@max10wonderboy It's hard to say, but as with cell phones, the initial models will be ridiculously expensive--possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars--but they'll get less expensive, more reliable, more capable and more accessible as time goes on. So perhaps a few years after they're made available, the price will drop to $15,000 in today's dollars. Roughly car prices, with deluxe or more capable models costing more.
And nowhere in the bible does it say that disease is caused by evil spirits. And living forever will only be possible in the kingdoms of heaven, or in the domain of hell. It simply is impossible here on earth.
Technology sure is nice, which comes from the Lord of course. But you have some mistakes here that I would like to point out. Nothing beyond 50 years at the absolute most will matter since Jesus will soon be coming back. And the very idea of a human having sexual relations with a machine is absolutely horrifying. Only a disgusting Godless person would even consider such a morbid idea.
has anyone made the point about religion & FAITH being 2 separate things? as a person of faith, i really dont care for religion - its nothing but an institution on its way out (like marriage).
but i think i need some clarification. its obvious you dont believe in the mystical/magical/supernatural god. after using this video to describe how technology will eventually give people the power of god, does it mean you believe in god in that sense?
@fixedupdice Religion is "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." And that is the same thing as faith used in this context. Faith and religion are essentially synonymous. One can, however, differentiate between "religious faith" and "religious institutions," if that's what you mean.
No, I don't believe in gods. Having god-like powers is simply a usefully descriptive term. Nothing supernatural required.
"differentiate between "religious faith" and "religious institutions," if that's what you mean."
yes this is what i mean. what i believe is that the advance of technology will make god inevitable if this being isnt already around waiting for our descendants in the far future to amalgamate with it.
@fixedupdice We have some theoretical frameworks for creating universes, so it's possible we'll become god-like in that respect. But the technologies I'm talking about would make us more like superheroes than gods, at least the way most people conceive of them.
Wonderful video ! A Fantastic Future awaits us thanks to science if we have the wisdom to live in peace and fraternity. Let's make Paradism a reality: paradism.org
Marrige is becming obsolate already in 2012. after the 2050s I think marrige will be rarely practiced.
Indeed, I find it pathetic that humans will marry Robots. Nobody will do it. It is like we marry an advanced sex doll nowdays. Plus I think that nothing will replace a human companion in terms of sentiments.
@max10wonderboy Marriage is obsolete, but that doesn't stop people from doing it. For many people it's extremely important to them, so it'll be around for a long time. And if and when robots become indistinguishable from perfect human mates, those people will want to marry them, I think that's pretty much inevitable.
Sorry I do not agree with that. Marrige as we understand it today it is based on love, comapssion, sufferences and happiness, complicity and spontaneity. I believe that you cant have this among a man and a perfectly identical human machine\slave. I would feel it like an idiot. it is like to win a war with no enemies. You enjoy the victory when you defeated someone. So many of us will use Robots for sex yes but for relationship is pathetic.
@max10wonderboy Your belief is not supported by the evidence. People ALREADY form strong emotional bonds with TODAY'S robots. When they are programmed to be our perfect mates, it will be inevitable that people will fall in love with them. It's BEHAVIOR that matters, not substrate. And you vastly underestimate the amount of loneliness and dissatisfaction with available relationships in the world.
Meeting prospective mates online used to be considered pathetic. Now it's mainstream. Things change.
1/2 What is your belief supported by? It seems to me that your statements are an over generalization. Who are these pepole who form strong emotional bonds with robots when they are not so much around yet? What is marrige in this case when only one person wants it? A programmed robot will always say yes. If we are talking about Robots with human emotions and with free will then marrige can have sense but not when a robot function like a programed machine of today
@max10wonderboy As I said, my belief is supported by evidence. If there is no evidence for something, I don't believe it.
Google "Programmed for Love" and read the first link. It's just one example of a woman falling in love with one of TODAY'S robots. See also "Love and Sex With Robots."
Marriage is about codifying an emotional commitment to someone. What difference does it make if that person is a machine programmed for love? It'll still FEEL convincing, and that's what causes acceptance.
Marrige is much more then that- Many pepole marry fpr many other reasons
s not just for emotional comitments. They do that also for legal, social, libidinal, economic, spiritual, and religious motivations. Where is the social-economic to marry a programmed robot? You bought it or built it. it's yours. No need for marrige. If a Robot has its own mind then it may happen. Still I remain skeptical that humans will fall in love with Robots. They will have sentiments towards them
@max10wonderboy Yes, I agree the reasons for marriage can be wide ranging. But that only supports my claim. Even when people owned slaves they sometimes fell in love with them and wanted to marry them. It'll happen with robots too.
Before 2030, even non-sentient robots will certainly SEEM sentient. And if you can't tell the difference, how would falling in love with a robot differ in any way from falling in love with a human? You won't be able to tell that a robot isn't sentient.
2\2 just like we develop sentiments over animals. But it wont be as strong as animals are biological just like us. Some are even mammals just like us.
Anyway as an anthropologist i am intrested to see the humans interactions with Robot in the future.
@max10wonderboy I've personally known people who have developed strong, loving relationships through nothing more than online avatars in MMORPGs, and they've even gotten married online. They're just animated characters talking through text and VOIP, yet they form bonds deep enough to want to marry. Robot relationships have the potential to be far stronger, since they can be programmed to behave exactly as necessary to make you fall in love with them.
You know once I "felt" in love with a lady I spoke online for over 2 years. I never met her but I was emotionally involved. We spoke everyday on skype and web-cam. But It was just a strong attraction and fantasies about meeting. Everything ended because we didnt meet at the end. Anyway I realized it was not a form of love I just had some human emotions attached to her. But the highest form of love occurs when two physical bodie conjoin togheter.
@max10wonderboy Then you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. People fall in love with the ILLUSION of what they want in the other person, and the same will happen with robots...except that they'll be programmed to behave in exactly the way that makes one fall in love, so the bonds will likely be even stronger than with real humans.
Whether or not you consider that "real" love is irrelevant, since you DID feel that way at one point, and that's all it takes for some to want to marry.
Online dating is still an interaction that take place between two humans not between a human and a programmed robot.
Men with programmed robot who do everything will say may be happy only sexually speaking but I doubt that will behappy in terms of affection and love. Until we stay humans we will love only human sentiments. I would be surprised if something like this happens. it would be sad too if humans do only sex and love pappet robots.
@max10wonderboy Yeah, and conservatives who were once opposed to interracial marriage now accept it...and use their old arguments against gay couples now, using hair-splitting arguments like you're using now. But the definition of marriage has ALWAYS been changing, and will again.
Programmed or not, if you can't tell the difference between a robot and a human, then OF COURSE people will fall in love with robots. After all, how can you know if a HUMAN you fall in love with shares your emotions?
I didnt know that there was a single definitions about marrige. Instruct me! Educate me ! wow! One thing is for sure marrige can no take place between a person and a mental subordinate. A non thnking robot is just a slave.Stop pointless paradox and compare this issue with gay and white-black marriges. We are talkin about different categories. I am sure I can have some sentimens over a robot but I will always say at the end that is just a robot. We will always keep humans sentiments
@max10wonderboy You're making my argument for me by saying there is no single definition of marriage. I AGREE. One definition includes making a codified social bond between those who wish to marry, REGARDLESS of any other factor. I know at least a few people who would rather marry a robot than a human, because human relationships are often messy.
How do you know another person is sentient? By their behavior. When robots can perfectly mimic that behavior, people will treat them as sentient.
I believe that it is in the human nature to dont accept things that are easy to achieve. We want to get what is difficult to have in order to appreciate things more. Think! humans can even get bored to have a pathner who always says yes. Stimulation is necessery for us at menatl level. Many pepole leave their women because are only dolls who are to accomodation. I personally like when a woman disagree with me here and then. That said few pepole will have different preferences.
@max10wonderboy I have been specifically talking about robots that are programmed to be perfect mates. That does NOT necessarily mean automatic compliance. Most people are attracted to hard to get, or fighting and then making up, or gradual seduction, etc., and robots will be programmed to behave exactly that way. Some will want compliant slaves; most will want companions who maintain the illusion of real love.
@max10wonderboy For the same reason people who are deeply in love and consider their hearts belonging to their mates want to get married. Marriage isn't NECESSARY, but those who are in love often want it anyway.
Robots will almost certainly become sentient eventually, but well before then they will be able to mimic human behavior well enough that they will SEEM sentient.
@max10wonderboy For the same reason people who are deeply in love and consider their hearts belonging to their mates want to get married. Marriage isn't NECESSARY, but those who are in love often want it anyway.
Robots will almost certainly become sentient eventually, but well before then they will be able to mimic human behavior well enough that they will SEEM sentient.
@max10wonderboy For the same reason people who are deeply in love and consider their hearts belonging to their mates want to get married. Marriage isn't NECESSARY, but those who are in love often want it anyway.
Robots will almost certainly become sentient eventually, but well before then they will be able to mimic human behavior well enough that they will SEEM sentient.
In case of an incident that would destroy our brain, we should invent a very small cortex smaller then a human hair that would protect our brain for decomposition and desintragation. The material should be made of a very advance nanotechnology.
The advantages are clear. Full data recovery and a continum instead of a replica. This technology will likely to be availabe in 23 century.
@max10wonderboy Er...decomposition could be eliminated through more reliable means, like changing to a machine architecture for our brains. We cannot even begin to predict what would happen in the 23rd century, but copying a brain to a computer substrate may be possible in as few as two decades.
I am a resercher and i know lots of pepole in the compiuter field. I think scaning the brain will happen only in the half of next century.
You need also te evaluate the ethic debated that will rise up. These debates are not only about morality but also about transfering vs copying, being the same person or just a replica that will have its own life. I believe that you are the same person only when you scan the brain when it is still alive otherwise thats not me.
@max10wonderboy I've hung out with and picked the brains of people like Ralph Merkle, Eliezer Yudkowsky and Eric Drexler. They and people who study these topics are pretty certain it'll happen before the middle of THIS century.
Many people share your concern about replicas being you (there's a thread on that in this comment section--look for it). But that certainly won't stop those who disagree with you from having the procedure done when it becomes technically feasible.
it dosent matter who you hang out with. Too me it seem speculation. I rarely doubt that this will happen before 2050. I hope so but it is going to be hard.
Furthmore, I am sure that some pepole would be happy with copies but I wouldnt. For me immortality is transfering memory. Just like to pass wine from a glass to another.
@max10wonderboy If you study the works of those actually working in the fields of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics, you'll change your mind. We should have robots virtually indistinguishable from humans by the end of the 2020s. Research the Law of Accelerating Returns.
I would really hope so as I need robots for my medical-social need but progress is slow. We will see robots in the street around 2050. Before that only some public structure may have it..keep dreaming in 8 years time there will be only some more advanced technology but not extreme improvments.
@max10wonderboy 2050? You're not keeping up with the field. I've seen fully robotic cars in the streets ALREADY. Look at Mabel, Alpha Dog, Geminoid-DK, Watson, ASIMO, the HULC exoskeleton, etc. to see how far we've come already. Put those technologies together NOW and we'd almost be there.
Have you studied the Law of Accelerating Returns? If it holds true (and it's been doing so so far), then we will be seeing human-indistinguishable robots by 2030 at the absolute latest.
Robots will start to become common only during 2050s and only wealth family will have them. They will become more popular in Japan since the old population is increasing. then in the rest of the world.
@max10wonderboy Exactly. The nice thing about the projections of the Law of Accelerating Returns is that advancement happens so quickly we will be able to know one way or the other well within most of our lifetimes. The robotics and AI experts I've talked to expect human-indistinguishable robots to be available around 2025.
When do you think most of diseases will be cured with robots? like to have surgery in areas that today are hardly accesible or if accessible damaged is cause?
I so wish the the priority would be medical. I suffer or chronic illnesses and waiting for my liberation
@max10wonderboy If we have advanced molecular manufacturing by around 2025, as most people working in the field expect, then we could have 'nanobots' installed in each of our cells. They'd monitor cell health and repair any damage to DNA and kill any invading bacteria or viruses. If you can live another dozen years, you stand a good chance of having those illnesses cured. No guarantees, of course, but we even have nanoscale medicine textbooks (see Robert Freitas' books) now.
@max10wonderboy It doesn't matter what kind of immortality YOU would be happy with. Others, like myself, will be fine with duplicates replacing us, and that technology will surely be available sooner.
Consciousness is episodic, interrupted nightly, and thus if we died in our sleep and an identical copy woke up in our place, the experience would be essentially no different from what we normally experience. People who grasp this concept usually get it right away. Those who don't never do.
Do what ever you want. I dont understand this stupid confrontational attitude towards me. I am what I am and I like how I like.
Immortality for me is what ancient Romans call " continum" over a replica. From the moment you copy yourself it is another person. Many scienties sustain this. But as I said the body is yours and you choose for your self. Each their own.
@max10wonderboy I'M the one being confrontational? Sorry, but YOU posted on this channel insisting continuum is better than replica and stating a tiny cortex could protect against decomposition, though that's not the direction current research is taking.
Every morning you wake up you could be a different person and you'd never know the difference. Continuity of consciousness is an illusion. Intuition does make it difficult to grasp that concept. Some get it, others don't.
It s just an idea. Current reserch is taking place because my idea is too advanced and even impossible to realize with current technology. So the fact that no one is thinking about this is irrelevant. Even Robots may become obsolate in the future as we may not need a phyisical body or make our genes more perfect then Robot. Continuity is not an illusion at all. it can actully happen. And once a replica is formed it is not you.
@max10wonderboy It's actually not impossible to realize with current technology. We have computers that are powerful enough to handle the processing power of a human brain, we're narrowing down on learning systems to mimic human learning, and we have the nanotech pathway laid out for reverse engineering the human brain. We don't have such for the "tiny cortex."
We lose consciousness nightly, so the death of the original and replacement by a replica would maintain the illusion of continuity.
See thats where I disagree. We dont lose consciouness duing sleep. To me I want to preserve my unique identity as much as I can. In the case of the cortex the material would preserve the brain. A tiny compituer would be implanted inside of a bone and so it can send messages to tell thatn an accident ocured and the brain must be saved. From that Brain we transfer its information into a new body or compiuters etc. One day we will get into this.
@max10wonderboy Actually, we DO lose consciousness during sleep, otherwise we'd remember it. Each day is perceptually like an entire life: we become conscious upon waking and we lose consciousness upon sleeping. If we died in the night and a replica awoke instead, then it would not change our perceived continuity of life at all. We wouldn't notice the difference, and neither would anyone else, including the replica. The illusion of continuity is maintained. This is NOT intuitive but factual.
@max10wonderboy "From that Brain we transfer its information into a new body or compiuters etc."
But that would not be a TRANSFER. It would be a COPY, since neurochemistry and computers are different architectures. The brain would still die and the computer brain would come online. It's essentially the same process as I mention for the replacement while sleeping scenario. But it maintains the illusion of continuity, as I said.
@max10wonderboy Sure, that's a possibility...have nanobots replace neurons with machine equivalents as they would be replaced naturally. But it would take a lot longer to develop that technology. And to me it only illustrates how it's the pattern that matters, not the substrate. The brain is constantly changing, being replaced, and we are not the same person we were a few years ago. Despite that and the nightly loss of consciousness, the illusion of continuity is maintained.
Raelians have had the answer to these questions for over 30 years! Listen to Maitreya Rael's teachings, read his book (Intelligent Design) and then re-watch this video. Make up your mind!
@lineg Sure, there will always be SOME religions that can handle the potential upcoming changes (even if they are just as faith-based and irrational as every other religion). The vast majority won't, though, since they involve life after death, which is a problem if death is eliminated.
Only...didn't the Raelians kill themselves to get onto a space ship? Yeah, I'll bet they have some problems with sufficiently high technology too.
I don't see much practical difference between what the religious might call "God" and the irreligious might call "benevolent creative posthumans", particularly when such posthumans may have created our world.
@LincolnCannon The difference being that the "irreligious" don't necessarily believe posthumans will be created, they wouldn't worship posthumans, in fact they would likely want to become posthuman, and there's a plausible path to a posthuman society through purely naturalistic means...whereas God has no naturalistic explanation (by definition), nor evidence of his existence, is worshiped by his followers, and his worshipers don't hope to become him.
@Underlings Some theists trust in the existence of a natural God, and worship that God as a child worships its parents, anticipating maturation to Godhood themselves.
@LincolnCannon True that. Mormons believe something like that, for example. But they see that as something that happens after this life, not within it. You're still supposed to die before you can attain godhood. But if death is conquered...that'll pose a conundrum to almost every religion.
@Underlings That's not accurate. Both Mormons and Christians believe some persons will not die before attaining heaven or godhood or whatever they believe follows the present form of life we're now experiencing. Here's an applicable passage from the Bible: 1 Corinthians 15: 51-54.
@Underlings We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed — in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
@LincolnCanon Sounds like the DEAD will be raised and made imperishable/immortal, not the living. First people die, then they're raised as immortals and death is eliminated.
OTOH, moving a person's mind file to a machine architecture would require the death of the original biological body, so that could be made to fit the scripture. Doubtlessly, people will try to find ways to fit scripture to reality just like this. But, as I say in the video, the religions will have to change their worldview.
@Underlings I agree that worldviews will need to continue to evolve, but this is nothing new for religion. Religion has been adapting to changes in philosophy and science for millennia, including early Christians reconciling with Neoplatonism, middle ages Muslims and Christians syncretizing with resurgent Aristotelianism, and modern efforts to complement Darwinism. Religion is not an epistemic method. It incorporates epistemic methods, and it recurrently incorporates the science of its day.
@LincolnCannon Well, a lot of religions don't accept the science of today--like fundamentalist Christians.
I state in this video that the upcoming technologies will pose challenges for everyone, but most especially the religious (since they must not only adapt to the changes, but reconcile them with their theology). I've not said they WON'T adapt, just that it'll be especially challenging for them. Thus I'm not sure what your point is--it sounds like you simply agree.
@Underlings My point is that the future will present as many challenges for irreligious ideologies as it will for religious ideologies. God may not be what the religious expect, but God may be, which is not what the irreligious expect.
@LincolnCannon And my point is that the future will present MORE challenges for theists than it will for non-theists, because BOTH will have to become accustomed to the changes in their everyday lives, but the theists will ALSO have to reconcile them with their conflicting religious ideologies and worldview.
The opposite would be true if God suddenly revealed himself to the world with all the necessary evidence...but there's no evidence that's ever likely to happen.
Read RINGING CEDARS OF RUSSIA Books by Vladimir Megre.
Not only they will answer all your questions but also show you a vision of a better future for mankind without the arrogance of science and ignorance backward religions.
As well as discover secrets hidden from humanity for thousands of years.
@MotionArtist3D Present the arguments here, rather than asking me to read a whole book based on just your say so--especially since I'm not asking any questions that need answering (and it sounds New Agey or conspiracy theory-ish).
What's arrogant about science? It's merely a methodology with a proven track record of getting results.
The ideas presented in this video present as many challenges for the irreligious as they do for the religious. A future in which present notions of poverty and death are no longer applicable? A future in which we have the capacity to create worlds? The only thing left out is recognition of what Steven Pinker is so persuasively demonstrating: cultural progress increases benevolence. Posthumanity will be more benevolent than us. Benevolent creators: is that a problem for the irreligious?
@LincolnCannon Oh, no doubt it would be a major social upheaval for everyone...but especially so for those with a rigid worldview of humanity's place in the universe--such as the religious. The non-religious tend to be much more flexible when it comes to change.
I don't know why increasing benevolence should be a problem for the non-religious.
@Underlings I agree with your assessment of the problem with religious dogmatism (although, of course, dogmatism is not essential to religion, even if it's common). However, as posted above, I don't see much practical difference between what the religious might call "God" and the irreligious might call "benevolent creative posthumans", particularly when such posthumans may have created our world. That will present an ideological challenge for some of the irreligious.
Imagine the experience we'll have if we enhanced our bodys to sense the world in another way. We know it from touch, smell, sight and sound (well not smell in my case) and nanotech could conceivably increase them.
Clones and original all would think are "you". Clones would think about their immortality just like you. Clones start experiencing exactly like you at the moment you were cloned: in every sense they would be like you, thinking as you, feeling as you, equally emotive, equally intelligent, same values, and each "knowing" he's "you". IF we are like "software" then "hardware" is irrelevant. Could wake up 1000 times in your actual body; then one day you wake up in another... no discontinuity for any
@ozeraleinad That's it exactly. Some people internalize this concept immediately, but for others it never makes sense. I've never convinced anyone to change that perception either way, so I suspect the perception may be somewhat hardwired. Hmmm....
@creativeprojects720 Researchers have just announced a robot that can be guided through a person's digestive tract to aid in repairs and deliver drugs. Just think what 10 years of miniaturization and improvements will bring about.
ironically, this video isn't so scientific, even though it's professionally rendered.
It's too pat. For one thing, just because you see fossils which seem to be XXX years old is no true proof of the age of the world, for the same reason that this video explained that the Genome project became accelerated due to technology.
Meaning - Man proposes God disposes.
This video is "proposing" and assuming too much (as in predicting that by the year 2020, xyz will take place.
@minniyoutubaster Since when does science EVER prove a theory to be true? It can ONLY prove theories false. But we consider a theory to be true if it can make accurate predictions, like with evolution and the age of the Earth. See my video "Why Don't More Scientists Believe in Creationism" to see why.
Technological improvements can OFTEN be accurately predicted, which is the basis of this video. Perhaps you're just used to the extremely vague prophesies of the Bible?
My friend is an aspiring techy and has entered an innovations idea competition. He has a chance to be trained and mentored by tech industry business leaders if his idea is voted into the semi-finals. You can help him reach his dreams.
If you can, go to his video at "/watch?v=ukawhPLV3AE" please and give it a thumbs up "Like" as that is how eight semi-finals will be chosen.
@ganados0 Haha, good point. But at least, in theory, you could still sleep if you wanted to. But there is a possible option for transferring one's mind while awake through parallel duplication of mental processes piece by piece, should sleep no longer be an option for some reason.
@JungleJargon Actually, the OPPOSITE of what you said is closer to truth. Unless you've been keeping up on the technological updates, you wouldn't know how quickly we're advancing in nanotechnology, robotics and A.I. It's more a matter of WHEN we will replace biological humanity, not IF. Research "technological singularity" for the details.
Who wants to sit with God, replace him, or be the anti-Christ? They're fictional characters.
10:34 not photo-realisic eh? actually we are starting the graphics plateu, the point where we are no longer able to make something look better. Polygon counts(the objective way to measure graphics.) have gone from 0 to tens of thousands in about 20 years. we are already able to make photo-realism, we don't have the hardware cheap enough to run it yet.
@peoplearemessedup I think the pic you're referring to is of the equipment, not an example of VR.
But there's more to it than just photo-realism. To appear truly realistic, we'll likely have to develop something like phased array optics first, which would look not just like a photo, but like a real, 3D object subject to depth perception and the whole nine yards. As it is now, you can tell when you're looking at a screen, even when watching a 3D movie.
@Underlings you have valid points. However 3D objects on computer monitors are subject to depth perception it's just artificially created by math and shadows. You can't tell your looking at a screen you just know you are. otherwise games that are FPSs would not be able to be played, you would end up being unable to tell if you were next to something or if it was off in the distance.
@peoplearemessedup Well, I'm referring to depth perception focus. I happen to be near-sighted, and when I look at a 3D game without lenses close enough to see the foreground clearly, the background is just as clear, even though in real life it would be out of focus. Also, computer screens have parallax issues when you turn (look at the far left and right as you turn the 3D view. Phased array optics would take care of both problems. I hope they are developed.
@Underlings When bringing this technology out into the third dimension your right it feels terrible. You know your watching a screen. but the question we should be asking is why? the answer is because screens don't cover the whole world. Our 3D tech works just fine when you have the images in front of your eyes. that is what modern VR simulators actually change from every other form of 3D.
@peoplearemessedup Looking out a window also doesn't cover the whole world, yet we don't have problems identifying it as real. I think part of the problems with 3D movies is that the 3D is selective--not everything gives the illusion of depth, only some things. Well, that and the fact that film gives you close-ups and other shots that aren't realistic (though I'm not knocking that).
@lordhasen It's Christianity that has a problem with wealth. As Jesus said, it's harder for a rich man to get into heaven than to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. He also insists one give up one's riches to follow him.
That should be a big problem for today's Christians, since even the poor in the developed world are far more wealthy than the rich of antiquity.
And why does my gut say it will involve conrporations.....?
Anyway, I doubt this will all happen within decades, most likely within the next two to three hundred years. Let alone that how would ordinary people be able to require such technology that will undoubtetly be first utilized by the militaries, goverment officials and big shots across the globe.
@Arkticus Well, if you think this will take 100s of years, you'd have to explain why the exponential progress we've had so far would suddenly stop. ALREADY we're building nanoscale electrical motors, computers that can beat Turing tests, and robots and virtual characters that almost pass for real. Think what will 10 or 20 more years give us. And just as cell phones were only for the very rich in the '80s only to become ubiquitous and cheap 20 years later, the same should occur here. So cheer up!
@Underlings I'm not thinking it would stop, I just don't believe progress is going to be that fast untill I see it (sure, I was born in the late 80's, and I remember quite a lot of things that that has changed since I was a kid, but still. I'll just point out that "Pessimist is what an Optimist calls a Realist ;) ).
Plus, It's a about bloody time we get the space programs up a gear, if you ask me. Mars today, tommorrow Alpha Centaury, and the day after that, the rest of the galaxy.
@Arkticus Well, look over the part in the video where I talk about the Human Genome Project. Intuitively, it was very hard to accept that being 1% done halfway through the project was right on schedule...but it was. I've studied this stuff for years and I STILL don't "believe" it's going to happen...but like a pilot, it's usually better to trust your instruments than what you see.
I'd like to see the space program blossom...but nanotech should allow it to do so much more quickly.
I find the create a backup of yourself a little creepy.
I want to continue, I personally want to live one with a backup I die and my copy picks up where I left off so seemlessly that my friends and family might not be able to tell the difference.
That's immortality thru identity...but not useful for the individual.
@999theshadow999 Why isn't it useful for the individual? When you go to sleep at night, you completely lose consciousness, right? You have zero awareness of the world, so you might as well be dead from your POV. The next day you "reboot" your awareness. How would that be any different from you dying at night and an exact copy of you rebooting in the morning...from your own POV or that of anyone else's?
Hello, first I'd like to start off by saying I really enjoy your videos and this hope for the future.
anyway on to the question. The difference is that we don't reboot...at least not yet anyway. There are still fundamental differences between the organic and the mechanical.
For example say I die and a back up clone is booted up. Now it's completely indistingusible from me and is me in every measurable respect.
Did I come back to life? No, just my identity,body,face,etc. not "me"
Ah, but that's the point. Because we lose consciousness when we sleep, one can think of that as a machine being switched off. We no longer exist from our own POV. So if we died during the night and an exact duplicate of us were to wake up instead, he would have the same memories of going to bed and everything before, so he would not perceive himself as a duplicate. And the original that died would obviously not know either. It seems weird...but works.
The backup copy is a great way for one's identity,face,body and personality to become immortal. But my problem lies with the fact the original still dies.
Now want you mentioned is true the dead original won't know and from the copy's POV, they simply woke up the next morning after being killed.
Unless my personal consciousness was being carried over from one body to the next, I am still dead...my personality and identity on the other hand continue on.
@999theshadow999 What's the difference between going to sleep and waking up the next morning, and dying and a perfect duplicate waking up in the morning? Your personal consciousness is interrupted either way, and essentially continues on either way.
Nearly all the atoms in our bodies are replaced every few years, yet we don't mourn their loss. As long as the PATTERN continues on as usual, our substrate can change yet we maintain the illusion of continuance. But it's only ever been an illusion.
@999theshadow999 But there's another option too. Hook up a small part of the brain to an equivalent part of a computer brain such that the signals passing through the brain part are duplicated on the computer. Then disconnect the organic brain part. The person should sense no interruption in thought. Repeat process until whole brain is replaced by computer. At no point is consciousness lost or thought interrupted...but the end result is effectively a transfer of an organic mind to a computer.
I like that second idea much better or alternatively have nanobots replace brain cells neuron by neuron and you can make your brain entirely mechanical and be conscious and aware without threat to identity.
I disagree on the sleep, simply because our brains never stop working. We have dreams, we continue breathing and our heartbeats, we wake up if thirsty or hungry.
So we don't reboot because our brains are always active, unlike a machine that truly and completely shuts down.
@999theshadow999 Regardless of autonomic responses continuing as we sleep, we are completely unaware of most of it. Remembered dreams are but a few fleeting seconds of the night. Our BRAINS don't shut down but our CONSCIOUSNESS does...and we are only aware when we are conscious. If you died in your sleep and a duplicate picked up at the point of your death, there would be NO discernible difference to yourself, to your duplicate, or to anyone else. Continuance while sleeping is just an illusion.
Hello, I just came back after a long time being without the internet and looked over old comments and found this discussion... I would like to continue our "original coming back to life" vs "digital clone" discussion.
That's if you'll indulge me...I simply want to know why you think this will work so well. I am still convinced that this form of immortality is a pyrric victory at best, However this tiny youtube boxes aren't big enough for meaningful discussion. What do you say?
I think the sense of continuity of consciousness is only an illusion: we wake up with memories of having gone to bed, so the disruption of consciousness as we sleep doesn't bother us...even though we lose all awareness of our existence.
If a copy of you were to awaken with those same memories, only with a brand new, functionally superior body, you'd think you were you. And if your original died in its sleep, you'd never know.
@Underlings Thank you for responding so promptly...I believe I have a counter to that, but not sure how to proceed do I message you or reply in the comments section here. I must admit I really to input my two cents, but it would be awkward without knowing here to put them...maybe I should send a friend request what do you think?
@999theshadow999 Oh, I think putting your comments here is fine. If you need to use several comments, that's fine too.
But there is a potential solution to those who don't like the scenario I've posited: The brain is made of some 200+ areas. Simulate one area on a computer, route duplicate signals from your brain through the simulation, verify it matches perfectly, then disconnect that part of the brain. Repeat until the entire brain is reproduced. Consciousness is never lost.
@Underlings That is a very good and agreeable solution and here's another one: have nanobots enter your brain and have them convert your brain from biological to circuitry neuron by neuron either way identity is never threatened and that's good. With either solution we both win :-)
However here's what I wonder about your position...after all I'll need to understand your position before I can be a proper opponent. If I record all my thoughts, memories, personality, etc. in a computer... Cont.
@Underlings ...Cont. from previous. Won't I be simply be creating a clone who's just like me? Now from the clone's perspective you are 100% right and it would to the clone be subjectively like you said. However, from my point of view as the original that would not hold true and that's my problem I want to be immortal, not replaced every time I died.
The only way I can conceive of it working like you say it does is if upon death my consciousness metaphysically travels into the clone...cont. 2
@999theshadow999 Yes, the copy would essentially be a machine clone of you.
From your own POV, every night you cease to exist, then you wake up and continue existing. We exist as a pattern of consciousness that is interrupted each time we sleep. It's non-intuitive, but as long as the pattern of consciousness continues, there is essentially no difference between waking up as a copy or as the original. From no POV--not even your own--is there any discernible difference.
@Underlings Cont. from previous 2. That way, even from my perspective what you say holds true. Aside from my consciousness dipping into a metaphysical realm and travelling into the duplicate I see no way to preserve personal continuity...obviously it'll seem that way to the clone, but not for the original.
Later I like to return to the sleep issue...but that'll come later I don't want to seem rude. Thank you for your time Underlings.
The scenario I've mentioned only works if the original is killed the moment the copy comes online, otherwise you essentially have two identical minds. It can help to think of our minds as patterns, not as distinct original entities.
@Underlings Hello, I didn't want to be rude and overwhelm you with my thoughts the first time around so I'm back to talk about the sleep thing and this is what I've thought of:
When we go to sleep our brain waves don't stop and our unconscious and subconscious are in firm control. Hence, we never cease to exist because of sleep. There's another issue I have with your position: When we wake up our personalities and memories are carried over from yesterday....cont.
@999theshadow999 The thing is, as long as we are unconscious and thus unaware of being copied or being killed, what difference does it make if an exact duplicate awakens or if we do?
One way of looking at our minds is that we die every night and are reborn in a new body with memories intact. If that were actually happen, how would we know? We wouldn't, yet that fact doesn't bother you, does it? So why should a KNOWN clone make any difference to your perception?
@Underlings Cont. from previous. If our identities are reconstructed from nothing each and every night....then how could personality, beliefs and attitudes possibly persist?
I know what the obvious knee-jerk response will be: "The combination of our DNA and memories form our personality." While that's true...it's not the whole story.
Our outlook and life is also affected by our perceptions of reality and those can be quite fluid...Why and how could our perceptions of reality stay constant if..
@Underlings Cont. from previous 2. We are constantly being replaced in our sleep. If you had a dramatic change in your life you would surely change some of your behaviors and feelings towards things and the people around you. How could our perceptions possibly persist if we don't?
We can't turn to evolution for an answer because for all her power, strength, beauty and savagery nature is lazy. Having our windpipe and esophagus so close together is a terrible idea...but a good chunk of all life.
@Underlings Cont. from previous 2...has this configuration. While there is obviously an evolutionary advantage to remembering previous events...there is no evolutionary advantage to ensuring our personal continuity.
That's why I think it we must have personal continuity...otherwise our personalities would change from day to day... If your right our personalities should be very fluid and in constant flux...but since it isn't I believe we have personal continuity and persist even while asleep.
@999theshadow999 Why would our personalities differ even one iota if we were just copies created every morning with the previous copy's memories intact? That claim I don't understand. After all, is a computer program fluid and in flux when you copy it, but not if you leave it alone?
@Underlings Hello Underlings I hope you had a good Christmas, the reason is that memories aren't just what determines our personalities perceptions and beliefs do too. Imagine two identical twins who grew up together one is a homeless drug addict and the other is a billionaire whose the the CEO of a successful company... obviously their personalities are going to be very different despite sharing a similar psychology and childhood. Of everything our beliefs and perceptions are the easiest to...
@999theshadow999 True, once identical twins have time apart, they can change, even dramatically. But if someone's mind is cloned and the original is destroyed while the clone lives on, the clone will be identical to the original mind and continue operating exactly as the original mind would. Letting the original live would cause a divergence in minds as differing experiences acted upon them.
@Underlings ...change. And as I mentioned before for all her power, strength, rage and beauty nature is LAZY, LAZY, LAZY.
That's why evolution is just a random, chaotic process that has no end goal, no ultimate final direction. That's why male birds have almost suicidal designs while female birds are "intelligently designed" (...get it? XD...) That's why our airways and throats are right on top of each other despite of how dumb that is.
Our beliefs and perceptions are always changing and...
@Underlings ...and will color and skew the perception of reality and our memories to whatever it is. We have no evolutionary reason to have personal continuity...but we do.
Furthermore, a good demonstration of this is to have the original and the clone living different lives. They'll have different memories and their beliefs, perceptions and even personalities may begin to drift apart despite being virtually identical. Unless our consciousness dips into a metaphysical realm and returns to our
@999theshadow999 I think personal continuity is a necessary consequence of memory, which exists to allow us to react appropriately to related experiences that occur in the future.
That is why I think it's necessary to kill the original the moment you activate the clone--otherwise you have two minds diverging and thus no way to maintain the illusion of continuity.
@Underlings ... plane of existence. I don't see this working. Like I said from the clone's POV you'll be 100% right. But in order for personal continuity to be maintained with your system our consciousness needs to dip into a metaphysical realm and return to the world of the living upon sensing an identical brain wave pattern...maybe this is my ignorance talking but would that imply if we made clones of ourselves we'd find ourselves become a hive mind...other clone and original are seperate.
@999theshadow999 Nothing metaphysical needed. The original dies and the clone continues on in his place. The original notices nothing different from what usually happens. The clone notices nothing different from what usually happens. And nobody else does, either. Thus, the illusion of continuity is maintained. And it IS just an illusion, since we lose continuity when we sleep anyway. So this is nothing metaphysical, simply a copy continuing in place of the original.
@Underlings I'm not so sure since it's impossible to experience life from an outside perspective.
Think about it, no matter how much I want to experience your life and memories there's simply no way I can. Even if I devote every moment of my waking life imitating your life and personal experiences it's impossible I can't BE you.
Likewise, I can't BE my own clone. With my death as far as we both know it's simply the end and that's it, it doesn't matter if I die when the clone conscious or...
@Underlings ...not. Either way me and the clone are two fundamentally different beings. Even thou we have the same memories, life experiences and personality traits. We will eventually and inevitably differentiate with dissimilar life perspectives and experiences.
Imagine a wealthy billionaire giving a child five dollars or a guy who makes a dollar a day giving a child five dollars...exact same actions and exact same end result, however they will have different views on the action.
@Underlings It'll be the same with my clone: same actions and possibly same end result if our personalities and experiences are identical however we'll have different views and opinions on our lives and choices.
If I die and my clone goes online, I will not suddenly begin experiencing life as my clone...I'll be dead.
If we're replaced every night when we sleep we won't wake up...ever. Illusion or no there won't be personal continuity period not even as an illusion. We aren't going to wake up.
@999theshadow999 "If I die and my clone goes online, I will not suddenly begin experiencing life as my clone...I'll be dead."
I think this is where you're getting hung up. Yes, you will be dead...but so what? How would this in ANY WAY be different from what you experience now already? Every night you lose consciousness and from your own POV cease to exist. The next day you wake up with memories. Who's to say you are the same person who went to sleep? Who's to say you didn't die last night?
@Underlings Yes, this is indeed where I'm getting hung up.
Here's the thing: I am beginning to wonder if you understand my position. Yes, this is different because you CANNOT experience life from another POV.
If you can experience existence as your clone...then why can't you experience existence as another human being? What method would be utilized to make the clone's POV my POV and why can't I use that exact same method to see from your POV?
@999theshadow999 I'm pretty sure I understand your position. But what I'm saying is that it is essentially irrelevant. I'm not saying your POV would magically transfer to your copy. I'm saying that your consciousness ceases to exist every night, and the consciousness that awakens each morning is indistinguishable from your dying during the night and a copy continuing in your stead. That continuity of POV we THINK we experience is an illusion caused by our memories.
@Underlings Here's what I see as an implication of your system: If you are right then if I die the clone's POV will become my POV.
However if you're right then what is stopping me from making another POV my POV? Why can't I take your POV...after all, I can take my clone's POV so why not yours?
The clone and the original are by nature two seperate beings, who have seperate senses, memories, POVs, etc.
You and me are two seperate beings, who have seperate sense, memories and POVs...so why not?
|2ight On !✿!
A World |2evolution Now
aynradd 2 weeks ago
Fuck yeah jet packs and flying cars!
That is all.
TheReliquarian 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from Underlings
What would be the cost of sex bots?
max10wonderboy 3 weeks ago
@max10wonderboy It's hard to say, but as with cell phones, the initial models will be ridiculously expensive--possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars--but they'll get less expensive, more reliable, more capable and more accessible as time goes on. So perhaps a few years after they're made available, the price will drop to $15,000 in today's dollars. Roughly car prices, with deluxe or more capable models costing more.
Underlings 3 weeks ago
@Underlings In 20 years from now, no more money, brothers:)
TomitaRaelian 2 weeks ago
@Underlings Hey underarms, what's the most recent status on robobitches?
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 week ago
@max10wonderboy great question, shat myself
garfrain 1 week ago
Comment removed
max10wonderboy 3 weeks ago
And nowhere in the bible does it say that disease is caused by evil spirits. And living forever will only be possible in the kingdoms of heaven, or in the domain of hell. It simply is impossible here on earth.
Godisyourmaster 1 month ago
@Godisyourmaster 1 Samuel 16:14-16, Luke 7:21, Luke 8:2, Acts 19:12-16...
Underlings 1 month ago
Technology sure is nice, which comes from the Lord of course. But you have some mistakes here that I would like to point out. Nothing beyond 50 years at the absolute most will matter since Jesus will soon be coming back. And the very idea of a human having sexual relations with a machine is absolutely horrifying. Only a disgusting Godless person would even consider such a morbid idea.
Godisyourmaster 1 month ago
@Godisyourmaster The ignorance...it burns...it burns! ;-)
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
has anyone made the point about religion & FAITH being 2 separate things? as a person of faith, i really dont care for religion - its nothing but an institution on its way out (like marriage).
but i think i need some clarification. its obvious you dont believe in the mystical/magical/supernatural god. after using this video to describe how technology will eventually give people the power of god, does it mean you believe in god in that sense?
fixedupdice 1 month ago
@fixedupdice Religion is "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." And that is the same thing as faith used in this context. Faith and religion are essentially synonymous. One can, however, differentiate between "religious faith" and "religious institutions," if that's what you mean.
No, I don't believe in gods. Having god-like powers is simply a usefully descriptive term. Nothing supernatural required.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
"differentiate between "religious faith" and "religious institutions," if that's what you mean."
yes this is what i mean. what i believe is that the advance of technology will make god inevitable if this being isnt already around waiting for our descendants in the far future to amalgamate with it.
fixedupdice 1 month ago
@fixedupdice We have some theoretical frameworks for creating universes, so it's possible we'll become god-like in that respect. But the technologies I'm talking about would make us more like superheroes than gods, at least the way most people conceive of them.
Underlings 1 month ago
Comment removed
fixedupdice 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheLordSod 1 month ago
That guy at 9:02 looks exactly like Ron Paul.
arnizach 1 month ago
@arnizach That is Ron Paul. Back when he had a soul. ;-)
Underlings 1 month ago
Wonderful video ! A Fantastic Future awaits us thanks to science if we have the wisdom to live in peace and fraternity. Let's make Paradism a reality: paradism.org
Elohandre 1 month ago
@Elohandre Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
Underlings 1 month ago
Marrige is becming obsolate already in 2012. after the 2050s I think marrige will be rarely practiced.
Indeed, I find it pathetic that humans will marry Robots. Nobody will do it. It is like we marry an advanced sex doll nowdays. Plus I think that nothing will replace a human companion in terms of sentiments.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy Marriage is obsolete, but that doesn't stop people from doing it. For many people it's extremely important to them, so it'll be around for a long time. And if and when robots become indistinguishable from perfect human mates, those people will want to marry them, I think that's pretty much inevitable.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
Sorry I do not agree with that. Marrige as we understand it today it is based on love, comapssion, sufferences and happiness, complicity and spontaneity. I believe that you cant have this among a man and a perfectly identical human machine\slave. I would feel it like an idiot. it is like to win a war with no enemies. You enjoy the victory when you defeated someone. So many of us will use Robots for sex yes but for relationship is pathetic.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy Your belief is not supported by the evidence. People ALREADY form strong emotional bonds with TODAY'S robots. When they are programmed to be our perfect mates, it will be inevitable that people will fall in love with them. It's BEHAVIOR that matters, not substrate. And you vastly underestimate the amount of loneliness and dissatisfaction with available relationships in the world.
Meeting prospective mates online used to be considered pathetic. Now it's mainstream. Things change.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
1/2 What is your belief supported by? It seems to me that your statements are an over generalization. Who are these pepole who form strong emotional bonds with robots when they are not so much around yet? What is marrige in this case when only one person wants it? A programmed robot will always say yes. If we are talking about Robots with human emotions and with free will then marrige can have sense but not when a robot function like a programed machine of today
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy As I said, my belief is supported by evidence. If there is no evidence for something, I don't believe it.
Google "Programmed for Love" and read the first link. It's just one example of a woman falling in love with one of TODAY'S robots. See also "Love and Sex With Robots."
Marriage is about codifying an emotional commitment to someone. What difference does it make if that person is a machine programmed for love? It'll still FEEL convincing, and that's what causes acceptance.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings 1\2
Marrige is much more then that- Many pepole marry fpr many other reasons
s not just for emotional comitments. They do that also for legal, social, libidinal, economic, spiritual, and religious motivations. Where is the social-economic to marry a programmed robot? You bought it or built it. it's yours. No need for marrige. If a Robot has its own mind then it may happen. Still I remain skeptical that humans will fall in love with Robots. They will have sentiments towards them
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy Yes, I agree the reasons for marriage can be wide ranging. But that only supports my claim. Even when people owned slaves they sometimes fell in love with them and wanted to marry them. It'll happen with robots too.
Before 2030, even non-sentient robots will certainly SEEM sentient. And if you can't tell the difference, how would falling in love with a robot differ in any way from falling in love with a human? You won't be able to tell that a robot isn't sentient.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
2\2 just like we develop sentiments over animals. But it wont be as strong as animals are biological just like us. Some are even mammals just like us.
Anyway as an anthropologist i am intrested to see the humans interactions with Robot in the future.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy I've personally known people who have developed strong, loving relationships through nothing more than online avatars in MMORPGs, and they've even gotten married online. They're just animated characters talking through text and VOIP, yet they form bonds deep enough to want to marry. Robot relationships have the potential to be far stronger, since they can be programmed to behave exactly as necessary to make you fall in love with them.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
You know once I "felt" in love with a lady I spoke online for over 2 years. I never met her but I was emotionally involved. We spoke everyday on skype and web-cam. But It was just a strong attraction and fantasies about meeting. Everything ended because we didnt meet at the end. Anyway I realized it was not a form of love I just had some human emotions attached to her. But the highest form of love occurs when two physical bodie conjoin togheter.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy Then you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. People fall in love with the ILLUSION of what they want in the other person, and the same will happen with robots...except that they'll be programmed to behave in exactly the way that makes one fall in love, so the bonds will likely be even stronger than with real humans.
Whether or not you consider that "real" love is irrelevant, since you DID feel that way at one point, and that's all it takes for some to want to marry.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
I personally wouldnt marry that woman! But yeah in the world you get all sort of pepole.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@Underlings
2/2
Online dating is still an interaction that take place between two humans not between a human and a programmed robot.
Men with programmed robot who do everything will say may be happy only sexually speaking but I doubt that will behappy in terms of affection and love. Until we stay humans we will love only human sentiments. I would be surprised if something like this happens. it would be sad too if humans do only sex and love pappet robots.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy Yeah, and conservatives who were once opposed to interracial marriage now accept it...and use their old arguments against gay couples now, using hair-splitting arguments like you're using now. But the definition of marriage has ALWAYS been changing, and will again.
Programmed or not, if you can't tell the difference between a robot and a human, then OF COURSE people will fall in love with robots. After all, how can you know if a HUMAN you fall in love with shares your emotions?
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
I didnt know that there was a single definitions about marrige. Instruct me! Educate me ! wow! One thing is for sure marrige can no take place between a person and a mental subordinate. A non thnking robot is just a slave.Stop pointless paradox and compare this issue with gay and white-black marriges. We are talkin about different categories. I am sure I can have some sentimens over a robot but I will always say at the end that is just a robot. We will always keep humans sentiments
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy You're making my argument for me by saying there is no single definition of marriage. I AGREE. One definition includes making a codified social bond between those who wish to marry, REGARDLESS of any other factor. I know at least a few people who would rather marry a robot than a human, because human relationships are often messy.
How do you know another person is sentient? By their behavior. When robots can perfectly mimic that behavior, people will treat them as sentient.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
I believe that it is in the human nature to dont accept things that are easy to achieve. We want to get what is difficult to have in order to appreciate things more. Think! humans can even get bored to have a pathner who always says yes. Stimulation is necessery for us at menatl level. Many pepole leave their women because are only dolls who are to accomodation. I personally like when a woman disagree with me here and then. That said few pepole will have different preferences.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy I have been specifically talking about robots that are programmed to be perfect mates. That does NOT necessarily mean automatic compliance. Most people are attracted to hard to get, or fighting and then making up, or gradual seduction, etc., and robots will be programmed to behave exactly that way. Some will want compliant slaves; most will want companions who maintain the illusion of real love.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
My question is: why marrige is necessery when the Robot is already yours in every aspect? A Robot that has no mind.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy For the same reason people who are deeply in love and consider their hearts belonging to their mates want to get married. Marriage isn't NECESSARY, but those who are in love often want it anyway.
Robots will almost certainly become sentient eventually, but well before then they will be able to mimic human behavior well enough that they will SEEM sentient.
Underlings 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy For the same reason people who are deeply in love and consider their hearts belonging to their mates want to get married. Marriage isn't NECESSARY, but those who are in love often want it anyway.
Robots will almost certainly become sentient eventually, but well before then they will be able to mimic human behavior well enough that they will SEEM sentient.
Underlings 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy For the same reason people who are deeply in love and consider their hearts belonging to their mates want to get married. Marriage isn't NECESSARY, but those who are in love often want it anyway.
Robots will almost certainly become sentient eventually, but well before then they will be able to mimic human behavior well enough that they will SEEM sentient.
Underlings 1 month ago
Comment removed
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
In case of an incident that would destroy our brain, we should invent a very small cortex smaller then a human hair that would protect our brain for decomposition and desintragation. The material should be made of a very advance nanotechnology.
The advantages are clear. Full data recovery and a continum instead of a replica. This technology will likely to be availabe in 23 century.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy Er...decomposition could be eliminated through more reliable means, like changing to a machine architecture for our brains. We cannot even begin to predict what would happen in the 23rd century, but copying a brain to a computer substrate may be possible in as few as two decades.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
I am a resercher and i know lots of pepole in the compiuter field. I think scaning the brain will happen only in the half of next century.
You need also te evaluate the ethic debated that will rise up. These debates are not only about morality but also about transfering vs copying, being the same person or just a replica that will have its own life. I believe that you are the same person only when you scan the brain when it is still alive otherwise thats not me.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy I've hung out with and picked the brains of people like Ralph Merkle, Eliezer Yudkowsky and Eric Drexler. They and people who study these topics are pretty certain it'll happen before the middle of THIS century.
Many people share your concern about replicas being you (there's a thread on that in this comment section--look for it). But that certainly won't stop those who disagree with you from having the procedure done when it becomes technically feasible.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
it dosent matter who you hang out with. Too me it seem speculation. I rarely doubt that this will happen before 2050. I hope so but it is going to be hard.
Furthmore, I am sure that some pepole would be happy with copies but I wouldnt. For me immortality is transfering memory. Just like to pass wine from a glass to another.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy If you study the works of those actually working in the fields of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics, you'll change your mind. We should have robots virtually indistinguishable from humans by the end of the 2020s. Research the Law of Accelerating Returns.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
I would really hope so as I need robots for my medical-social need but progress is slow. We will see robots in the street around 2050. Before that only some public structure may have it..keep dreaming in 8 years time there will be only some more advanced technology but not extreme improvments.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy 2050? You're not keeping up with the field. I've seen fully robotic cars in the streets ALREADY. Look at Mabel, Alpha Dog, Geminoid-DK, Watson, ASIMO, the HULC exoskeleton, etc. to see how far we've come already. Put those technologies together NOW and we'd almost be there.
Have you studied the Law of Accelerating Returns? If it holds true (and it's been doing so so far), then we will be seeing human-indistinguishable robots by 2030 at the absolute latest.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
In 2030 I will call you and see where we are at.
Robots will start to become common only during 2050s and only wealth family will have them. They will become more popular in Japan since the old population is increasing. then in the rest of the world.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy Exactly. The nice thing about the projections of the Law of Accelerating Returns is that advancement happens so quickly we will be able to know one way or the other well within most of our lifetimes. The robotics and AI experts I've talked to expect human-indistinguishable robots to be available around 2025.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
When do you think most of diseases will be cured with robots? like to have surgery in areas that today are hardly accesible or if accessible damaged is cause?
I so wish the the priority would be medical. I suffer or chronic illnesses and waiting for my liberation
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy If we have advanced molecular manufacturing by around 2025, as most people working in the field expect, then we could have 'nanobots' installed in each of our cells. They'd monitor cell health and repair any damage to DNA and kill any invading bacteria or viruses. If you can live another dozen years, you stand a good chance of having those illnesses cured. No guarantees, of course, but we even have nanoscale medicine textbooks (see Robert Freitas' books) now.
Underlings 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy It doesn't matter what kind of immortality YOU would be happy with. Others, like myself, will be fine with duplicates replacing us, and that technology will surely be available sooner.
Consciousness is episodic, interrupted nightly, and thus if we died in our sleep and an identical copy woke up in our place, the experience would be essentially no different from what we normally experience. People who grasp this concept usually get it right away. Those who don't never do.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
Do what ever you want. I dont understand this stupid confrontational attitude towards me. I am what I am and I like how I like.
Immortality for me is what ancient Romans call " continum" over a replica. From the moment you copy yourself it is another person. Many scienties sustain this. But as I said the body is yours and you choose for your self. Each their own.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy I'M the one being confrontational? Sorry, but YOU posted on this channel insisting continuum is better than replica and stating a tiny cortex could protect against decomposition, though that's not the direction current research is taking.
Every morning you wake up you could be a different person and you'd never know the difference. Continuity of consciousness is an illusion. Intuition does make it difficult to grasp that concept. Some get it, others don't.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
It s just an idea. Current reserch is taking place because my idea is too advanced and even impossible to realize with current technology. So the fact that no one is thinking about this is irrelevant. Even Robots may become obsolate in the future as we may not need a phyisical body or make our genes more perfect then Robot. Continuity is not an illusion at all. it can actully happen. And once a replica is formed it is not you.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy It's actually not impossible to realize with current technology. We have computers that are powerful enough to handle the processing power of a human brain, we're narrowing down on learning systems to mimic human learning, and we have the nanotech pathway laid out for reverse engineering the human brain. We don't have such for the "tiny cortex."
We lose consciousness nightly, so the death of the original and replacement by a replica would maintain the illusion of continuity.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
See thats where I disagree. We dont lose consciouness duing sleep. To me I want to preserve my unique identity as much as I can. In the case of the cortex the material would preserve the brain. A tiny compituer would be implanted inside of a bone and so it can send messages to tell thatn an accident ocured and the brain must be saved. From that Brain we transfer its information into a new body or compiuters etc. One day we will get into this.
max10wonderboy 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy Actually, we DO lose consciousness during sleep, otherwise we'd remember it. Each day is perceptually like an entire life: we become conscious upon waking and we lose consciousness upon sleeping. If we died in the night and a replica awoke instead, then it would not change our perceived continuity of life at all. We wouldn't notice the difference, and neither would anyone else, including the replica. The illusion of continuity is maintained. This is NOT intuitive but factual.
Underlings 1 month ago
@max10wonderboy "From that Brain we transfer its information into a new body or compiuters etc."
But that would not be a TRANSFER. It would be a COPY, since neurochemistry and computers are different architectures. The brain would still die and the computer brain would come online. It's essentially the same process as I mention for the replacement while sleeping scenario. But it maintains the illusion of continuity, as I said.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings
Peraphs we can substitute brain cells with artificial cells. I am a firm believer in transfer vs copying
max10wonderboy 3 weeks ago
@max10wonderboy Sure, that's a possibility...have nanobots replace neurons with machine equivalents as they would be replaced naturally. But it would take a lot longer to develop that technology. And to me it only illustrates how it's the pattern that matters, not the substrate. The brain is constantly changing, being replaced, and we are not the same person we were a few years ago. Despite that and the nightly loss of consciousness, the illusion of continuity is maintained.
Underlings 3 weeks ago
Raelians have had the answer to these questions for over 30 years! Listen to Maitreya Rael's teachings, read his book (Intelligent Design) and then re-watch this video. Make up your mind!
Raelians are not afraid of the Future!
lineg 1 month ago
@lineg Sure, there will always be SOME religions that can handle the potential upcoming changes (even if they are just as faith-based and irrational as every other religion). The vast majority won't, though, since they involve life after death, which is a problem if death is eliminated.
Only...didn't the Raelians kill themselves to get onto a space ship? Yeah, I'll bet they have some problems with sufficiently high technology too.
Underlings 1 month ago
I don't see much practical difference between what the religious might call "God" and the irreligious might call "benevolent creative posthumans", particularly when such posthumans may have created our world.
LincolnCannon 1 month ago
@LincolnCannon The difference being that the "irreligious" don't necessarily believe posthumans will be created, they wouldn't worship posthumans, in fact they would likely want to become posthuman, and there's a plausible path to a posthuman society through purely naturalistic means...whereas God has no naturalistic explanation (by definition), nor evidence of his existence, is worshiped by his followers, and his worshipers don't hope to become him.
Seems different to me.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings Some theists trust in the existence of a natural God, and worship that God as a child worships its parents, anticipating maturation to Godhood themselves.
LincolnCannon 1 month ago
@LincolnCannon True that. Mormons believe something like that, for example. But they see that as something that happens after this life, not within it. You're still supposed to die before you can attain godhood. But if death is conquered...that'll pose a conundrum to almost every religion.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings That's not accurate. Both Mormons and Christians believe some persons will not die before attaining heaven or godhood or whatever they believe follows the present form of life we're now experiencing. Here's an applicable passage from the Bible: 1 Corinthians 15: 51-54.
LincolnCannon 1 month ago
@Underlings We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed — in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
LincolnCannon 1 month ago
@LincolnCanon Sounds like the DEAD will be raised and made imperishable/immortal, not the living. First people die, then they're raised as immortals and death is eliminated.
OTOH, moving a person's mind file to a machine architecture would require the death of the original biological body, so that could be made to fit the scripture. Doubtlessly, people will try to find ways to fit scripture to reality just like this. But, as I say in the video, the religions will have to change their worldview.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings I agree that worldviews will need to continue to evolve, but this is nothing new for religion. Religion has been adapting to changes in philosophy and science for millennia, including early Christians reconciling with Neoplatonism, middle ages Muslims and Christians syncretizing with resurgent Aristotelianism, and modern efforts to complement Darwinism. Religion is not an epistemic method. It incorporates epistemic methods, and it recurrently incorporates the science of its day.
LincolnCannon 1 month ago
@LincolnCannon Well, a lot of religions don't accept the science of today--like fundamentalist Christians.
I state in this video that the upcoming technologies will pose challenges for everyone, but most especially the religious (since they must not only adapt to the changes, but reconcile them with their theology). I've not said they WON'T adapt, just that it'll be especially challenging for them. Thus I'm not sure what your point is--it sounds like you simply agree.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings My point is that the future will present as many challenges for irreligious ideologies as it will for religious ideologies. God may not be what the religious expect, but God may be, which is not what the irreligious expect.
LincolnCannon 1 month ago
@LincolnCannon And my point is that the future will present MORE challenges for theists than it will for non-theists, because BOTH will have to become accustomed to the changes in their everyday lives, but the theists will ALSO have to reconcile them with their conflicting religious ideologies and worldview.
The opposite would be true if God suddenly revealed himself to the world with all the necessary evidence...but there's no evidence that's ever likely to happen.
Underlings 1 month ago
Read RINGING CEDARS OF RUSSIA Books by Vladimir Megre.
Not only they will answer all your questions but also show you a vision of a better future for mankind without the arrogance of science and ignorance backward religions.
As well as discover secrets hidden from humanity for thousands of years.
MotionArtist3D 1 month ago
@MotionArtist3D Present the arguments here, rather than asking me to read a whole book based on just your say so--especially since I'm not asking any questions that need answering (and it sounds New Agey or conspiracy theory-ish).
What's arrogant about science? It's merely a methodology with a proven track record of getting results.
Underlings 1 month ago
woah, after watching this video, after seeing all the new techs...why can't they cure my athlete foot?
epicguo 1 month ago
@epicguo Patience, grasshopper....
Underlings 1 month ago
The ideas presented in this video present as many challenges for the irreligious as they do for the religious. A future in which present notions of poverty and death are no longer applicable? A future in which we have the capacity to create worlds? The only thing left out is recognition of what Steven Pinker is so persuasively demonstrating: cultural progress increases benevolence. Posthumanity will be more benevolent than us. Benevolent creators: is that a problem for the irreligious?
LincolnCannon 1 month ago
@LincolnCannon Oh, no doubt it would be a major social upheaval for everyone...but especially so for those with a rigid worldview of humanity's place in the universe--such as the religious. The non-religious tend to be much more flexible when it comes to change.
I don't know why increasing benevolence should be a problem for the non-religious.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings I agree with your assessment of the problem with religious dogmatism (although, of course, dogmatism is not essential to religion, even if it's common). However, as posted above, I don't see much practical difference between what the religious might call "God" and the irreligious might call "benevolent creative posthumans", particularly when such posthumans may have created our world. That will present an ideological challenge for some of the irreligious.
LincolnCannon 1 month ago
Imagine the experience we'll have if we enhanced our bodys to sense the world in another way. We know it from touch, smell, sight and sound (well not smell in my case) and nanotech could conceivably increase them.
ganados0 1 month ago
@ganados0 True. I wouldn't mind radar sight and magnetic field sensing, myself.
Underlings 1 month ago
Clones and original all would think are "you". Clones would think about their immortality just like you. Clones start experiencing exactly like you at the moment you were cloned: in every sense they would be like you, thinking as you, feeling as you, equally emotive, equally intelligent, same values, and each "knowing" he's "you". IF we are like "software" then "hardware" is irrelevant. Could wake up 1000 times in your actual body; then one day you wake up in another... no discontinuity for any
ozeraleinad 1 month ago
@ozeraleinad That's it exactly. Some people internalize this concept immediately, but for others it never makes sense. I've never convinced anyone to change that perception either way, so I suspect the perception may be somewhat hardwired. Hmmm....
Underlings 1 month ago
Like
Mirrodin82 2 months ago
that would be cool if we could have nano bots go into our bloodstream or bodies and fix things there.
creativeprojects720 2 months ago
@creativeprojects720 Researchers have just announced a robot that can be guided through a person's digestive tract to aid in repairs and deliver drugs. Just think what 10 years of miniaturization and improvements will bring about.
Underlings 2 months ago
@Underlings wow, cool.
creativeprojects720 2 months ago
ironically, this video isn't so scientific, even though it's professionally rendered.
It's too pat. For one thing, just because you see fossils which seem to be XXX years old is no true proof of the age of the world, for the same reason that this video explained that the Genome project became accelerated due to technology.
Meaning - Man proposes God disposes.
This video is "proposing" and assuming too much (as in predicting that by the year 2020, xyz will take place.
Will assumptions never
minniyoutubaster 2 months ago
@minniyoutubaster Since when does science EVER prove a theory to be true? It can ONLY prove theories false. But we consider a theory to be true if it can make accurate predictions, like with evolution and the age of the Earth. See my video "Why Don't More Scientists Believe in Creationism" to see why.
Technological improvements can OFTEN be accurately predicted, which is the basis of this video. Perhaps you're just used to the extremely vague prophesies of the Bible?
Underlings 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey everyone,
My friend is an aspiring techy and has entered an innovations idea competition. He has a chance to be trained and mentored by tech industry business leaders if his idea is voted into the semi-finals. You can help him reach his dreams.
If you can, go to his video at "/watch?v=ukawhPLV3AE" please and give it a thumbs up "Like" as that is how eight semi-finals will be chosen.
Thanks!
donaldmcscrooge 3 months ago
Funny that you put "you could create a copy as you sleep" when nanotechnology may eliminate sleep.
ganados0 4 months ago
@ganados0 Haha, good point. But at least, in theory, you could still sleep if you wanted to. But there is a possible option for transferring one's mind while awake through parallel duplication of mental processes piece by piece, should sleep no longer be an option for some reason.
Underlings 4 months ago
@Underlings, THIS comment pwned the hell out of him. Well done. CT was such an asshole.
DarkMatter2525 4 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 That he was.
Hmm, I don't see this comment associated with a specific post. Can you suggest what phrase I should search to find that post?
Underlings 4 months ago
The more that we learn, the more that we will have to admit that only our Maker is able to remake us and translate us into eternity.
We still are the very thing that we believe about ourselves and we still will be judged accordingly.
Wanting to sit on the throne of God in place of God is an age old error.
It is the same thing as wanting to be anti-Christ.
Don't make the age old mistake of doubting the truth of the word the Maker of everything there is. You will not win.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon Actually, the OPPOSITE of what you said is closer to truth. Unless you've been keeping up on the technological updates, you wouldn't know how quickly we're advancing in nanotechnology, robotics and A.I. It's more a matter of WHEN we will replace biological humanity, not IF. Research "technological singularity" for the details.
Who wants to sit with God, replace him, or be the anti-Christ? They're fictional characters.
Those who enjoy life have already won. :-)
Underlings 4 months ago
10:34 not photo-realisic eh? actually we are starting the graphics plateu, the point where we are no longer able to make something look better. Polygon counts(the objective way to measure graphics.) have gone from 0 to tens of thousands in about 20 years. we are already able to make photo-realism, we don't have the hardware cheap enough to run it yet.
peoplearemessedup 4 months ago
@peoplearemessedup I think the pic you're referring to is of the equipment, not an example of VR.
But there's more to it than just photo-realism. To appear truly realistic, we'll likely have to develop something like phased array optics first, which would look not just like a photo, but like a real, 3D object subject to depth perception and the whole nine yards. As it is now, you can tell when you're looking at a screen, even when watching a 3D movie.
Underlings 4 months ago
@Underlings you have valid points. However 3D objects on computer monitors are subject to depth perception it's just artificially created by math and shadows. You can't tell your looking at a screen you just know you are. otherwise games that are FPSs would not be able to be played, you would end up being unable to tell if you were next to something or if it was off in the distance.
peoplearemessedup 4 months ago
@peoplearemessedup Well, I'm referring to depth perception focus. I happen to be near-sighted, and when I look at a 3D game without lenses close enough to see the foreground clearly, the background is just as clear, even though in real life it would be out of focus. Also, computer screens have parallax issues when you turn (look at the far left and right as you turn the 3D view. Phased array optics would take care of both problems. I hope they are developed.
Underlings 4 months ago
@Underlings When bringing this technology out into the third dimension your right it feels terrible. You know your watching a screen. but the question we should be asking is why? the answer is because screens don't cover the whole world. Our 3D tech works just fine when you have the images in front of your eyes. that is what modern VR simulators actually change from every other form of 3D.
peoplearemessedup 4 months ago
@peoplearemessedup Looking out a window also doesn't cover the whole world, yet we don't have problems identifying it as real. I think part of the problems with 3D movies is that the 3D is selective--not everything gives the illusion of depth, only some things. Well, that and the fact that film gives you close-ups and other shots that aren't realistic (though I'm not knocking that).
Underlings 4 months ago
i dont see a problem with Wealth . If everyone is Wealthy no one is rich . Because Rich means more to have than others .
lordhasen 4 months ago
@lordhasen It's Christianity that has a problem with wealth. As Jesus said, it's harder for a rich man to get into heaven than to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. He also insists one give up one's riches to follow him.
That should be a big problem for today's Christians, since even the poor in the developed world are far more wealthy than the rich of antiquity.
Underlings 4 months ago
Beautiful.
IKillBabyKittensLOL 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Underlings
@IKillBabyKittensLOL :-) Thanks.
Underlings 4 months ago
World wide disaster: World War 3.
And why does my gut say it will involve conrporations.....?
Anyway, I doubt this will all happen within decades, most likely within the next two to three hundred years. Let alone that how would ordinary people be able to require such technology that will undoubtetly be first utilized by the militaries, goverment officials and big shots across the globe.
Sorry, but I'm stuck on pessimist mode today ....
Also, you forgot space travel :p
Arkticus 4 months ago
@Arkticus Well, if you think this will take 100s of years, you'd have to explain why the exponential progress we've had so far would suddenly stop. ALREADY we're building nanoscale electrical motors, computers that can beat Turing tests, and robots and virtual characters that almost pass for real. Think what will 10 or 20 more years give us. And just as cell phones were only for the very rich in the '80s only to become ubiquitous and cheap 20 years later, the same should occur here. So cheer up!
Underlings 4 months ago
@Underlings I'm not thinking it would stop, I just don't believe progress is going to be that fast untill I see it (sure, I was born in the late 80's, and I remember quite a lot of things that that has changed since I was a kid, but still. I'll just point out that "Pessimist is what an Optimist calls a Realist ;) ).
Plus, It's a about bloody time we get the space programs up a gear, if you ask me. Mars today, tommorrow Alpha Centaury, and the day after that, the rest of the galaxy.
Arkticus 4 months ago
@Arkticus Well, look over the part in the video where I talk about the Human Genome Project. Intuitively, it was very hard to accept that being 1% done halfway through the project was right on schedule...but it was. I've studied this stuff for years and I STILL don't "believe" it's going to happen...but like a pilot, it's usually better to trust your instruments than what you see.
I'd like to see the space program blossom...but nanotech should allow it to do so much more quickly.
Underlings 4 months ago
I find the create a backup of yourself a little creepy.
I want to continue, I personally want to live one with a backup I die and my copy picks up where I left off so seemlessly that my friends and family might not be able to tell the difference.
That's immortality thru identity...but not useful for the individual.
999theshadow999 6 months ago
@999theshadow999 Why isn't it useful for the individual? When you go to sleep at night, you completely lose consciousness, right? You have zero awareness of the world, so you might as well be dead from your POV. The next day you "reboot" your awareness. How would that be any different from you dying at night and an exact copy of you rebooting in the morning...from your own POV or that of anyone else's?
Underlings 6 months ago
@Underlings
Hello, first I'd like to start off by saying I really enjoy your videos and this hope for the future.
anyway on to the question. The difference is that we don't reboot...at least not yet anyway. There are still fundamental differences between the organic and the mechanical.
For example say I die and a back up clone is booted up. Now it's completely indistingusible from me and is me in every measurable respect.
Did I come back to life? No, just my identity,body,face,etc. not "me"
999theshadow999 6 months ago
@999theshadow999 Thanks. :-)
Ah, but that's the point. Because we lose consciousness when we sleep, one can think of that as a machine being switched off. We no longer exist from our own POV. So if we died during the night and an exact duplicate of us were to wake up instead, he would have the same memories of going to bed and everything before, so he would not perceive himself as a duplicate. And the original that died would obviously not know either. It seems weird...but works.
Underlings 6 months ago
@Underlings
The backup copy is a great way for one's identity,face,body and personality to become immortal. But my problem lies with the fact the original still dies.
Now want you mentioned is true the dead original won't know and from the copy's POV, they simply woke up the next morning after being killed.
Unless my personal consciousness was being carried over from one body to the next, I am still dead...my personality and identity on the other hand continue on.
Kind of a pyrric victory.
999theshadow999 6 months ago
@999theshadow999 What's the difference between going to sleep and waking up the next morning, and dying and a perfect duplicate waking up in the morning? Your personal consciousness is interrupted either way, and essentially continues on either way.
Nearly all the atoms in our bodies are replaced every few years, yet we don't mourn their loss. As long as the PATTERN continues on as usual, our substrate can change yet we maintain the illusion of continuance. But it's only ever been an illusion.
Underlings 5 months ago
@999theshadow999 But there's another option too. Hook up a small part of the brain to an equivalent part of a computer brain such that the signals passing through the brain part are duplicated on the computer. Then disconnect the organic brain part. The person should sense no interruption in thought. Repeat process until whole brain is replaced by computer. At no point is consciousness lost or thought interrupted...but the end result is effectively a transfer of an organic mind to a computer.
Underlings 6 months ago
@Underlings
I like that second idea much better or alternatively have nanobots replace brain cells neuron by neuron and you can make your brain entirely mechanical and be conscious and aware without threat to identity.
I disagree on the sleep, simply because our brains never stop working. We have dreams, we continue breathing and our heartbeats, we wake up if thirsty or hungry.
So we don't reboot because our brains are always active, unlike a machine that truly and completely shuts down.
999theshadow999 6 months ago
@999theshadow999 Regardless of autonomic responses continuing as we sleep, we are completely unaware of most of it. Remembered dreams are but a few fleeting seconds of the night. Our BRAINS don't shut down but our CONSCIOUSNESS does...and we are only aware when we are conscious. If you died in your sleep and a duplicate picked up at the point of your death, there would be NO discernible difference to yourself, to your duplicate, or to anyone else. Continuance while sleeping is just an illusion.
Underlings 5 months ago
@Underlings
Hello, I just came back after a long time being without the internet and looked over old comments and found this discussion... I would like to continue our "original coming back to life" vs "digital clone" discussion.
That's if you'll indulge me...I simply want to know why you think this will work so well. I am still convinced that this form of immortality is a pyrric victory at best, However this tiny youtube boxes aren't big enough for meaningful discussion. What do you say?
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@999theshadow999 I don't mind at all--I love this topic. :-)
I think the sense of continuity of consciousness is only an illusion: we wake up with memories of having gone to bed, so the disruption of consciousness as we sleep doesn't bother us...even though we lose all awareness of our existence.
If a copy of you were to awaken with those same memories, only with a brand new, functionally superior body, you'd think you were you. And if your original died in its sleep, you'd never know.
Underlings 2 months ago
@Underlings Thank you for responding so promptly...I believe I have a counter to that, but not sure how to proceed do I message you or reply in the comments section here. I must admit I really to input my two cents, but it would be awkward without knowing here to put them...maybe I should send a friend request what do you think?
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@999theshadow999 Oh, I think putting your comments here is fine. If you need to use several comments, that's fine too.
But there is a potential solution to those who don't like the scenario I've posited: The brain is made of some 200+ areas. Simulate one area on a computer, route duplicate signals from your brain through the simulation, verify it matches perfectly, then disconnect that part of the brain. Repeat until the entire brain is reproduced. Consciousness is never lost.
Underlings 2 months ago
@Underlings That is a very good and agreeable solution and here's another one: have nanobots enter your brain and have them convert your brain from biological to circuitry neuron by neuron either way identity is never threatened and that's good. With either solution we both win :-)
However here's what I wonder about your position...after all I'll need to understand your position before I can be a proper opponent. If I record all my thoughts, memories, personality, etc. in a computer... Cont.
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@999theshadow999 Exactly, there are several options for how this might work, although the easiest is simply to make a copy, as I've suggested.
Underlings 2 months ago
@Underlings ...Cont. from previous. Won't I be simply be creating a clone who's just like me? Now from the clone's perspective you are 100% right and it would to the clone be subjectively like you said. However, from my point of view as the original that would not hold true and that's my problem I want to be immortal, not replaced every time I died.
The only way I can conceive of it working like you say it does is if upon death my consciousness metaphysically travels into the clone...cont. 2
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@999theshadow999 Yes, the copy would essentially be a machine clone of you.
From your own POV, every night you cease to exist, then you wake up and continue existing. We exist as a pattern of consciousness that is interrupted each time we sleep. It's non-intuitive, but as long as the pattern of consciousness continues, there is essentially no difference between waking up as a copy or as the original. From no POV--not even your own--is there any discernible difference.
Underlings 2 months ago
@Underlings Cont. from previous 2. That way, even from my perspective what you say holds true. Aside from my consciousness dipping into a metaphysical realm and travelling into the duplicate I see no way to preserve personal continuity...obviously it'll seem that way to the clone, but not for the original.
Later I like to return to the sleep issue...but that'll come later I don't want to seem rude. Thank you for your time Underlings.
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@999theshadow999 You're not being rude at all. Discuss away!
The scenario I've mentioned only works if the original is killed the moment the copy comes online, otherwise you essentially have two identical minds. It can help to think of our minds as patterns, not as distinct original entities.
Underlings 2 months ago
@Underlings Hello, I didn't want to be rude and overwhelm you with my thoughts the first time around so I'm back to talk about the sleep thing and this is what I've thought of:
When we go to sleep our brain waves don't stop and our unconscious and subconscious are in firm control. Hence, we never cease to exist because of sleep. There's another issue I have with your position: When we wake up our personalities and memories are carried over from yesterday....cont.
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@999theshadow999 The thing is, as long as we are unconscious and thus unaware of being copied or being killed, what difference does it make if an exact duplicate awakens or if we do?
One way of looking at our minds is that we die every night and are reborn in a new body with memories intact. If that were actually happen, how would we know? We wouldn't, yet that fact doesn't bother you, does it? So why should a KNOWN clone make any difference to your perception?
Underlings 2 months ago
@Underlings Cont. from previous. If our identities are reconstructed from nothing each and every night....then how could personality, beliefs and attitudes possibly persist?
I know what the obvious knee-jerk response will be: "The combination of our DNA and memories form our personality." While that's true...it's not the whole story.
Our outlook and life is also affected by our perceptions of reality and those can be quite fluid...Why and how could our perceptions of reality stay constant if..
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@Underlings Cont. from previous 2. We are constantly being replaced in our sleep. If you had a dramatic change in your life you would surely change some of your behaviors and feelings towards things and the people around you. How could our perceptions possibly persist if we don't?
We can't turn to evolution for an answer because for all her power, strength, beauty and savagery nature is lazy. Having our windpipe and esophagus so close together is a terrible idea...but a good chunk of all life.
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@Underlings Cont. from previous 2...has this configuration. While there is obviously an evolutionary advantage to remembering previous events...there is no evolutionary advantage to ensuring our personal continuity.
That's why I think it we must have personal continuity...otherwise our personalities would change from day to day... If your right our personalities should be very fluid and in constant flux...but since it isn't I believe we have personal continuity and persist even while asleep.
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@999theshadow999 Why would our personalities differ even one iota if we were just copies created every morning with the previous copy's memories intact? That claim I don't understand. After all, is a computer program fluid and in flux when you copy it, but not if you leave it alone?
Underlings 2 months ago
@Underlings Hello Underlings I hope you had a good Christmas, the reason is that memories aren't just what determines our personalities perceptions and beliefs do too. Imagine two identical twins who grew up together one is a homeless drug addict and the other is a billionaire whose the the CEO of a successful company... obviously their personalities are going to be very different despite sharing a similar psychology and childhood. Of everything our beliefs and perceptions are the easiest to...
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@999theshadow999 True, once identical twins have time apart, they can change, even dramatically. But if someone's mind is cloned and the original is destroyed while the clone lives on, the clone will be identical to the original mind and continue operating exactly as the original mind would. Letting the original live would cause a divergence in minds as differing experiences acted upon them.
Underlings 2 months ago
@Underlings ...change. And as I mentioned before for all her power, strength, rage and beauty nature is LAZY, LAZY, LAZY.
That's why evolution is just a random, chaotic process that has no end goal, no ultimate final direction. That's why male birds have almost suicidal designs while female birds are "intelligently designed" (...get it? XD...) That's why our airways and throats are right on top of each other despite of how dumb that is.
Our beliefs and perceptions are always changing and...
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@Underlings ...and will color and skew the perception of reality and our memories to whatever it is. We have no evolutionary reason to have personal continuity...but we do.
Furthermore, a good demonstration of this is to have the original and the clone living different lives. They'll have different memories and their beliefs, perceptions and even personalities may begin to drift apart despite being virtually identical. Unless our consciousness dips into a metaphysical realm and returns to our
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@999theshadow999 I think personal continuity is a necessary consequence of memory, which exists to allow us to react appropriately to related experiences that occur in the future.
That is why I think it's necessary to kill the original the moment you activate the clone--otherwise you have two minds diverging and thus no way to maintain the illusion of continuity.
Underlings 2 months ago
@Underlings ... plane of existence. I don't see this working. Like I said from the clone's POV you'll be 100% right. But in order for personal continuity to be maintained with your system our consciousness needs to dip into a metaphysical realm and return to the world of the living upon sensing an identical brain wave pattern...maybe this is my ignorance talking but would that imply if we made clones of ourselves we'd find ourselves become a hive mind...other clone and original are seperate.
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@999theshadow999 Nothing metaphysical needed. The original dies and the clone continues on in his place. The original notices nothing different from what usually happens. The clone notices nothing different from what usually happens. And nobody else does, either. Thus, the illusion of continuity is maintained. And it IS just an illusion, since we lose continuity when we sleep anyway. So this is nothing metaphysical, simply a copy continuing in place of the original.
Underlings 2 months ago
@Underlings I'm not so sure since it's impossible to experience life from an outside perspective.
Think about it, no matter how much I want to experience your life and memories there's simply no way I can. Even if I devote every moment of my waking life imitating your life and personal experiences it's impossible I can't BE you.
Likewise, I can't BE my own clone. With my death as far as we both know it's simply the end and that's it, it doesn't matter if I die when the clone conscious or...
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@Underlings ...not. Either way me and the clone are two fundamentally different beings. Even thou we have the same memories, life experiences and personality traits. We will eventually and inevitably differentiate with dissimilar life perspectives and experiences.
Imagine a wealthy billionaire giving a child five dollars or a guy who makes a dollar a day giving a child five dollars...exact same actions and exact same end result, however they will have different views on the action.
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@Underlings It'll be the same with my clone: same actions and possibly same end result if our personalities and experiences are identical however we'll have different views and opinions on our lives and choices.
If I die and my clone goes online, I will not suddenly begin experiencing life as my clone...I'll be dead.
If we're replaced every night when we sleep we won't wake up...ever. Illusion or no there won't be personal continuity period not even as an illusion. We aren't going to wake up.
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@999theshadow999 "If I die and my clone goes online, I will not suddenly begin experiencing life as my clone...I'll be dead."
I think this is where you're getting hung up. Yes, you will be dead...but so what? How would this in ANY WAY be different from what you experience now already? Every night you lose consciousness and from your own POV cease to exist. The next day you wake up with memories. Who's to say you are the same person who went to sleep? Who's to say you didn't die last night?
Underlings 2 months ago
@Underlings Yes, this is indeed where I'm getting hung up.
Here's the thing: I am beginning to wonder if you understand my position. Yes, this is different because you CANNOT experience life from another POV.
If you can experience existence as your clone...then why can't you experience existence as another human being? What method would be utilized to make the clone's POV my POV and why can't I use that exact same method to see from your POV?
999theshadow999 2 months ago
@999theshadow999 I'm pretty sure I understand your position. But what I'm saying is that it is essentially irrelevant. I'm not saying your POV would magically transfer to your copy. I'm saying that your consciousness ceases to exist every night, and the consciousness that awakens each morning is indistinguishable from your dying during the night and a copy continuing in your stead. That continuity of POV we THINK we experience is an illusion caused by our memories.
Underlings 1 month ago
@Underlings Here's what I see as an implication of your system: If you are right then if I die the clone's POV will become my POV.
However if you're right then what is stopping me from making another POV my POV? Why can't I take your POV...after all, I can take my clone's POV so why not yours?
The clone and the original are by nature two seperate beings, who have seperate senses, memories, POVs, etc.
You and me are two seperate beings, who have seperate sense, memories and POVs...so why not?
999theshadow999 2 months ago