed 125,000 people in Sumatra, Indonesia". It means nothing to me.
If I see photos of the suffering, or videos, especially of children suffering or crying, I'd be impacted.
I can't imagine being impacted enough to try to help anyone though.
The further away people are from me, in a numbert of different senses, the less I care about them.
And you're kidding yourself if you don't feel the same way.
dashxdr 2 years ago
>And you're kidding yourself if you don't feel the same way.
I mean if you claim you don't feel the same way, you're kidding yourself.
Regarding if a billion people die, consider this.
Somewhere in the universe there is another planet with billions of people on it with a rich culture, that at this very instant is being utterly destroyed by a giant asteroid. Their existence is not even a memory now.
If I'm not bothered by that, why should I be bothered if a billion humans die?
dashxdr 2 years ago
>If I'm not bothered by that, why should I be bothered if a billion humans die?
Understand more: I would not do anything to kill anyone. I accept that in certain areas I am powerless to prevent tragedy. Therefore, absolved of responsibility, I don't worry about it. Shit happens. I didn't cause it. So I need not suffer, knowing it has happened.
If I could push a button and wipe out 99% of humanity, would I do it? Absolutely not.
I'd be sad if my family and friends suffered. That's about it.
dashxdr 2 years ago
I feel deep emotion when I see or hear news of people suffering. I donate from 500 to 1000$ a year to relief agencies. Whenever there's an earthquake or flood in some impoverished country somewhere, I usually give 100$ or 200$. The real angels are those who actually volunteer to help, like the doctors for Médecins sans frontières, but I'm no angle, just an average guy with no time and a little bit of cash.
If I knew a billion people were starving or something, I'd be freaking out.
Ape65 2 years ago 2
>If I knew a billion people were starving or something, I'd be freaking out.
But...probably a billion people _are_ starving, right this very instant. Just barely getting enough to eat. How many millions die every day?
I never donate anything. I don't trust the money will get there. I don't think it would help anyway. And it wouldn't make me feel any better either.
Donating is something you do to make yourself feel better, is it not?
I try really hard not to give to beggars either.
dashxdr 2 years ago
I've kind of come full circle on the begging thing. When I was a teen, I'd give money to them, but them at some point in my late 20s I got tough and decided not to, but now that I'm in my 40's I've become a softy again.
But then again things in Montreal aren't as bad now as they were in the 80s and 90s, so there aren't as many beggars.
Ape65 2 years ago
Ape, when you give your money to orgainized charities there a good chance most of it, if not all of it, is being wasted. If you want to help people you should give money or food directly to them, so that you know exactly where it's going.
LisaJ4Liberty 2 years ago
"If you want to help people you should give directly"
Oh, what I meant is, directly to people whom you know really need it and will put it to *good* use.
LisaJ4Liberty 2 years ago
Sorry, you go into some depth on AI (or Mi?) here watch?v=dnO0HLPtHb4
It's a very interesting idea and will have me thinking about it now. I see some problems with it and I feel like throwing them by you to see what your thoughts are on them. One is that we need a definition of 'intelligence' - in teaching we talk about 8 types of (multiple) intelligence - would you be referring to one or a number of them? e.g. There is 'nature intelligence' but a machine can't have nerves can it?
machinenation 2 years ago
>in teaching we talk about 8 types of (multiple) intelligence
The subdivisions I think you're refering to are irrelevant and don't add anything to the quest for machine intelligence.
Accept that a human infant's nervous system has essentially nothing hardwired. Its perception of the world, of its senses, of itself, how it can affect the world, all these things are learned. The DNA does not tell the human how to count, for example.
Infants even learn to imitate.
This learning is my interest.
dashxdr 2 years ago
Ah - the one on Machine Intelligence - I have a pretty good memory but I don't remember which one exactly but I'll take a stab at the 'Possible Subjects for Discussion' watch?v=ya_iV_Ea0zM
It's the one where you are saying you are a very good computer programmer ...
I used to think a lot about Gravity and AI too, but the phase passed. Yeah you are saying you would like to build a 'learning machine'. How near would you say we are to this and could you make detailed videos on this topic?
machinenation 2 years ago
>How near would you say we are to this and could you make detailed videos on this topic?
They put Oppenheimer in charge of the Manhattan project. Billions of dollars and a few years later the atomic bomb was a reality.
If they put me in charge of the machine intelligence project, a few million dollars and a year later MI would be a reality.
As it is I merely dabble in it, back burner style. The crumbling of the US empire is an annoying distraction...
dashxdr 2 years ago
I agree with you on the resource problem - not sure I agree with you on "Peak Human Intelligence" though I would like to hear more of what you have to say on that one. I came across you speaking on it on one or two of your videos but can't remember which - please tell us which ones.
I'd be inclined to think that there is Peak human something - maybe it's Empathy or Logic which is a finite resource or the Peace-Making Reflex?
You're prbably right about Intelligence being limited though.
machinenation 2 years ago
>I would like to hear more of what you have to say on that one.
I just think pretty soon we'll have machine intelligence, where intelligence itself is built on an assembly line. Intelligence won't be a finite resource anymore.
I myself am hoping for a breakthrough. Machine intelligence is my real passion, what I think about most often I guess. I mean how to make it a reality.
dashxdr 2 years ago
I think our main problems the world faces now are Peak Debt Ceiling & the irreversible corruption of the natural cooling & heating cycle of the earth. As for your who cares what happens to others...It depends on which side of destiny's axe you are on!...J
Rizky06 2 years ago
>It depends on which side of destiny's axe you are on!.
Not if you're honest about it. If my future is to die of starvation (or whatever) you won't hear me whining about it. I don't expect anyone else to save me. And I also resent anyone else expecting me to save them.
When the chips are down, it's everyone for themselves. I've prepared as best I may, have you? "You" not meaning Rizky06, I mean anyone reading this.
I don't buy into human induced global warming, btw.
dashxdr 2 years ago
Alcohol isn't viable as a fuel source for modern society became the EROEI is so low. (Energy returned on energy invested).
The belt tightening will happen regardless because isn't possible to use OIL that doesn't exist.
I think you're going to be very happy with your silver purchase in the years to come :)
Great video..
yogiudo 2 years ago
>Alcohol isn't viable as a fuel source for modern society became the EROEI is so low
David Blume's Alcohol Can Be A Gas refutes that whole argument, in a big way. The claim alcohol uses up more energy than it releases is big oil propaganda. Their "expert" uses cooked numbers through and through.
The idea of making oil from CO2 and water would be specifically to leverage the existing distribution systems for oil and gasoline, and all the gas burning engines. CONT
dashxdr 2 years ago
>and all the gas burning engines.
If you could mass produce oil using atmospheric CO2 and water, using fusion power as an energy source, it would be far more sustainable. Gas certainly is a convenient way of powering vehicles.
Solar power is not for on-the-car. You'd have huge solar arrays spread around the country, to replace coal and nuclear power.
All technological developments depend on the price of oil going up and up and up. Alternatives become perfectly viable.
dashxdr 2 years ago
I did not believe that you would try to put solar panels on 18 wheelers. The fact is that the mining of Gallium is a big problem (Check peak Gallium) since the amount of Gallium required to "go solar" is too much.
I did not say that Alcohol has a negative EROIE. I said that it is too low. And it is. It is between 1:1 and 3. Light sweet crude OIL is around 1:80.
One issue you may want to spend some time thinking about is that your entire "faith" is relying on a single IF statement. (Fusion)
yogiudo 2 years ago
>your entire "faith" is relying on a single IF statement. (Fusion)
You assume that I care what the future brings. This is a mistake.
I don't care if the whole human race is wiped out. I don't care if a large number of people starve. I don't care if we run out of oil and things change drastically. I don't care if cheap fusion never comes about.
I DON'T CARE! I have predictions of how I think things will play out. I don't even care if I'm right or wrong. It's just a game to me.
dashxdr 2 years ago
The fact I am trying to get at is that IF we stopped driving to the store to buy a bag of milk and used that energy to mine for Gallium with our existing infrastructure and used that to create solar panels we *MIGHT* be able to secure our future. But I think instead of doing it the hard way they're just going to wipe out a portion of the population. (Easier)
yogiudo 2 years ago
>The fact I am trying to get at is that IF we stopped driving to the store to buy a bag of milk
See now you're making assumptions. You wish things would simply change, almost of their own volition. And you obviously lament that they're not.
Change? Change will occur only after it becomes too painful for it not to occur. There is no other way. It is not in human nature to proactively avoid disaster. Humans respond to disaster. The disaster is necessary to trigger change. Embrace it!
dashxdr 2 years ago
>Embrace it!
No matter what the issue is, you will find experts that take both sides. Human induced global warming? Some say yes, some say no. Meanwhile humans don't respond to the "threat" in any meaningful way. It comes down to this: Let's wait and see.
Things have collapsed so much (economically) that business as usual is not an option. Cheap oil is almost a thing of the past. Wonderful, I say! This will spur human innovation. We're awash in energy. Human ingenuity will prevail. Why worry?
dashxdr 2 years ago
I already did my worrying years ago. I realized it is a useless waste of energy because it solves nothing. I would love to hear your strategy, how you feel things will actually pan out and what you're doing ahead of the curve to be ready for it.
I don't want the world to change. That is actually a misconception. I know we won't. The bag of milk comment was just pointing out how badly we allocate scare resources. Badly implies I have some "ideal" version of how I think reality should pan out.
yogiudo 2 years ago
>how you feel things will actually pan out and what you're doing ahead of the curve to be ready for it.
All my videos are still online, I've already answered these questions. Multiple times, I think.
"
I don't want the world to change." But I do want it to change. I just don't care how painful it is. And I don't especially care what form of change takes off. The human world as it is today is unspeakably disgusting. Any change will be an improvement.
dashxdr 2 years ago
>All my videos are still online, I've already answered these questions. Multiple times, I think.
Can you suggest a really good video? BTW - Loved the water collection system video.
yogiudo 2 years ago
>Can you suggest a really good video?
Thay're all great!
Honestly I don't go over my own videos. It'd be an effort to find anything.
dashxdr 2 years ago
Interesting video - making OIL from carbon dioxide is an interesting concept, unfortunately it requires more energy to create a molecule of OIL than it gives back.
Fusion is the best possibility I believe.
Solar is out because..... because you're not going to push around 18 wheelers with solar power. It just isn't going to happen so you want to forget that.
I would say Fusion is our best bet, and it is being worked on. However unless we get something working soon, we're going to be hurtin.
yogiudo 2 years ago
>Or try, learn, build,stirve,have an understanding, and practice at it all.
Stirve, yeah let's all stirve together.
You're the embodiment of an emotion, that's all. Not a rational thought within 10 miles of you. You _care_ and you think that's enough.
You have no plan, no viable approach. You simply _care_.
Solutions do not come from people who simply _care_. They come from people who can plan, act, motivate people. People who can think rationally.
You simply _care_, as if that's enough.
dashxdr 2 years ago
You care, yet you do nothing other than judge people such as myself who say openly, "I do not care."
You caring means nothing. You simply want someone else to solve your problems for you. "Can't someone else do it?" And when they can't solve them, you start insulting people. Start calling them immoral.
I'm honest. I'm honest with myself. I don't care.
And if I did care, you can bet I'd do a lot more than simply whine on YouTube.
dashxdr 2 years ago
Passing moral judgement on people who speak honestly on Youtube seems sort of pointless.
Personally I hate human suffering; bothered by the immoral wars we've waged & feel sorry for any decent person who's born into bad circumstances. But at the same time I know that if a meteor hit and instantly (and painlessly) killed about 5 billion people (but not me or my loved ones) I'd be really glad about it. Instantly the world would be a much better place for those who survive. That's just a fact.
LisaJ4Liberty 2 years ago
LisaJ4Liberty at the same time I know that if a meteor hit and instantly (and painlessly) killed about 5 billion people (but not me or my loved ones) I'd be really glad about it.
No you would have a nuclear winter (Sun blocked completely by dust) for 1,000+ years. Your physical appearance would completely change and you would have to live artificially underground. You would also have to worry about the planet being knocked off it's orbit.
Rizky06 2 years ago
now that part of it I wouldn't like so much
LisaJ4Liberty 2 years ago
>What arrogence and selfishness man.
Proud of it!
What is your strategy to save all these starving people?
Suppose that there is no strategy possible?
dashxdr 2 years ago
sadly almost all of what you said was utterly false, except for the last part about America has room to conserve energy. I would suggest you re-read the book, or perhaps try another book on the subject preferably not from an economist, they don't really understand it. try james howard kuntsler or richard heinberg or matt savinar.
dakusahab 2 years ago
>sadly almost all of what you said was utterly false
Saying it's false does not make it false. You have presented no facts, just names of books. Matt Savinar is a hopeless case.
According to MS, fundamental change will occur that will lead to massive human suffering. So I say, "So what?" if a billion people die, and it's unavoidable, why dwell on it?
Your comment is so vague and devoid of specifics there isn't much point in even trying to respond to it.
dashxdr 2 years ago
If you have been trying to warn people that some hardcore crisis is going to come in the future, and nobody is listening to you why not let the people die clueless and take care about the people that believe you or your self ?
eysi0072 2 years ago 2